Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive787

Return of the Wikihounding Sock

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 suspect that GeezerB is a sock of Plant's Strider, a troll who habitually followed I and another editor around the project, making inconsequential edits wherever we went. It has not yet escalated to that level with this account, but if you compare the edit summaries and the area of interest, I think it's pretty clear they're the same person. There are other things that led me to post here, but I won't be posting those per WP:BEANS. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI is thataway. And please provide some evidence. Not saying he is or isn't a sock, but the 'evidence' GabeMc sent to me was singularly unconvincing. Please bear in mind that just because someone is not a new editor, a sock is not the only other option. Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

While there seem to be similar topics editing in, the edit summaries look similar, and he seems keen to get a few articles up to GA status, I'm loathe to comment any further without shutting up and showing you all a bunch of relevant diffs that I don't have. I do note that Plant's Strider's block has expired, as it was only a cool down from edit warring, and GeezerB doesn't seem to show actual evidence of edit warring. I'd discuss first before escalating it up to ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Gabe's email has to do with anything. I came here of my own volition, and specifically mentioned edit summaries, which Ritchie seems to have had no problem finding. I've had no trouble getting far less obvious socks blocked at ANI before, but if you prefer I contribute to the how-to-sock-and-get-away-with-it manual that SPI has become, that's done now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Elen, I thought e-mails between users should be kept private. Per Wikipedia:Emailing users: "The contents of emails between users are private" and "Note that emails sent this way are private – they are sent as written, as a private communication between willing parties who have agreed to send and receive emails." (emphasis added) According to merriam-webster.com: "Private: 'intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class.'" Also, from Wikipedia:Personal security practices: "If you become stalked or harassed on Wikipedia via any information posted about you on-site, whether by you or anyone else, it is recommended that you report this discreetly via off-site means, such as email, to a trusted administrator ... which maintains a confidential email service." (emphasis added) I have never discussed this user on-wiki with anyone, so your revelation here of the confidential information exchanged during our private correspondence seems inappropriate at best. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• "There is no community consensus regarding the posting of private off-wiki correspondence." NE Ent 21:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Seems like a bit of a cherry-pick. WP:POSTEMAIL goes on to say: "In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki". (emphasis added) GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly consider citing a diff as quoting a private email. The diff is, after all, public information. I asked you for some diffs, and one of the ones you gave that made you certain that GeezerB was (a) harassing you and (b) was a sock of Plant's Strider (who was also harassing you, and was a sock of Chowkat... except that he wasnt, see [[1]]), was that he had added Miles Davis to the list of Vital Articles a mere two weeks after you had added Jimi Hendrix. Not one of the diffs you provided appeared to me to be evidence of either harassment or socking. You regularly accuse other editors - not even other editors that you are in an active dispute with, just ones that make edits you don't like - of all being socks of each other. If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

1) I never said GeezerB was harassing me, ever, you must have misunderstood something else I said. 2) Chowkat is now a proven sock/sockmaster, so what's your point about my accusing him of being such? Per: "just ones that make edits you don't like", wow, have you ever got this all wrong, and you also seem to be quite biased against me at this point, so you seem too WP:INVOLVED to be dealing with me. 3) No evidence is realistic to you, IMO. Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much? 4) I wrongly thought our e-mails were confidential (see the above definition of private), if they weren't intended as such, I would have posted them to your talk page. 5) Per your comment: "If you want to accuse people of harassing you or being socks, you must provide some realistic evidence", 1) I never accused GeezerB on-wiki of anything, nor did I suggest or encourage Evan to open this AN/I thread (I actually wish he hadn't, IMO, we should have waited for more evidence, then went to SPI). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Contents" means the actual email, not a reference to the email. Although not directly applicable to this case, the concept behind "You should not post the email itself on the wiki without permission (although you can describe briefly in summary what it contains or shows)." elucidates this. NE Ent 03:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another cherry-pick. You're quote is from WP:EMAILABUSE, which does not apply at all to good-faith e-mails. As far as the definition of "content": "the topics or matter treated in a written work ... the principal substance", which you seem to be using interchangeably here with "verbatim", or similar; I repeat: "the contents (subjects or topics) of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki." So, it would seem that in order for you to be correct, we would need to redefine "private" and "content". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, Gabe, but you're wrong. Your quote even says it: "the contents" should not be posted. As in, the direct words in the email. Simply stating that the email was not convincing is not a violation of that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• To clarify, "Also that having the effrontery to propose addding Miles Davis to WP:VITAL two weeks after GabeMc proposed adding Jimi Hendrix is not harrassment ans not evidence of socking" is quite a specific example of nearly exactly what I said. Who goes to Vital Articles after just 4 days on Wikipedia and confronts my effort to broaden ethnicity and gender diversity in the list? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding email If you don't want the content of your email shared, don't send it to people you don't trust not to share it. They are under no obligation to keep your missives private.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I did trust Elen, before she made my private statements public. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• SPI is now open. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc asks "Why are you even a CU, why not let someone else do it who doesn't seem to resent it so much?" What I resent is being asked to unearth private information about other editors without any basis in policy. At one time, an IP hopping troll on a cable provider made a considerable nuisance of themselves in the popular music area, including targetting GabeMc. Since then, Gabe and Evan have been convinced that significant numbers of editors, including long standing accounts as well as new accounts, are all this individual. In many cases, myself and other CUs have been asked to conduct userchecks on very little evidence. In this case, I have been asked to checkuser this individual when no policy is being violated. Even if he is Plant's Strider, the Plant's Strider account stopped editing before this account started. Users are entirely free to abandon one account and start another. No evidence of problematic editing or hounding has been presented so far, and I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise though to Gabe. Informants perhaps ought to be made more aware that allegations of socking based on diffs or editing pattern often end up being public - because the CU at the end of the day has to justify to the community and the WMF as to why they used the tools. If I had been aware that Evan was posting off his own bat, I wouldn't have mentioned Gabe, because he had dropped it with me by that point: looking at it now, I should have been less cross. The cable net troll was quite vile - I can see why he is suspicious of other users. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Elen, your above statement: "I simply cannot justify poking around in this user's IP information on what is presented here and in the SPI", seems to directly contradict this comment you made not long ago. Seems to me that you CU anyone you suspect, while telling others that they need to prove it first. Any thoughts? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Elen's use of the CU tool, you should probably take it up with the appropriate authority. Speculation on this type of crap is going to go nowhere on ANI, since Elen presumably can't defend herself by releasing details about CU checks publicly. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One of those where several have said "it's Foo", but the CU on the IP does not provide any evidence thereof. Often the most one can do is block the IP, sometimes it's not even worth that. I've checked one or two for Gabe, but I don't believe there is one editor behind all the accounts he has presented (personal opinion - he can always ask another checkuser to review the evidence), and in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules, so I don't see how I could justify using the tool. Again, another CU may vary in their opinion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Per you above comment: "in this particular case, even if it is the same editor, they are not breaking any rules", how does this apply to Wikipedia:Gaming the system, which states: "Gaming the system means deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia ... Gaming the system may include: Attempting to twist Wikipedia sanctions or processes to harass other editors." GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But you haven't provided any evidence of this. The Plant's Strider account isn't a sock of anyone else, and it was briefly blocked for edit warring and being a bit shirty. GeezerB hasnt even interacted with you, except that you took enormous exception to him nominating Miles Davis and Led Zeppelin as vital articles, as you felt it was a direct threat to your nomination of Jimi Hendrix. WP:FALSENEGATIVE - Checkusers cannot go on fishing expeditions. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction. Per your above comment: "The Plant's Strider account isn't a sock of anyone else", WP:FALSENEGATIVE states: "CheckUser cannot confirm with certainty that two accounts are not connected". Per "Checkusers cannot go on fishing expeditions", then what would you call this. Again, seems like you run CU at your own whims while telling others that they are always wrong. Also, can I respectfully request that you cease revealing information I e-mailed to you in confidence. Could you please do that for me? I told you that I thought it was confidential or I would have never told you anything via e-mail and would have posted it on your talk page. I can't take that mistake back now, but you could stop spilling beans out of spite. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Elen, if its proof of disruptive editing that you want then look here and here, despite this, which is yet another behaviour reminiscent of User:Plant's Strider. See here and here. Also, per Yeepsi this and this would seem to be pertinent to the case, which shows a behavioural similarity between PS and GB. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

So why are you and Yeepsi (who is Yeepsi - haven't seen him before. Must be a sock of yours.....see how easily it's done) so determined to prevent a harmless change to a citation system better suited to a situation where you are referencing multiple pages in the same book? Again, I'm not seeing disruption, I'm seeing doing something you and Evan don't like. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1) You are quite wrong once again Elen. Sfn is my preferred citation style. Just take a look at any of the articles I've taken to FAC, they all use sfn/harvnb, including George Harrison, which Evan and I had recently nominated for FAC with the sfn/harvnb citation style. 2) Yeepsi has been a respected member of the Beatles project for several years now, versus several days for GB. 3) As far as "a harmless change", if GB's actions violate WP:CITEVAR and WP:CONSENSUS, and contitute Wikipedia:Edit warring, then how exactly is that harmless IYO? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I do have to confess that yes, since I have nominated a few Pink Floyd articles to WP:GAN myself, that I am, in fact, Elen's sockpuppet. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds like we've found our latest users to indef then... ;) I see a massive AGF fail on the behalf of GabeMc, at the moment. Plant Strider has no history of socking, nor any need to, at present. Doesn't mean they aren't, but... Premature ANI (that would be a premature SPI anyway) much? Lukeno94 (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, I did not start this thread nor did I endorse it. The only reason I have even commented here is that Elen dragged my name into it by revealing the contents of private e-mails that I sent to her in confidence. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll revise that slightly: you and the person who started this thread have an AGF fail. There's no sockpuppetry involved, based on the SPI: perhaps meatpuppetry at most. You've presented things as being disruptive that are blatantly not, those edit summaries you list as being similar are edit summaries that thousands of Wiki editors use. In addition, Plant's Strider hasn't edited since the 27th of January, and it's entirely possible that they've gone for a clean start, or something like that, to lose a perceived "reputation" on their previous account - but possibly haven't followed procedure to the letter. GeezerB appeared on the 8th of February - so there's a good period in between where such a decision could've been made. Also, your comments towards Elen, although I agree you have a genuine reason to be displeased, have been WAY out of line at times. The only concerns I have are any similarities between Falco70 and GeezerB - but I can definitively see that they've made edits at identical times to each other: this doesn't rule out a multi-browser usage, but... Lukeno94 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, I repeat. Prior to this thread, I had never accused GeezerB on-wiki of anything whatsoever (I merely predicted via e-mail to Elen that he would begin stalking as did PS), nor did I suggest or encourage Evan to open this AN/I thread. I actually wish he hadn't, IMO, we should have collected more evidence, then went to SPI, assuming we had what we needed. Evan did not ask for my opinion nor did he give me a heads up prior to posting here. I have never wavered from that position. As far as WP:AGF regarding User:Plant's Strider, I think you should go and take a good look at his talk page and contribs before you judge me. Several admins thought he was Wikihounding/stalking and edit warring, I was not alone in that assumption, and at least two admins came to that very same conclusion entirely independant of any communication with me. FTR, Elen told me via e-mail that she thought there were at least three sockmasters involved and that I should search the internet for DeviantArt and similar non-productive online groups for evidence of a socking ring. So why am I now the paranoid one who should AGF? FTR, the wikistalking has been ongoing for more than 8 months (I'll bet you didn't know that). GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, per your above comment: "The only concerns I have are any similarities between Falco70 and GeezerB - but I can definitively see that they've made edits at identical times to each other". Take a look at my contribs for 23:50, 20 February 2013. You'll see that I made three edits "at identical times" to three separate articles using nothing more than multiple browsers, as you said above. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think I've violated a policy, Luke, you are more than welcome to report me to the appropriate noticeboard. If you're unwilling to take my suspicions of sockpuppetry (which were based on extensive experience with the sockmaster and which have now been confirmed by an administrator, just FYI) seriously, you're also welcome to not comment and move along. What you are not welcome to do is to make baseless accusations against people who had nothing to do with the SPI I opened. I would suggest you move on from this thread before you say anything else you might regret, and consider getting a rough idea of what you're talking about before commenting on another ANI thread. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I've said anything stupid. In fact, I'm pretty sure my comments are actually completely relevant - namely the fact that Strider stopped editing a week or two before this new account appeared, making this not sockpuppetry. As I said, this might be a meat puppet, it also might be someone who wanted to cut ties with an old account that they viewed/was viewed as having a bad reputation. Any sock puppetry is between GeezerB and Falco70. I wouldn't deny that they do appear to be the same user, but then again, those edit summaries are hardly a unique style trait - it's simply the same topics that would clinch it. Going back to Gabe, I'm well aware your comments were never meant to become public, but I'm confused by the inconsistencies - the title of the thread says "wikihounding sock", yet this guy is neither a sock (previous account is now inactive) nor actually hounding you? Also you've said some less than pleasant things to Elen who made a genuine mistake - she is, after all, human. Anyway, Toddst1 has blocked these accounts, so you've got your issues sorted out for now, and this ANI thread may as well close. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I ever accused you of saying something stupid. In fact, I'm damn certain I didn't, so kindly don't put words in my mouth. If you think there wasn't any wikihounding, you're wrong. It was established by multiple individuals beyond a shadow of a doubt that Plant's Strider was wikihounding both me and Gabe. If you don't believe me, take a look at his talk page. He did not create two additional accounts because he was interested in helping build an encyclopedia, and assuming otherwise is moronic (there, now you can accuse me of saying you said something moronic). "Assume good faith" is not a suicide pact. As far as Elen goes, I will say that she has essentially established that she lacks a basic understanding of WP:FALSENEGATIVE, and consistently assumed that Gabe and I were conspiring behind the scenes for some unstated purpose. The fact that she immediately jumped to the conclusion that Gabe was responsible for my initial post here, and then accused me of "picking potential sockmasters apparently at random" after I had already presented a heap of evidence unmistakably tying the accounts to Plant's Strider, should be immensely worrying. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Majority first, objectivity second? WTF? (read it patiently please)

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

---

This source (ALRC source) has been used to support the claim "Human rights watch has also accused the Indian security forces of using child soldiers", wait, it's not that. It gets complicated; the line is in the article Human rights abuses in Kashmir. Abuses in kashmir, not too hard to remember, is it??? The article is about abuses that are taking place in kashmir, not anywhere else in Indian territory! Needless to say, that article is a highly controversial one. The claim also is unsurprisingly a contentious assertion of fact. Thus it would be preferable and to a large extent needed that the (ALRC page) source unambiguously support the claim. Alas it doesn't. The source doesn't explicitly say that "Indian security forces use child-soldiers in Kashmir" or anything like that. That ALRC source is fraught with not-so-clear innuendos when it comes to Kashmir. The matter should have ended right there.

But some editors are trying to prove that the following claim is enough, "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13]" —— So I decided to dig deep to understand what exactly is being claimed and what parties they are referring to.
′The Naxalite Challenge: Ramakrishnan, Venkitesh′ source no 12 doesn't even mention children or Kashmir or Indian Armed forces while revealing that "the naxalites' sphere of influence has spread in the past year and a half from 76 districts across nine States to 118 districts in 12 States." —— I would like to argue that this undermines the relevance of that claim since the whole page doesn't mention Indian armed forces or Kashmir or even the word "Child".
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD: Thirty-fifth session, CRC/C/15/Add.228, 26 February 2004 source no 13 —— says nothing, nothing whatsoever, about Indian Armed Forces' use of children nor does it even imply anything as to who might be the recruiters of child-soldiers. I think given the controversial status of the article and the fact that Indian government denies using Children at all, a stricter enforcement of WP:SYNTH is merited.

P.S. I believe Indian forces do use children in central (Chattisgarh) and north-eastern (Manipur) parts of India (far from kashmir), albeit the current source does not specify that it is going on in Kashmir also. Children are being used in Kashmir, though the sources does not explicitly claim that it's by Indian forces. But, there are numerous sources that unambiguously point to anti-state militia and naxalites ([2][3], etc). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

So what is it that you want ANI to do?Jeppiz (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Give me the go-ahead to revert the inclusion.Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute and one in which you've repeated the same argument and consensus not gone your way. I strongly, again, suggest that you read WP:REHASH. In the meantime, this should be closed and sent to WP:DR. ANI is not going to give you permission to continue an edit war.--v/r - TP 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Also, you should use the entire quote: "There are currently at least 118 of India’s 604 districts facing armed anti-state activities.[12] In all of these conflict zones, children are employed by both parties to the conflict. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its report dated February 26, 2004, urged the Indian government to ensure that thorough and impartial investigations are conducted into allegations of the use of child soldiers in India.[13] However, the reference to child soldiers in the report was limited to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and India’s north-eastern states; however the problem of the use of child soldiers is far more widespread than this in the country"--v/r - TP 16:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• I've notified the 'majority' that you failed to notify. Just because you intentionally avoid to mention them by name does not absolve you of the responsibility of notifying the people you are talking about.--v/r - TP 16:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't avoid their names to eschew notifying them. Assume good faith please. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• IMHO, the source in context of Kashmir isn't talking about Indian Security forces' use of children, they are pointing to Naxalites' use of children as soldiers and spies..Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Recommend close;my attempt failed. NE Ent 16:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually edit-conflicted with your earlier close with a close of my own; I guess I get to close this after all. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir § Request for third party comment

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.

Phillip Sheppard and Francesca Hogi

The contributions of an IP editor [4] show speedy deletion tags to both Phillip Sheppard and Francesca Hogi. I reverted one of these edits saying in an edit summary that I believed the material on the page meant that she met suitable standards], User:Phil Bridger reverted the other because of the indication of importance/significance. Note that I did not create the Francecsa page nor did Phil Bridger create the Phillip page. Soon afterwards, a similar IP Adress redirected the pages to Survivor: Caramoan. I reverted again stating in the edit summary that I didn't see any discussion on a talk page or elsewhere a concensus to redirect the article. I asked the editor if they could provide an edit summary or otherwise explain why they were making these edits. They undid my reverts and offering no edit summary, so I notified them that I would bring it here for outside opinions as this should be resolved rather than turned into an edit war. They have edited the Caramoan article implying that the castaways are "non-notable", finally in an edit summary, and maybe they are, but they haven't explained why they don't merit their own articles. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm mistaken. Either way, there is no need to make an edit war out of this so I'd like this matter resolved.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There may be a legitimate claim about the notability of these people, but that should be settled at WP:AFD, as both speedy deletion and redirection have been challenged. If the IP continues to redirect or add speedy templates after this, post here and someone can protect the pages. Or if this thread has already been archived by then, you can request page protection at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles are on AFD, though there were several attempt to remove comments from the discussion. [5] [6]. –BuickCenturyDriver 19:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

IP persistent low level vandalism

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

---

Hi. 107.4.184.231 (talk · contribs) has been engaged in persistent low level vandalism for the past few months (some of which have not been caught after a considerable length of time [7]). Not sure if you block or what in this situation; I'll revert their edits when I get a chance later if no-one else does so. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be bored kids at the Maggie L. Walker Governor's School for Government and International Studies, "one of the twenty-one most elite public schools in America". Blocked and tagged as such. Toddst1 (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Viriditas - Violation of WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT

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.

---

Having recently posted an RfC soliciting community input within a dispute resolution process, I subsequently posted an advisory notification, per RfC guidance, on the relevant NPOV Noticeboard in which I also solicited input to the RfC. With this edit, User:Viriditas commenced a personal attack against me and is continuing his/her effort to further disrupt my NPOV noticeboard advisory. His/her appetite for tendentious, battleground editing apparently not satisfied, he/she then commenced to [edit] my talk page, which I [reverted] and disinvited his/her further gratuitous editing in the edit summary, which was quickly followed by [another edit] of my talk page which I also [reverted].

Subsequent to reverting the last talk page edit and threatening to take this to ANI, I found that he/she had [continued the personal attack] within the NPOV noticeboard which, regretably, has inspired my petition for appropriate administrative redress in this venue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any personal attacks against you. The RfC was appropriately advertised by the bot, failed spectacularly with zero suppoprt, and yet you are still spamming it around all over the place. Unfortunately, the last time you disrupted a noticeboard, you were blocked.[8] My opinion is that you are obsessed with maligning John Kerry, and you've been at this for eight years. I think it is time that all Kerry-related articles are placed under the umbrella of arbcom probation, perhaps added on to the Obama sanctions already in place. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

...and yet you are still spamming it around all over the place...you are obsessed with maligning John Kerry...

Res Ipsa Loquitor. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI... per your initial comment, I edited your user page because there is no linkage to your previous (original account) contributions and block log. I'll leave it to the admins as to how to make this linkage explicit, either through a contribution merge and/or through a new entry in your block log linking to the old one. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what? Not only is there nothing in this diff that you cited that even remotely resembles a personal attack, you are not mentioned in it. Indeed there is no comment within it about any editor in particular, much less one about you, even less one that could be interpreted as a personal attack. As for the second supposed personal attack--well, calling disruptive editing disruptive isn't a personal attack, and there's no question that the edits you were blocked for were disruptive. I'm not sure how they're germane to the discussion, but that doesn't make it a personal attack. (As an aside, it's not possible to merge contributions from multiple accounts: JakeInJoisey, you should probably have a link to your old account on your user/user talk pages.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Concur, where's the personal attack? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While there isn't a personal attack by Viriditas, user page policy strongly discourages editing another user's page. I'm not seeing any evidence Viriditas make any request to Jake to link accounts before engaging in provocative behavior. NE Ent 00:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Note, since this thread is open, I would like to bring up the deletion status of User:JakeInJoisey/John Kerry VVAW controversy. The original article was deleted almost a year ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kerry VVAW controversy) but Jake has been keeping a copy of the deleted content in his user space for an indefinite period of time since the original deletion in February 2012. My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that Wikipedia does not host deleted content related to BLP's in user space for an indefinite period, in this case almost a year. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

That's right. Should be nuked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

How many forums is this matter going to appear in? This is getting ridiculous. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Request convert bare urls to cite template format

Can someone please go through and upgrade the ref formatting of the URLs in Mykayla Skinner please. My eyes hurt.TCO (talk) 05:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You can plug it into this toolserver app and it will do it for you, although if there are too many it may require multiple sweeps.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Perfect. That is way faster than by hand.TCO (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Threat to "go to the media"

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.

---

See User talk:Promotor Veritatis. This newish editor, who appears to believe himself to be someone of great importance in the outside world, has had several poorly-written edits removed from the article on Elizabeth Woodville by several other editors. He is now making a clear threat to make some unspecified attack on the project in the media. Is there a case for a permanent block? Deb (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the edits done by this user are poorly written, and I'd agree with your evaluation of the user as well. Still, I wouldn't worry. The media is not legal, so I don't see it violating any policy. Any media worth mentioning would laugh at a request to expose the "Scandal of the Wikipedia censorship of Elizabeth Woodville".Jeppiz (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The use of the word "truth" in any language (but especially in Latin!) in a username is always a bit of a red flag. But I don't see any case for a block on the present showing. I agree they're short of Wikiclue and don't seem desirous to learn, but media threats ain't legal threats. And could you link to these media threats..? On the talkpage I only see a threat to go tell a particular scholar, Professor Arlene Okerlund. Bishonen | talk 11:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

I LOLed at this edit. Looks like an editor with attitude and competency problems in equal measure. I would just ignore it unless there is further disruption. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the media here - also note the edit summary. GiantSnowman 11:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aha. They later changed "explain to the media" to "explain to Arlene Okerlund". I love the edit summary! ;-) But except for one single edit in 2012, they are in fact a very new editor. Bishonen | talk 11:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC).

This is better than TV, I love it. While I feel sorry for the poor soul, I still don't see a reason to block him.Jeppiz (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Without a very good explanation for their threats and behaviour, I am inclined to indef Promotor Veritatis per WP:NOTHERE, as they are clearly not here to collobarate with other editors, and there appears to be a COI which is affecting their ability to work to our guidelines. GiantSnowman 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It looks like somebody needs to peruse WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTVAND, as well as possibly WP:EW, WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. I'm personally puzzling over why a Word file titled "EW1437" would be so perilous... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have had a go at explaining simple Wikipedia policies to Promotor Veritatis, and why he's wound people up. Could I humbly suggest we wait for a response to that before wielding the banhammer? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A block does seem rather premature. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:OWB #72 for Truth in Usernames. KillerChihuahua 14:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As others have noted, a threat to go to the media isn't a blockable threat. Lack of clue, if not eventually remedied, on the other hand…--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Richie, editor has 13 edits, far too early to be talking indef. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment, although not strictly legal in nature, this comment was intended with a Chilling effect. They said that to try to get us to do what they wanted, by threatening to 'expose' something (which to my knowledge doesn't exist) to the media. That's still, imo, a blockable offense until they understand that chilling effects won't be tolerated here. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Chilling effect or not, the most appropriate way to deal with it is not to chuck blocks at the user but to talk to the user. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

24.135.84.89

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.

---

Per User talk:24.135.84.89, we need a range block, because in addition to the heaps of bizarre insults, this rather obnoxious person is promising to change IPs as soon as they are blocked. Sadly they're in a generic broadband ISP block 24.135.0.0/17, meaning 32K IP addresses. I don't have experience with this so I'm asking for someone else's help.

BTW they claim they are not User:Oldhouse2012, but it doesn't matter, really. If anyone wants a translation to be able to verify my sentiment, please feel free let me know.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think there's much chance of range blocking that many IPs, there's just too much collateral damage. Your best bet is to request semi-protection of pages he disrupts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem seems to be that they're currently pretty active on talk pages of all kind. And semi-protecting article talk pages is undesirable. Maybe we can narrow the range a bit? De728631 (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah right, yes you generally don't want to semi-protect talk pages, as unregistered users have got no way of getting edits in otherwise if the article is semi'd. If he's that active over talk pages, you'll just have to aggressively revert, block, and ignore, I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      • It should be pretty easy WP:QUACK to tell which IP(s) the user uses, so probably no need to go through the whole warning systems. Block any IP in the range that performs similar actions to these, or related, pages?Jeppiz (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oldhouse2012, my best guess would be to deaggregate 24.135.65.0 - 24.135.84.255:

24.135.65.0/24

24.135.66.0/23

24.135.68.0/22

24.135.72.0/21

24.135.80.0/22

24.135.84.0/24

If we expand it a wee bit more, we get a more manageable: 24.135.64.0 - 24.135.87.255:

24.135.64.0/20

24.135.80.0/21

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Is any checkuser-enabled admin watching this, can they check any of these combinations for actual collateral damage? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Checkuser analysis requested at the SPI discussion, presumably they congregate over there. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I get a block on User:24.135.84.89 please? It's Oldhouse2012 again ( although he denies it, of course) and while the SPI admins are working out whether to go with a soft range block etc, he's just boring away. Refuses to accept the community verdict. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not just let the guy edit? He is not vandalising Wikipedia. In fact you(Peacemaker67) are reverting sourced materials and using his ban as an excuse, causing much disruption in the process. Btw, don't call me his sock, because I am in the United States!--Surfsbruce (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

But he has been abusively using alternate accounts. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the problem person is Oldhouse2012 or not, I stand by my assessment that the cannonade of insults and threats posted at 24.135.84.89's talk page is beyond help. Heck, I'm even being lax here: if they want a clean start, they can have it with a new named account. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Al-Ahbash

i think its time McKhan (talk · contribs) gets an article ban..he has over 8 years of reversions on the ahbash article..before i appeared on the page it was a stub containing 3 lines due to his constant edit warring with other users..he removed RS material by using socks and ip's and only recently got caught because i put the article under spotlight..this has gone on for too long..i inserted a material today that was well referenced and he reverted it claiming that it is outdated…he then went to the talk page and included unreliable sources to back his claims..he is also a spa and only reverts edits from this article. its quite obvious he has deep hatred for the group which is evident by looking at the talk page archives Baboon43 (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence - diffs etc. - and if you believe they are using socks & IPs then that needs backing up with WP:SPI. GiantSnowman 09:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

reverting sourced input here [9] & proceeds to talk page to counter with unreliable source [10] ..mckhan highly dislikes this group its almost unhealthy for an editor [11] also spi [12] on the same article...he says here that once he gets his so called "NPOV" version he wants adimins to protect the page [13] he is back to his 8 straight years of wp:own behaviour as well by making this comment in a ahbash related talk page directed at me [14] this sort of tendentious comments will mislead newcomers seeing that he was told that being bold is encouraged & he still posts in this manner. Baboon43 (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikola Smolenski

User:Nikola Smolenski has been reverting several of my contributions. Has made no attempt to engage in discussion prior to this until I did. Claims I am "massively deleting information from articles without any reason", when in fact I am editing the layout and condensing/summarizing the information of the article without actually affecting the quality of the information itself, and stating my reasoning for it. Any information I do happen to remove is done so if a) it is unsourced and/or b) it is irrelevant or non-notable to the main nature of the article(s), the majority of which are either completely unsourced or lacking sufficient sources to verify content. Please advise. Buttons (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• No comment on the source deletion, but given the personal attacks that Buttons has made on Nikola (accusing him of having a personal vendetta, calling him childish and telling him to "grow up", calling him a liar and a hypocrite) leads me to believe that a WP: BOOMERANG lurks around the corner. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to have to do this, but Nikola is actually male not female! The name confuses speakers of west European languages but this is defintely a male editor with a male name! :) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. A terrible error on my part. Well, I shall correct my comment and proceed to trout myself. Please accept my sincerest apologies, Nikola. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Granted that was unnecessary, however the pattern is pretty clear. Buttons (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Buttons is the only Wikipedian I have ever seen who has more red than green in his edits. His "condensing" IMO makes articles more difficult to read without adding any value. Furthermore when he removes content, he doesn't leave any explanation for his edits, so it is not possible to know whether he removed the content because he believed it is irrelevant or incorrect. I admit that there might be the possibility that I went overboard, but I do believe that his edits were detrimental in general. Examples:

• Here he removes the infobox without any explanation; he rewrote the article so that it states that Yugoimport is a weapon manufacturer, while in fact it is an agency, and to my knowledge it doesn't have any manufacturing capabilities on its own, and furthermore this is written in the very reference that he has used; and all of this with the comment "Clean up".

• Yugoimport's role and purpose is not clearly defined (as with most things in Serbia unfortunately), it appears to have some role in designing and producing weapons. The infobox was removed because of unsourced claims, eg. it states the company has 25,000 employees, when the entire defense industry in Serbia only employes roughly 10,000 people.

• Here he removed Cyrillic spelling of the company(?); removed referenced fact that the company is the largest in Serbia by the number of employees, which is obviously relevant; removed referenced fact about plans to build a solar power plant which I believe is relevant; all of this with edit comment "No relation to company"(??).

• True, however its not a third party source, which is why I removed it. As for the solar panels, nothing in the source indicates it had anything to do with said company.

• Here he merged sections about flags despite the fact that the flags are a century apart and completely graphically unrelated; removed flag images from paragraphs that describe them, making the text more difficult to follow; reworded the text so that it is very terse and IMO difficult to read; removed some relevant information again without any explanation; merged references to specific articles of a law into a less precize single reference to the entire law... Nikola (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think we're both being a little nitpicky here. The page as it is (your way) is ugly, frankly IMO. My intent was to separate the modern section from the historical (medieval) section because honestly that section is plagued with issues, ranging from grammar to the reliability of the sources. As for the references, again really nitpicking here but my edits at least linked to an external source which could easily be verified by the reader. I find it odd you removed one of the cited flags, claiming it was somehow unreliable despite the fact it came from a well known source. Buttons (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Buttons, did you put your comments inside of Nikola's? Please do not do that, it's very confusing to read. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1) This is not true, but even if it were true, "agency" is more general term than "manufacturer", and anyway the reference says it's an agency, and if you doubted the reference, why including it in the first place? And anyway, this is the crux of the problem: if you remove an unsourced claim you should remove the unsourced claim, not remove the entire infobox because it has one unsourced claim, and on top of it, do it without any comment on why are you removing it.

2) Self-referencing is OK for things that are not controversial, and that power company has the most employees in the country is not an unreasonable claim. The solar power plant would be a part of EPS' power transportation system.

3) The article uses standard layout and can not be uglier than any other Wikipedia article. The sections were already separate and merging subsections can only make them seem less separate. The flag I removed is not cited and has several issues ranging from reliability to copyright. And finally, merging the references made them less precize, and we always strive to make references more precize. You should have added the link to every reference separately, or simply added it to the references section as a link. Nikola (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Noodleki

Noodleki (talk · contribs) has persisted in copyright violations after being warned. For example, his latest edits ([15] [16]) copy and paste text from elsewhere in Wikipedia without attribution. Please refer to User talk:Noodleki for numerous templated and personalized warnings about this—I count 19 of them, 8 of which were made in the past few weeks. We don't have time to check each and every one of his edits, determine which Wikipedia pages or external websites he copied from, and perform the appropriate reverts or {{copied}}/{{copyvio}} tags. (In fact, we're already doing that over at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki for all his edits up to 21 January 2013. We have no desire to check any further ones!) Could I suggest a block until such time as the user demonstrates a willingness and ability to comply with applicable copyright policies and laws?

Incidentally, there are also a lot of recent warnings for edit warring and personal attacks. This edit appears to have triggered the latest warning. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The user was indeffed for copyright violations in September 2012 and unblocked a couple of weeks later per "reasonable unblock request", see log. Presumably an unblock request promising to do better? Anyway, I think it's time to reinstate. Indeffed. (Lovely response to Psychonaut here, too. Very combative user.) Bishonen | talk 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

P.S. I have asked Kim Dent-Brown, who did the unblock in October, to review. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC).

This was Noodleki's unblock request from last September, which stands in remarkable contrast to the combative form of words used elsewhere in his/her contribs. It seems to me that Noodleki knows what voice to assume when pleading for an unblock, but forgets that their editing history is viewable, warts and all, when it's time to make a judgement. Good block, I would caution any other admin to beware of honeyed words and leave the block in place. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that if an admin does decide to unblock this editor they do on the condition that Noodleki not copy any text from other Wikipedia articles for at least four months. In addition to all the articles to be investigated at the CCI which only go up to 21 January, Noodleki has since then copied huge chunks from multiple WP articles into multiple other ones [17] none of which they properly attributed. A few have been repaired, but it's going to take ages to check the rest, find the original article(s) that were copied into each article and repair the attribution. I do not want the list to get any longer, and the most recent exchanges at User talk:Noodleki, do not inspire confidence. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Saraiki language-related dialects, possible edit war

Hi there. I'm bringing this here for a more detailed look at a situation that is developing regarding apparent dialects of the Saraiki language. Over the last couple days, an IP editor (from two different IPs that I've found) has been redirecting several dialect articles to the Saraiki language without any discussion. Due to the large removal of developed content that this caused, I felt that the redirects were a bit too bold and I initially reverted these redirects and did my best to encourage the editor to seek consensus. Nevertheless, with very little discussion, the redirects have continued. There is now a semi-new account that is undoing these redirects, and removing the IP's attempts at discussion on talk pages.

Since I am not knowledgeable in this area, I don't fancy stepping in the middle of this edit war more than I already have. Whether or not the encyclopedia would be best served by these mergers is outside of my area of expertise, and it seems that my plea for consensus has just served to fuel the beginnings of an edit war. Thanks to anyone who might be more knowledgeable in these topics who might like to look into this matter.

182.186.77.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - First IP

182.186.0.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - Second IP

Maria0333 (talk · contribs) - User account reverting the IP

--Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 15:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky, from a linguistic perspective. The user(s) apparently want to strengthen the idea that Saraiki is in fact a variety of Punjani, not a language of its own. As a matter of fact, most linguists would agree. Saraiki is commonly classed as "just" a dialect of Punjabi and calling it South Punjabi is not wrong. Please see [18] for a 1305p long authoritative description of the Indo-Aryan languages. On the other hand, being right is not an excuse for edit-warring, not to mention edit-warring using sock-puppets. Had the user used the talk pages to argue for this change based on a linguistic consensus, I would have agreed. However, edit-warring in this way is certainly a blockable offense even when the edit happens to be correct.Jeppiz (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of pending changes level 2

tl;dr some sysops are using PC/2 even though WP:PC2012/RfC 1 (current consensus, correct me if I'm wrong) says they shouldn't

Someone should go through [19] and fix this. (and also get that big trout back out)

⁓ Hello71 03:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty limited uses from that report, looks like mostly a few people who missed the memo. I fixed one PC2 use and have asked the admins who set the others to review in light of current consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And on further research, it looks like user:King of Hearts, who set the protection that I changed tonight, had previously declined to remove PC2 on the basis of local consensus overriding community consensus. This seems like an issue that needs to be discussed; I'm going to give him a pointer to this conversation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PC2 was applied to 1948 Arab–Israeli War following a report at ANI due to the extensive sockpuppetry. Detailed reports that describe the extent of the sockpuppetry are available (see below and at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_29#data for further details)

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF)

Requiring autoconfirmation will not prevent sockpuppets of topic banned/indefinitely blocked users from editing the article. Actually PC2 didn't provide 100% protection from sock edits either but it effectively eliminated the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When a discussion is held at a public board, like ANI, it's not local consensus; a public discussion decided that IAR was properly applied here. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I observe that someone put PC2 on 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There is also an AN discussion thread that was moved to a subpage here: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets. That thread is awaiting formal closure. Some intrepid person should take care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To briefly come out of my isolation for a moment; I've got other things on my mind right now and no desire to handle any more PC discussions myself. That discussion should be closed, and whoever decides to do it should have look at the dulcet writings of Zhuangzi first, you'll get it when you read it. Best of luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, from the perspective of someone who wasn't involved in the local discussion about the Arab-Israeli article and is just analyzing this as a matter of policy application, I would say that given autoconfirmed sockpuppets and community consensus to not use PC2, the solution would have been either full-protection, a dedicated checkuser watching the article, or just playing whac-a-mole with the socks, rather than implementation of a protection level that wasn't supposed to be used. Yeah, full protection would suck, and yeah, socks suck, but in some situations you sort of just have to choose your poison. As a side note, I would also say that a thread like the Mangoeater one, as a wide-open community discussion, could probably overrule community consensus in a limited area if it reached that consensus; however, a consensus made by a few people on an article or editor's talk page is far more tenuous as far as being able to overrule the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. In the ANI discussion, the community came to a consensus that PC2 is preferred over full protection in this specific case. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion that discussion, I think it was a very short and small discussion, not the sort of general consensus that would enable an admin to override a very clear community decision of a matter of policy. Even some of those who supported the use of PC2 thought such a discussion was not the way to do it. I think this was not an appropriate use of IAR, and the reason it was not was the slippery slope argument, which seems to apply, for one use has led to other uses. I think this needs to be continued where it will get a general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All that can be said about this is... power corrupts. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can say that the Transdev York article is now just a redirect so we can all agree that PC2 is no longer necessary there and it can be changed to no protection or even full protection just to be safe.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have I entered kiddie patroller hell?

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.

---

Usually I never even encounter these people that don't write but are obviously very young and into playing junior mall cop and defender of the Wiki and all (but can't write content for spit). Last few articles I did, I was actually disappointed that no one NPPed them and went and asked for it! I just do articles like Fluorine and Painted turtle and have a very low revert rate.

Just now had the experience of starting a new article Mykayla Skinner. As usual, there was no NPP (I was bummed...maybe I should be happy instead). Then a day later I found out (web search) that there had been a rejected AFC for the article. Well OK. I looked at the content...and there was a lot more there to help build my article. So I noted that and cut and pasted it (as additional material). Still fine...

Then I go and post a notice on the talk page of the fellow who had done the very good work for the rejected AFC...saying "good job". See I noticed that he had been turned off of Wiki and never contributed again after the reject. Nothing against the rejecter...they make mistakes and he was nice to the fellow...but still...I care about newbies and reached out the dude. WHAM...some patroller type (check out his talkpage for all the rejected speedies and PRODs) has my article in AFD.

Now I have another one (not much writing, lots of tagging) who is doing things like putting "CN" when the ref is at the end of the para instead of sentence and the like.

Have to wonder how it is for new editors encountering this stuff if this is what proven writers go through. Makes me wonder if it is worth contributing free content here (when I could earn money) and just not even have to deal with this sort of thing. Or even if the site is really about building content at all (and you all don't have it all built yet...lots of work to be done) or if it is just some sort of World of Warcraft game.

TCO (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I'm not asking for any "action". Just discussion or advice.

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between AFC and the AFD. What is the significance of mentioning the editor who got rejected at AFC?--v/r - TP 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not get "noticed" until I gave an attaboy to the guy who had been rejected at AFC.TCO (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Got another one vectoring in now (check out the rejected speedies on the top of his talk page. Wonder what made that happen so fast...hmm.

He's also just deleted several sentences of content with an edit summary of "ce". (I'm VERY capable of adding citations for all the CNs that got dropped in a few minutes ago...the refs are actually IN article, but wonder if I will bother with the article under attack and sentences getting chopped out.)TCO (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The "ce" just means that he's copy-editing, I'm guessing that IShadowed is just removing a sentence that states that Skinner may be a future participant, since we may not know if she'll participate or not. ZappaOMati 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what "ce" means. Copyediting is not the same as removing sentences. It is a deceptive edit summary to say so. He removed that sentence and also one on the Amanar. Both sentences are easily sourceable (it is not my speculation that she will be in Worlds, but that of sources). The Amanar one is really clear and obviously sourceable (sourced actually).TCO (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I frequently remove sentences, or even paragraphs when copyediting. It's more accurately described as pruning, or cleanup, but it certainly isn't intentionally deceptive. Anyway, if the subject is definitely notable, then the AfD process should prevent the article from being deleted. If the nomination was entirely in error, then it wouldn't have much support. Just because somebody disagrees with you and doesn't have as much experience, doesn't mean they're incompetent, so don't get your panties in a wad over a deletion tag. —Rutebega (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Which source is the Amanar one anyway? I thought it was this, but Ctrl+F couldn't really find "Amanar." ZappaOMati 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Several sources in article back up the "having" an Amanar claim. This one [20] backs up that it is 15th. (not being contentious...just there is the info.)TCO (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, TCO, it looks like Ishadowed has quite a lot of experience in gymnastics-related topics. I would hesitate to tar her with whatever color brush it is that you're using on the people you think have wronged you; it's more likely she's just, you know, working on an article in her topic of interest. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• TCO, I appreciate this is probably not particularly fun for you, but: yes, if new article creators are treated poorly it's unhelpful. It could drive them away. Can you explain to me how you think describing people as "kiddie patroller[s]" who "don't write but are obviously very young and into playing junior mall cop and defender of the Wiki and all (but can't write content for spit)" is going to encourage them to stick around? As someone who does a lot of patrolling, and can write for spit, I'd have made precisely the queries and tweaks IShadowed did. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing two sentences of content from a short article, minutes after a CN dump is neither appropriate nor covered by the edit summary of "ce".TCO (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You fail to mention the actual copyediting in IS's edits, but I suppose that would ruin the narrative. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

exactly. Her edits fall under the broad banner of copyediting and general improving an article. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Strong violation of WP:NPA WP:CIVIL

While filing a report on a heavily disruptive POV-pusher, Maurice, for vandalizing a map used by more than 50 articles and for edit-warring at Bulgaria (see above [21]), I came across this PA edit summar by Wikiisunbiased [22] that is completely inappropriate.Jeppiz (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, telling someone to "fuck off" is certainly uncivil in that case, it's not a personal attack. Now, referring to them by their ethnicity may also be very uncivil, but I'm not sure I'd call it a personal attack either (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I stand corrected and I correct myself above. Still, it's as much a violation of a policy. I had a quick look at the user's history and saw that this isn't the first time, though certainly the most serious that I found.Jeppiz (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked for the "Fuck off, Turk", because that's never acceptable, but quickly unblocked when I realized that they hadn't edited in the past 24 hours. Someone else can figure it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really apporopriate to unblock as this is an ARBMAC area. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it ever inappropriate to self-revert? Legal matters are an exception, since you're re-enabling a copyvio if you undelete it, but unblocking someone whom you've blocked for this kind of behavior isn't inappropriate. Of course, it's also not inappropriate for someone else to reblock. Nyttend (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have now issued a formal ARBMAC warning to Wikiisunbiased. Further disruption will result in an immediate block. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a uncivil activity.It's certainly true.These incivility against me! Fuck off Turk. It was pronounced against me, due to use of official data belonging to CIA World Factbook. Clearly,violation of WP:PERSONAL and WP:CIVIL. I didn't do any destructive editing as alleged in article of Bulgaria. I shared my thoughts in talk page and I held open the negotiation process. I see Wikiisunbiased's activity as entirely ownership of article. In fact,I am meeting so reasonable just with the condition to be respectful to other users...albeit even if the not true. Maurice (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, "Wikiunbiased"? WP:OWB #72... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• That raised my eyebrows as well Lukeno94 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Use of pending changes level 2

tl;dr some sysops are using PC/2 even though WP:PC2012/RfC 1 (current consensus, correct me if I'm wrong) says they shouldn't

Someone should go through [23] and fix this. (and also get that big trout back out)

⁓ Hello71 03:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty limited uses from that report, looks like mostly a few people who missed the memo. I fixed one PC2 use and have asked the admins who set the others to review in light of current consensus. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And on further research, it looks like user:King of Hearts, who set the protection that I changed tonight, had previously declined to remove PC2 on the basis of local consensus overriding community consensus. This seems like an issue that needs to be discussed; I'm going to give him a pointer to this conversation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

PC2 was applied to 1948 Arab–Israeli War following a report at ANI due to the extensive sockpuppetry. Detailed reports that describe the extent of the sockpuppetry are available (see below and at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_29#data for further details)

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - article results (PDF)
• 1948 Arab–Israeli War - talk page results (PDF)

Requiring autoconfirmation will not prevent sockpuppets of topic banned/indefinitely blocked users from editing the article. Actually PC2 didn't provide 100% protection from sock edits either but it effectively eliminated the disruption. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When a discussion is held at a public board, like ANI, it's not local consensus; a public discussion decided that IAR was properly applied here. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I observe that someone put PC2 on 1948 Arab-Israeli war. There is also an AN discussion thread that was moved to a subpage here: Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/PC2 for Mangoeater targets. That thread is awaiting formal closure. Some intrepid person should take care of that. EdJohnston (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

To briefly come out of my isolation for a moment; I've got other things on my mind right now and no desire to handle any more PC discussions myself. That discussion should be closed, and whoever decides to do it should have look at the dulcet writings of Zhuangzi first, you'll get it when you read it. Best of luck. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, from the perspective of someone who wasn't involved in the local discussion about the Arab-Israeli article and is just analyzing this as a matter of policy application, I would say that given autoconfirmed sockpuppets and community consensus to not use PC2, the solution would have been either full-protection, a dedicated checkuser watching the article, or just playing whac-a-mole with the socks, rather than implementation of a protection level that wasn't supposed to be used. Yeah, full protection would suck, and yeah, socks suck, but in some situations you sort of just have to choose your poison. As a side note, I would also say that a thread like the Mangoeater one, as a wide-open community discussion, could probably overrule community consensus in a limited area if it reached that consensus; however, a consensus made by a few people on an article or editor's talk page is far more tenuous as far as being able to overrule the community. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. In the ANI discussion, the community came to a consensus that PC2 is preferred over full protection in this specific case. Nyttend (talk) 06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at that discussion that discussion, I think it was a very short and small discussion, not the sort of general consensus that would enable an admin to override a very clear community decision of a matter of policy. Even some of those who supported the use of PC2 thought such a discussion was not the way to do it. I think this was not an appropriate use of IAR, and the reason it was not was the slippery slope argument, which seems to apply, for one use has led to other uses. I think this needs to be continued where it will get a general discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All that can be said about this is... power corrupts. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can say that the Transdev York article is now just a redirect so we can all agree that PC2 is no longer necessary there and it can be changed to no protection or even full protection just to be safe.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Have I entered kiddie patroller hell?

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.

---

Usually I never even encounter these people that don't write but are obviously very young and into playing junior mall cop and defender of the Wiki and all (but can't write content for spit). Last few articles I did, I was actually disappointed that no one NPPed them and went and asked for it! I just do articles like Fluorine and Painted turtle and have a very low revert rate.

Just now had the experience of starting a new article Mykayla Skinner. As usual, there was no NPP (I was bummed...maybe I should be happy instead). Then a day later I found out (web search) that there had been a rejected AFC for the article. Well OK. I looked at the content...and there was a lot more there to help build my article. So I noted that and cut and pasted it (as additional material). Still fine...

Then I go and post a notice on the talk page of the fellow who had done the very good work for the rejected AFC...saying "good job". See I noticed that he had been turned off of Wiki and never contributed again after the reject. Nothing against the rejecter...they make mistakes and he was nice to the fellow...but still...I care about newbies and reached out the dude. WHAM...some patroller type (check out his talkpage for all the rejected speedies and PRODs) has my article in AFD.

Now I have another one (not much writing, lots of tagging) who is doing things like putting "CN" when the ref is at the end of the para instead of sentence and the like.

Have to wonder how it is for new editors encountering this stuff if this is what proven writers go through. Makes me wonder if it is worth contributing free content here (when I could earn money) and just not even have to deal with this sort of thing. Or even if the site is really about building content at all (and you all don't have it all built yet...lots of work to be done) or if it is just some sort of World of Warcraft game.

TCO (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I'm not asking for any "action". Just discussion or advice.

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between AFC and the AFD. What is the significance of mentioning the editor who got rejected at AFC?--v/r - TP 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not get "noticed" until I gave an attaboy to the guy who had been rejected at AFC.TCO (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Got another one vectoring in now (check out the rejected speedies on the top of his talk page. Wonder what made that happen so fast...hmm.

He's also just deleted several sentences of content with an edit summary of "ce". (I'm VERY capable of adding citations for all the CNs that got dropped in a few minutes ago...the refs are actually IN article, but wonder if I will bother with the article under attack and sentences getting chopped out.)TCO (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The "ce" just means that he's copy-editing, I'm guessing that IShadowed is just removing a sentence that states that Skinner may be a future participant, since we may not know if she'll participate or not. ZappaOMati 23:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I know what "ce" means. Copyediting is not the same as removing sentences. It is a deceptive edit summary to say so. He removed that sentence and also one on the Amanar. Both sentences are easily sourceable (it is not my speculation that she will be in Worlds, but that of sources). The Amanar one is really clear and obviously sourceable (sourced actually).TCO (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I frequently remove sentences, or even paragraphs when copyediting. It's more accurately described as pruning, or cleanup, but it certainly isn't intentionally deceptive. Anyway, if the subject is definitely notable, then the AfD process should prevent the article from being deleted. If the nomination was entirely in error, then it wouldn't have much support. Just because somebody disagrees with you and doesn't have as much experience, doesn't mean they're incompetent, so don't get your panties in a wad over a deletion tag. —Rutebega (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Which source is the Amanar one anyway? I thought it was this, but Ctrl+F couldn't really find "Amanar." ZappaOMati 00:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Several sources in article back up the "having" an Amanar claim. This one [24] backs up that it is 15th. (not being contentious...just there is the info.)TCO (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, TCO, it looks like Ishadowed has quite a lot of experience in gymnastics-related topics. I would hesitate to tar her with whatever color brush it is that you're using on the people you think have wronged you; it's more likely she's just, you know, working on an article in her topic of interest. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• TCO, I appreciate this is probably not particularly fun for you, but: yes, if new article creators are treated poorly it's unhelpful. It could drive them away. Can you explain to me how you think describing people as "kiddie patroller[s]" who "don't write but are obviously very young and into playing junior mall cop and defender of the Wiki and all (but can't write content for spit)" is going to encourage them to stick around? As someone who does a lot of patrolling, and can write for spit, I'd have made precisely the queries and tweaks IShadowed did. Ironholds (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing two sentences of content from a short article, minutes after a CN dump is neither appropriate nor covered by the edit summary of "ce".TCO (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You fail to mention the actual copyediting in IS's edits, but I suppose that would ruin the narrative. Ironholds (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

exactly. Her edits fall under the broad banner of copyediting and general improving an article. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

AN/EW

Hi. Is anyone watching WP:AN/EW? I filed a report yesterday, but there has been no response so far: [25] There appears to be no response to other reports as well. I would appreciate if someone had a look. Thanks. Grandmaster 08:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism at Wikimedia

First of all, I'm not sure if this is the right place but I don't know where to report vandalism at Wikimedia, nor do I know how to undo it. Several articles link to this map [26], as do articles in about 50 different language Wikipedias. The map has been carefully discussed on the talkpage of Languages of Europe, as can be seen at Talk:Languages of Europe. This morning, a Turkish user replaced the map with a new version in which he had inserted a rather extreme Turkish POV. The Kurdish areas in South-Eastern Turkey had been colored Turkish. Even more bizarre, relatively large areas of Germany had been colored as Turkish-speaking!! While there are a fair number of Turkish immigrants in Germany, it's absurd to claim that Turkish is the main language in large parts of the country. To the best of my knowledge, no German city is majority Turkish, let alone a German region, and most second-generation Turks in Germany speak German. In addition to the imposing Turkish on the Kurdish areas and parts of Germany, the Turkish language areas of Bulgaria and Greece were also modified, but these changes are small. This is a rather clear case of a nationalist-driven POV-pushish made without even discussing the matter first, and if it had been an edit to the text, I would simply have reverted it. As I'm less sure about how to do with Wikimedia, I bring the matter here. As the map is featured on so many articles, I hope the matter can be dealt with quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

This is more of an issue for Wikimedia Commons: try commons:COM:AN? --Rschen7754 21:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go there as well. However, I now see that the user is heavily edit-warring with the same nationalist POV at Bulgaria [27], [28], [29]. One of the people he is edit-warring with is extremely uncivil and I'll report that user for violating WP:NPA but that does not excuse Maurice07's own own nationalist edit-warring. Maurice07 already has two blocks for disruptive editing only in 2013, and his user-page makes it clear that his agenda is one of extreme Turkish nationalism [30]. Given that he is clearly here to push a nationalist POV-agenda, and does so in a disruptive way, I'd say his behavior is relevant for ANI.Jeppiz (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I disagree with any of your accusations and allegations. Devoid of legal basis baseless according to me. Fistly, looking at the page of a user,you can not accuse him to be with nationalism. This is not acceptable. User pages are special pages in Wikipedia and users reflect the views and opinions there. I don't impose my views of any article!! Each user can make a mistake the first edits and I did. It is completely due to not knowing Wikipedia guidelines and rules. Secondly,about Languges of Europe map,..filled with contradictions. 1. It doesn't have any source. 2. PNG file created by a user. 3. User Athens 2004 made ​​a change on Greece. Vlachs removed from the map!! [31] and don't have any return. Can you explain to me User:Jeppiz? Do you think to question the credibility of this map? Maurice (talk) 00:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but also some errors. I agree with your third points, the change by user Athens2004 is just as bad as your changes. I had not seen it. I also agree that new users can make mistakes, and that is no problem. That is why I did not suggest you should be blocked, I only suggested that the previous version of the map should be restored. Thus far I agree with you, not on the rest you write. Just because user-made maps don't have a specific source doesn't mean you can change them as you please. This map has been the subject of long discussions among several users to make it accurate as possible. If you want to challenge aspects of it, then discuss it. And yes, your nationalism is of relevance. Your userpage makes it clear that you have a strong POV on Turkish issues. Claims such as This user rejects the so-called Armenian Genocide. This user believes that islands of Imia/Kardak belong to Turkey. This user doesn't think that Turkey needs EU, but thinks EU needs Turkey. are all perfectly valid, but also makes it clear that you have a certain POV. That is not a problem, most people do. But when you edit war to impose that point of view, as you clearly did on Bulgaria, then it is relevant to point it out. What is more, are you aware of WP:ARBMAC. Edit warring on Balkans-related articles can land you a block very quickly.Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This one can be closed as the issue is solved. The proper map was restored three days ago, nobody has asked for any blocks.Jeppiz (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Problematic edit reverts

Kharon2 continues to revert my fixes to the references in this talk page; Social_market_economy and I feel an outside source may be able to convince him of the code markup error. He feels my edits are an attack on him i fear. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 20:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

These are "fixes" only you need to use this stupid {{Reflist}} Template. What do you think happens when a section with correctly formated references and no <references /> or your Reflist get archived by a bot? Did you read my comment "<references /> is buildin syntax for reason"? --Kharon2 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Why in (insert deity)'s name are you using either on a talkpage at all ... or at least in that ridiculous quantity!?!??!?!?!? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know or care about what they do or say. The extra

<references/>

code tag is breaking the references continuity and impeding proper usage, is it not?Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 22:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no "proper usage" on a talk page. Having multiple <references/> surely just allows you to have each set of references in the appropriate places for the talk page comments rather than all at the end, doesn't it? And I think the point of avoiding a separate "References" section is so that a bot doesn't archive it while other sections that refer to it are still active. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I've used the really cool {{reflist-talk}} template to referenize each section with references. NE Ent 23:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

CLOSURE! I am so happy I came here. Turns out we were both wrong in a sense and have been shown the right way. Bravo NE Ent.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 23:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ents: they're not just for carrying Hobbits or tearing down Isengard anymore :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont get how this is blown up to a problem at all nor why someone is building Templates for this and some other even use them. Using <references /> works perfectly unless you have no idea how references work at all in wikipedia in which case you should start learning. Whats next? {{Reflist}} Templates in Articles? --Kharon2 (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Er, {{Reflist}} is the only template I use for references in articles. Considering that it's the same thing as <references />, but better, I don't understand why anybody would prefer the outdated HTML-ish syntax instead of the streamlined template. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Me too ... {{Reflist}} allows parameters, and is the only good way to create ref lists inside articles. All the hip kids are doing it these days. IMHO, <references /> was pretty much deprecated by it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've barely ever seen <references /> in articles, I can only recall one instance. I'd always thought that Reflist was the one that HAD to be in articles... Lukeno94 (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This was about its use in talkpages (that get archived part by part) not in articles. because you can use <references /> multiple times, each one only grabbing "its refs" inbetween, the archivebot cannot mess up. Additionaly if you work in groups, discussing and proposing multiple textversions with partly same, partly different references, i dont want to sort out who used what where how from one big list all below nor do i want to check out what parameters i may or must or may not use. --Kharon2 (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Whats next? {{Reflist}} Templates in Articles?

~Kharon2, Problematic edit reverts, February 23, 2013

(get's popcorn)Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate username?

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.

---

Per WP:USERNAME, I suspect that Jcunnnt (talk · contribs) is an inappropriate username in some variations of English --Senra (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:UAA. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Please delete article per G5

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

---

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actors who are well known for their role in series of action movies is the discussion of an article created by User:Surfsbruce, a sockpuppet of blocked user User:Mangoeater1000. Will an admin please delete the article per G5? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. As someone had already tagged it, it would have been deleted without coming here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually brought it here just before it was tagged, but the important thing is it's gone. 72Dino (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. Just for the record, {{Db-g5}} is generally sufficient, at least for most articles which fit the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. That was the first time I requested a deletion per G5, so I will use that approach next time. Okay to close this request. 72Dino (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Sachikadam - self-promotion

This user appears to have a similar editing pattern to User:116.72.255.201 (whose edits include damaging the ASA dab page, whether through incompetence or otherwise). Both have added nothing to the encyclopedia except claims that Sachin Kadam is a poet, loves Ketaki Mategaonkar and is president of the All Student Asociation (their spelling). This editor does not appear to be here to improve the encyclopedia. PamD 14:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tagged the user page for G11 speedy deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And your CSD template has been removed by User:Alexf (an admin), who offered no reason for the removal. Bishonen | talk 17:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC).

Beg to differ. The reason is explained in the summary. I just removed the spamlinks. This is a user page, not an article. Users are allowed to talk a little about themselves. The requested G11 CSD on a user page in this particular case was overkill as the page was not overly promotional once you remove the links to his website which I did and said so. -- Alexf^(talk) 19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

i must will do poet. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We're all rooting for ya, Drmies. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

I can't see how often All Student Asociation has been speedied and re-created, but from the look of the editor's talk page it's a lot. Could the title please be salted (and the other spelling of All Student Association too), to save us all a lot of time and protect the encyclopedia from this rubbish. Thanks. PamD 09:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been deleted five times and has today been salted by User:Peridon. I don't understand how that works for the spelling alternatives; the log just keeps redirecting me to the correct spelling. I hope that means the earth is salted for them all. Bishonen | talk 19:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

Legal threats by 87.232.1.48

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.

---

(87.232.1.48) is making clear legal threats on another users talk page[32]. I don't think this is a case of Wp:dolt, and my spidey sense is all sockpuppet tingly right now.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, was unaware that this could be interpreted as a legal threat. I will delete whole post now; but where is the legal threat, I'm still confused? If it was saying "stalking", then I withdraw this and apologies. 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Your removal though appreciated was probably not the one the user referred too unfortunatly. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I will remove the whole post, if that's allowed. What does he refer to then? 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not hundred sure but I believe it is this one. And specificly accusations I will take action next time. Cheers--BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, I have stroked that now, I certainly didn't mean legal action, more "wiki-action". Appreciated that BabbaQ, hope we can leave our differences now. cheers 87.232.1.48 (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am reaching out a hand here. Bye.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Clarification When someone uses the term "slanderous" and threatens "action", that crosses the bar of what constitutes a legal threat.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Who is the creator of the username 2001:470:1f11:943:39a3:4d45:b202:5cbb that made a comment here? The user was blocked. Just curious.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

That's an IP address. RNealK (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did the blocked IP answer for the IP which this thread is about? Feels odd.BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Take it to SPI. The threat has been clarified as an on wiki threat, which AFAIK isn't against da rules. Passing admin, please close.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, close it. BabbaQ (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That does seem odd BabbaQ; but I assure you it's not me, no idea why they posted here 87.232.1.48 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Mover2100

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 individual claims that Wikipedia is anti-Semitic, and he/she is continually posting baseless accusations regarding discriminatory editorial practices. At Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/February 13#WIKIPEDIA CONTINUES ITS ANTI-SEMITISM, I expressed my disagreement and noted that I'm Jewish. Mover2100 just responded by stating that I should be listed in Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators.
Please forgive me for not "discussing the issue with them on their user talk page" before posting here, but this clearly isn't someone who can be reasoned with (and I don't feel comfortable trying). In the eight years since I began editing Wikipedia, I've been called some unflattering things, but "Nazi collaborator" is the worst (even ignoring the fact that most of my paternal grandparents' relatives died in Nazi concentration camps).
I request that this user be dealt with appropriately. Thank you. —David Levy 23:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:NOTHERE. I just indefinitely blocked them. (this alone should have been cause for a block) EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the user had no interest in editing constructively. —David Levy 01:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks by 118.21.142.128

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 is clearly the latest in a line of troublesome socks, a few of which were mentioned in this prior report. Same vandalism to the same articles, same tendency to start arguments with other users and twist wiki policy, and now even upgrading to attempted Outing of other editors. See the histories for AKB48, Sonic and All-Stars Racing Transformed, the Edit Warring noticeboard, the Administrator Intervention Against Vandalism page, and even my own talk page (though the edits in which he uses my real name have since been hidden). It seems pretty clear he's a problem; is there any way to prevent him from continuing his edits and harassing other users going forward? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked, deleted edits w/ your name. Sergecross73 msg me 01:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Hoder Compromised?

Hoder (talk · contribs) is currently serving time in a Iranian prison, according to his Wikipedia article and Jimbo's blog. However, that didn't stop his account from editing as it started to make edits to Argo (2012 film). How does a prisoner in one of the most oppressed countries in the world able to get online? I doubt it's the real Hoder. Techman224^Talk 06:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks a bit shady. Doc talk 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

There's something strange going on here but I don't know if I'd call it definitely looking shady. The edits seem fairly innocuous but suggest someone with possible Iranian connections or at last an interest in Iran. Our article on the person notes there was some Facebook activity in 2011 where it's suggested he was released for a short time. Presuming the Facebook identity is correct, looking at his profile Facebook suggests to me there was some update 2 weeks ago possibly of the photos although not being his friend I can't see anything useful (it could just be confusing info from Facebook). It's possible he gave his passwords to a member of his family who's now using the account here. This would be a violation of policy but I wouldn't call it shady. Alternatively he could be on a short release (or even a longer one) but has to be careful what he does but he felt these edits would be okay.

I'm not say it's definitely not shady. I agree there is a (slight IMO) possibility of a compromised account here. It seems a bit strange given how innocuous the edits are but perhaps someone is hoping the attention from them will be enough. Given how long he's been out of touch, it's likely any attempts to compromise his accounts (here and elsewhere) would have gone unnoticed including the possibility someone fooled someone else who wasn't aware of the background. The other shady business would be if he was forced to edit or give up his accounts to third parties unwillingly. But as said, the edits seem innocuous enough, neither pro or anti Iran or it's government so it doesn't seem that likely, unless it's part of a longer planned attempt.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't say for sure, but I will check up on it as best I can. However, I do know that in the past he's been given weekend leave to see his family and has therefore (though rarely) sometimes been online. I can easily imagine him watching that film and making some edits. Anyway, the only thing I can confirm at the moment is that "short leave from prison" is a likely explanation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not to appear to be a huge WP:DICK, but isn't the cross-space redirect from User:Hoder to Hossein Derakhshan prohibited by policy? I don't like editing the user pages of others, but maybe a soft redirect should be there, to clarify that the userpage redirects to a mainspace article, not a user page. I'd be confused if I had clicked on his name, and then went to the talk page associated with it, which is the talkpage for the mainspace article, not the user talk page. Horologium (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's nothing policy-wise to stop a redirect out of one namespace and into the article namespace; it's just the reverse that is prohibited. (though, for what it's worth, I agree that it should probably be a soft redirect, rather than a regular one) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Users routinely create pages in userspace and move them to mainspace, leaving the redirect behind, and there's nothing wrong with that. Since it's functionally the same thing here, I don't see a reason to object. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference here is that it isn't a user subpage that redirects, but his main user page; an argument could be made (by someone that cares more than I do) that it makes communication with the editor a bit more difficult. *shrug* EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Numerous topic ban violations by User:LittleBenW

LittleBenW is supposed to be indefinitely banned from "making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same".[33] In the last week he has, brazenly violated this ban with dozens of edits on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] Talk:Yūji Oda,[41][42][43][44] and several other places, arguing for the removal of macrons from Japan-related articles. He has been bringing diacritics into unrelated discussions.[45] He has brought up incidents revolving around diacritics that took place months ago and had nothing to do with him.[46][47] He has also ignored warnings.[48] Too numerous examples to fully list them all here. I assumed good faith and had no idea he was under such a ban, but In ictu oculi has been following the problem as well. He has also been engaging in personal attacks against me and protesting the righteous blocks for User:JoshuSasori and his sockpuppets (the latter was indeffed for making real-world threats against me, disruptive edits regarding diacritics, hounding me and using dozens of sockpuppet accounts). elvenscout742 (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours, as it's his first time being blocked for violating that ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the discussion but he also did this. We'll see if he shuts up once the block expires, but he hasn't been doing much for the last week other than violating the ban. elvenscout742 (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Colon-el-Nuevo

Colon-el-Nuevo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user has been a long term disruptive presence on articles related to Christopher Columbus, especially Christopher Columbus and Origin theories of Christopher Columbus. The user’s goal is to elevate the theories of amateur historian Manuel Silva de Rosa, who has argued that Columbus was actually the child of Polish royalty. Given her/his singular purpose, and the strength with which he pushes these theories, I believe that Colon is either closely personally connected with Rosa or is simply a super-fan.

Colon was blocked twice for disruption on these article in 2011. While there have been no recent blocks, the editing has still certainly been disruptive/tendentious. There are two major problems.

• Filling talk pages with arguments about the subject, not about the article itself . That is, Colon is using the talk pages as place to make academic arguments about the topic to push Rosa’s claims. See, for example, [49] , [50], and [51]. Sometimes other editors tell Colon to stop; in some occasions, she/he has even been reverted per WP:NOTFORUM. If people need more examples of tendentious/forum-like behavior, they can be provided…though simply looking at Colon’s contributions will tell the story as this is basically the only thing she/he does on WP.
• Insertion of non-neutral information into articles. Thankfully, this is less common, but the most recent attempt was the back-breaking straw causing me to finally seek sanctions. See [52] and [53] from a few days ago. In these edits, Colon proves her/his inability to edit neutrally on this topic, instead inserting language that sounds as if the case for Columbus’ nobility is now proven, and there is nothing more to debate.

A perusal of Colon’s talk page will show that in addition to the blocks, people have tried to communicate directly with her/him, but to no avail. The user is indefinitely blocked on Spanish Wikipedia, and has been blocked on Polish Wikipedia as well. A quick look at his global contributions shows that this is Colon’s only topic of interest in any language. I believe that the time has come for an indefinite block on en.wiki as well. I mean, theoretically we could topic ban him from any edits related to Christopher Columbus, broadly construed, in all namespaces, but since Colon seems to have no interest in any other topic on Wikipedia, I don’t see any difference. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

May as well indef. Further up the page another editor was indef'd for the same thing. Not that it should be a precedent but if all they do is harp on about one subject then topic ban, which can't be enforced by admin tools, isn't going to achieve much beyond a succession of violations leading to an indef anyway. Blackmane (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Indef - It's been years of his pushing Rosa's views into articles in a pov manner with dubious sources and/or sources that don't back his claims, and using talk pages as a forum. I've never blocked him only because I'm too involved. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

And now Colon, editing as an IP, attempted to add one of his non-proof non-sources to the Origins article in this edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller and I have been dealing with this editors shenanigans on Filipa Moniz Perestrelo for awhile as well. All of this is visible in the history and talk page. —Diiscool (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The Filipa Moniz Perestrelo page is finally a page worthy of the wife of the Admiral Colon thanks to my efforts, despite the constant fight by Dougweller and others to dumb it down. Compare the current version with the fact that there was not even a page for her prior to my involvement. - Furthermore, the fact that I am a poor editor and can't write neutrally, should not be a reason for a ban. Nor should it be a reason for a ban, the fact that I support a writer who others call a dilettante or unreliable. I have done enough reading of both Rosa's work and many other authors to understand the problem of Columbus and I feel Rosa's contribution is worthy of mention. After all he has been invited to speak at many Universities in several countries as he listed in his Portuguese language blog, this is no small accomplishment. Even if I am unable to do the edits in the proper wikipedia "format" - It would be more productive and more beneficial for the Wikipedia, if instead of blanket deleting of all my edits, the interested editors would attempt to re-write them in the proper "neutral" format utilizing the sources that I present. Otherwise it would not be me who loses but the readers who come to this site looking for updated and worthy information.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Colon you have been told by many editors many times that you are wrong in your assessment of Rosa's notability as a Columbus scholar. The fact that you are bad at formatting your edits is not wehat makes you a poor editor, but the fact that you are seemingly unable or unwilling to accept that the information that you want to supply is not suitable for a serious encyclopedia because it is based on scholarship that is not considered valid by the academic community. Adding information that most scholars consider to be patently false to articles is not an improvement and removing it does not dumb down wikipedia, but raise its quality as a source of reliable information based on serious scholarship rather than layman's speculation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Few words... Colon-el-Nuevo spends his days, in a series of systematic violations of the rules... disruptive user. --Aries no Mur (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Colon el-Nuevo began with the assumption that all the Genoese documentation referring to ::::Christopher Columbus has nothing to do with Colon. He found hints of Polish origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. To Colon el-Nuevo, even thenavigator's reminiscences on geography were proof of his Polish origins. His fiery imagination pushes him into a continuous hermeneutics.

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Nobody in the Admiral's lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace. There are hundreds of evidence. Colon el-Nuevo is a nightmare. --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a clarification: I would absolutely have indeff'd Colon-el-Nuevo months ago, except that I may count as WP:INVOLVED. I'm hoping another admin will take a moment to look at the evidence, as I think it would be very hard to reach any other conclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

A moment taken indicates that this editor is here to push The Truth, not to improve the encyclopedia, and, therefore, an indef has been applied. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bogus IP addresses

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

---

It seems that some anon are popping up where they appear as a series of random letters and numbers. Is this a glitch in the system or an effort to hide IP addresses from anon editors? –BuickCenturyDriver 09:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, they're IPv6. GiantSnowman 09:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've only ever seen one IPV6 user myself, I'm really surprised that switch is still so limited. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that message that used to show up when you viewed an IPv6 users User contributions page? It was useful to let people know that it wasn't a glitch.--Auric talk 23:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Page name change request?

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.

---

Hey just asking for the following pages name to be changed to be correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_no_Im%C5%8Dto_ga_Konna_ni_Kawaii_Wake_ga_Nai "konna ni" is actually "konnani" and "imōto" should be changed to "imouto" — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyJ Lock (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RM. Also, I'm pretty sure you'd need to provide reliable sources for your proposal, and the imoto bit seems more accurate, unless the entire article is wrong. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks for pointing me to the right place where I need to put this request, and I believe that imouto is the correct spelling. Reliable sources will be provided when I re-post under WP:RMAnthonyJ Lock (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Just for reference a WP:RM has been posted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Ore_no_imouto_ga_konna_ni_kawaii_wake_ga_nai AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing at Meethari Marwar

User:Anuomkara have been continuously removing maintenance templates at Meethari Marwar without addressing or fixing the issue. User:Anuomkara is not even following MOS either when editing. I have repeatedly warned the user yet he/she is not even responding either. I have even guided User:Anuomkara to links to improve the article. The article is about a village in India and does not make any sense since language is very poor. So I couldn't improve the article either, maybe someone from WP:INDIA could rewrite the article. Could someone tell me what to do? --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 12:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Meethari Marwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

User:KuhnstylePro and persistent creation of WP:HOAX articles

Over the past year, this user seems to have made a large number of what appear to be WP:HOAX, or at the very least, extremely speculative articles, most of which seem to have been speedy deleted or AFD'd, judging by his talk page. The user has been warned numerous times about this kind of behavior. Outside of editing in the mainspace, the user seems to spend a lot of time creating elaborate speculative articles about nonexistent future products/media in his userspace (User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/A Hero's Guide to Deadly Dragons, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Holy Cartoon!, User:KuhnstylePro/iMoonTelevision, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Wendy Wu: Year of the Dragon, User:KuhnstylePro/Disney Channel All Star House Party, User:KuhnstylePro/The Star Wars Show, User:KuhnstylePro/Drawn to Life: Boneheads Edition, User:KuhnstylePro/sandbox/Kinect Q, User:KuhnstylePro/Xbox Portable, and many more), a hobby which represents over 40% of his edits. I'm a little bit at a loss for what to do with someone like this. He has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Well. Bushranger nominated a bunch of them for speedy deletion, and I deleted those and some others. I hope the ranger will come by here and give their opinion--given that they were blocked before, for the same thing, I'd say block indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Never mind! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And a ninja-block strikes! It's clear he's not here to build an encyclopedia, so an indef has been applied. If he wants to be unblocked he'd better provide very strong assurances he understands what Wikipedia is actually for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • ...looking further into this, it looks like a truly massive hoax has been perpetrated here, focusing around "Boneheads (TV series)". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • So, what criteria would User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII fall under? Since the game does exist, but essentially, the "hoax" is the entertainment section, since Beyonce performed the show, not Maroon 5/Selena Gomez. ZappaOMati 05:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I saw that one and thought about MfDing it. Is there content worth saving? If no, it's a test page (at best). I just deleted one (forgot which one) that was copied from mainspace in October and then worked on some; I deleted that under "Housekeeping" as an unattributed copy paste job from the article. I urge other editors to go through their subpages and delete/nominate as they see fit: after a dozen or more I need something else to look at. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
          • I don't think so, since I'm pretty sure all but the entertainment section has been in the main page before the game kicked off, so CSDing it as a test page would work; I'd do it myself, but I have to hit the hay now. ZappaOMati 05:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
            • I just deleted it as a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boneheads (TV series). Read it and weep, for we - and apparently a large chunk of the Internet, judging by the Google hits - but lack of reliable Google hits or Google News hits - have been had but good. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KuhnstylePro/Super Bowl XLVII created. Nyttend (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Missed a spot: User:KuhnstylePro/Cartoonlopedia. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think I got them all. I need an index-finger massage. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that was fast. And efficient. One last thing, his move of Future Earth to Future Earth (2009 TV series) should be reverted. Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Moved back without redirect. De728631 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Great! Thanks for all the help, admins! Axem Titanium (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Future Earth from Jan 2015 is now also a major ICS science project - I put both topics there, as a stub, that may need to change to a disambig - but I a'int no expert! Timpo (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• Would Touch FX count as another hoax? I've been looking through the user's edits and found this article which, so far, has received edits only from him. A brief search turned up this website, which lists some games listed as "Touch FX". I doubt that it's an actual arcade board, though. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's been nuked; I agree that we simply can't extend any good faith to this user's contributions given his proven use of Wikipedia to spread his own imaginary creations (charitable)/hoaxes (WP:SPADE). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dirty socks

• Well, that didn't take long at all, did it? The socking has begun. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • SPI for spysleepercheck. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • And I found the existience of this to be interesting... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
      • If he would like to be the only active contributor to the wiki for a TV show he made up one day, that's totally fine by me. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure I like this bit, however: "Note that "usernames" should be the known user names of the main people who edited the article on Wikipedia." Lukeno94 (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• It wasn't the existiance of the wikia that raised eyebrows. It was the "This content copied from a deleted Wikipedia article" template that perturbed me. Seeing as since the attribution history of a deleted article is hidden, that makes it a copyright violation... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• That template itself doesn't seem to exist [54]. Your link above showed the template documentation which is probably the leftover from a deletion process. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's because you've gone to the wrong place. [55], which is exactly the link Bushranger provided. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I know. Bushranger's link is "Wikipedia-deleted/doc", but the template as such does not exist over there. Note also the redlink in their template code. De728631 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fair cop, you're right on that one. Not really sure what this user hoped, or even hopes, to achieve, to be honest, but there we go. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks by 118.21.142.128 (cont)

Sadly, I have to reopen this case, as this IP has taken his block rather harshly. He's now posting my personal information on any site he can find. Suggested course of action? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Depending on the severity of the problem and the methods used, legal authorities may be an option. As for here, a community ban would provide closure. I forgot we seldom ban IP's. Suggest that the current block be extended to an indef one, as it expires in three days. Jusdafax 04:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It's mostly been taking what little personal information is available for non-friends on my facebook page and posting it on other wikis I'm a member of, sending spiteful e-mails to any family members whose e-mail he can find, and signing me up for inappropriate e-mail newsletters. Thankfully, he hasn't broken into any of my accounts, but his actions ARE irritating me. Not sure whether it's reached a point that justifies legal action yet, though. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I think it's reached the point of seeking further advice, at the very least. The WMF legal counsel might be a good place to start. I am a firm believer in shutting this type of harassment down with all the tools in the box. Jusdafax 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll definitely take it under consideration. Just to be sure, what are the proper channels through which I would go about getting legal counsel from WMF? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
        • My suggestion is to contact M.Paulson by email (or phone if the problem escalates) and take it from there. There can be few more serious matters than real word harassment, and I have a bit of experience with this sort of thing from my time in the San Francisco office, so contact me on my talk page if you hit a dead end, but I doubt you will, as I am sure WMF will advise on your options, which I believe include alerting proper investigative and punitive authorities. I should make it clear, however, that the WMF is extremely unlikely, unless I am mistaken, to actually represent you in court. My best, Jusdafax 06:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
          • It seems to have stopped, so I'm not going to make any decisions just yet. If this escalates or becomes a recurring thing, however, I'll definitely use this. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 06:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Never mind. He seems insistent on continuing his spree, and now he's bringing family into this. E-mail's already been sent. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• I'd suggest a follow-up call to the WMF offices on Monday morning. This matter is potentially very serious, and deserves immediate attention. Jusdafax 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Fused shadows13

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.

---

Fused shadows13 has been using his account only for vandalism. He created inappropriate pages such as Zelda Wiki and also he vandalized pages Menstrie Glen and Toronto Blue Jays. I think he needs to be blocked for vandalism because his account is only being used to vandalize wikipedia. Please respond there. --Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 19:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Has been indef blocked by Elockid (who just beat me to the button...) Peridon (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Elockid should go put the block notice on his talk page. Thanks! --Starship9000 (roller coaster fan) 19:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I already have on their behalf. Peridon (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

An user named Frogacuda who refuses to quit pushing original research

So there is this article Wasteland 2, about an upcoming video game which I'm editing for nearly a year (and I'm by far the most active contributor). One day this week, Frogacuda comes in and pushes their original research (completely unsourced), apparently hating how this game is described by everyone (the press and the developers) alike as having an isometric perspective. Keeps on trying really hard, also after being told (repeatedly) that it's an original research and what WP:OR and WP:V means on Wikipedia (including being shown the links to the relevant Wikipedia polices), even pleads with me to "fucking stop".[56]

I warned Frogacuda to cease it or there will be consequences (additionally I also posted a warning on their talk page), but Frogacuda then chose to disregard this so deliberately that actually told me to "report away".[57] And so here it goes. Reported away. --Niemti (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

User Niemti was asked to adhere to conflict resolution protocols and refused, retorting to discussions on the talk page with "LOL, No one cares." Request for third-party opinion was made, and discussion continues, but use Niemti continues to disregard procedure and engage in disruptive behavior.Frogacuda (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Content dispute. Trout to Niemti for escalating it here rather than continuing talk page discussions. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neither party's handling the dispute very well and both have demonstrated some lack of civility, but I agree that the discussion's still ongoing on the talk page and I don't consider things to be so exceptionally out of hand as to require an AN/I thread. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 22:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

"User Niemti was asked to adhere to conflict resolution protocols and refused" - a lie. "Niemti continues to disregard procedure and engage in disruptive behavior" - another lie. Reality:[58][59] (Of note: Frogacuda was also caught misquoting the sources, possibly deliberately but unfortunately this would be hard/impossible to prove.) --Niemti (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also (as Frogacuda has edited their post): it was not "LOL, No one cares." but actually "Lol, no. Also, no one cares." (with this very, very relevant link, showing how indeed no one here cares for any unpublished "truth") - in response to Frogacuda's "Please fucking stop this." (as in: to allow their original research - no way). Source:[60] --Niemti (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Now: Frogacuda needs to be forced to accept the very core polices of Wikipedia, which is something that they flately refused despite being informed and warned repeatedly (and not just by me). If they still refuse... well. --Niemti (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Frogacuda just flatly refused to accept Wikipedia core policies once again, after I've asked him officially to do this (to accept WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS). So, please act on this, in the way you find the best in this case. --Niemti (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The best way I find to act in this case is to decline your call for action and ask you to take this dispute back to the article talk page. If any other admin thinks action needs to be taken I'm sure they'll do so but there has been a deafening silence so far. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, do as you think would be best. I only "reported away", just like Frogacuda actually taunted me to do, and now you know there is this user who blatantly refuses to accept the core content polices. --Niemti (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest closing with a warning to Niemti to work with other editors rather than carrying on his strong battleground/ownership/condescending attitude. Furious Style (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

On further research, this incivility and ownership by Niemti seems to not be a one-off occurence here, but has lead him to be blocked and topic banned before, quite recently he was banned from the article Anita Sarkeesian for the same behaviour he exhibits now. Furious Style (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Another update: a possible use of a sockpuppet account (less than 100 edits, inlcuding 0 video game related edits) to agree with Frogacuda in the related discussion. Also: continued refusals to accept the core content policies.[61] --Niemti (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit - yes, this possible sockppupet account just above ("Furious Style"), which even came right here. How curious. Well, hello. --Niemti (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have continued to stay on topic and try to continue the conversation in a civil manner. Niemti is now resorting to claims of sock-puppetry and other nonsense. I don't really know what to do about him, he seems obsessed with me more than he is interested in the article. I've gone through all the conflict resolution procedures and he continues to troll my talk page and lobby attacks. I really want no part of this nonsense. I'm happy to wait for the 3rd opinion dispute resolution. Frogacuda (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

And to wrap up: you guys might add either a very possible case of sockpuppetry (something that Frogacuda was once blocked for, with a warning to not do this again 'or else') or at least unackowledged secret canvassing. Plus the continued refusals...but you know about it. --Niemti (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that they look like a sock, but you should file a report at WP:SPI if you wish it investigated. -- Dianna (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:SGMD1 Request for SGMD1 COI

I am requesting a thorough investigation of User:SGMD1 affiliation. Please review the talk that I have with. Anytime I am requesting incorrect information to be removed, SGMD1 is coming up with reasons best known to him.

Yesterday, I received an email from previous management of St Martinus University pointing out the incorrect information. I provided the proof and pointed out that the article being referred to is without date. So How did Wikipedia allowed the reference to be used as a verifiable resource? Most of the time all the edits are being unedited by SGMD1.

SGMD1 notified. This appears to be a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharmauiuc. --Shirt58 (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted a number of Sharmauiuc's edits at St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine and advised him of Wikipedia's editing guidelines on his talk page. I'm not quite sure what Sharmauiuc's specific complaint is with my edits, but I stand by all of them. My guess is also that this is an attempt at retribution for the sockpuppet investigation. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 01:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:DVMt

This user has been changing another editors comments (not mine) on a talk page 8 times in the last hour or so being reverted by said editor [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]

They reverted content here 3 times Feb 11 revert by different editors each time [70], [71], [72] and than continued again a couple of days latter on Feb 14th after not getting consensus [73] Yet here claims that only I ever reverted them even after diffs provided [74]. Than that the other editors who disagreed with the changes were my "troops on stand by"

Please note that I am involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I notice that he hasn't been warned at any point on his talk page - has he been warned elsewhere? I have left a notice on his talk page and will block if he carries on. Get back to me if there are further problems. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I did put a warning when he was refactoring my comments, and edit warring them but he deleted those as vandal edits to his talk page. — raekyt 22:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Was warned here [75], [76] and [77] however removed the last two warnings. Has removed older warning as well [78] and Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 3 days for edit warring. Hopefully he'll get the message. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Good call. Far too bold and too little will to edit collaboratively. Large changes that are hard to analyze, deceptive edit summaries that disguise deletions of negative information, whitewashing chiropractic, etc.. Sometimes the only way to deal with such large changes is to mass revert back to the original version and demand that changes be small and thoroughly discussed. Unfortunately I don't have time to do much editing at this time of such complicated issues. Accusations (for things he is himself guilty...) against experienced editors from a newbie and SPA are really off-putting and don't bode well. I'm watching for signs of a positive learning curve, but so far am seeing defensiveness and self-justification. We'll see. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing an RfC

Could an uninvolved editor please review Talk:Jose Antonio Vargas#RfC on the lead with an eye to closing a finished discussion? One editor seems not to be able to step away from a situation where there is no consensus to do what they want to do. Yworo (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Long history of PA

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.

---

Humanpublic has a long history of uncivil behavior. Only in the last five days, several editors have urged him to stop this behavior [79], [80], [81], [82]. Clearly this does not concern him. When he received his final warning, his reply was [83]. Afterwards, he has only stepped up his uncivil behavior as in [84] and this latest attack on me [85]. Well, he urges me to take it to ANI so I oblige him. His statement I refuse DRN is erroneous, by the way, as I took full part in it. Humanpublic will probably reply to this that I once called him dishonest and that that was also a WP:PA. It is true that I called one edit of his dishonest, and I believed it justified as he appeared to me to contradict his source. Since then, he has called other users dishonest around ten times at least. Humanpublic has been reported several times for disruptive editing, so I'd like to clarify that this report is only about his continued personal attacks and uncivil behavior.Jeppiz (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've called me "dishonest" four times, and falsely accused me of vandalism once, and falsely accused me of sockpuppeting once, and probably some other stuff I haven't stored in short-term memory, but who's counting:

• "What is more, his edit was intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as he took a source that states categorically that Jesus existed and used it to claim that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence. Given that Humanpublic has been informed about Wikipedia's policies time and time again, his edit appears to be clearly disruptive. Controversial changes are to be discussed on the talk page, and using sources to claim the opposite of the main message of the source is just dishonest. [86]
• "Yes, I've rarely seen such a dishonest edit in so many ways. The proper way to edit is to discuss controversial changes first, then edit. ... And talking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing." [87]
• False vandalism charge [88]

The thread containing the sockpuppet accusation seems to have been moved or deleted..... Humanpublic (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

All those refer to same edit of yours. And yes, as I said then "taking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing". I stand by that, I don't consider it a personal attack. If you do, please file a report about it. If you consider it so serious, it's hard to understand why you hurl that charge at others several times a day. Nor do I consider it a PA to inform you about the policies when you deleted a sourced part of an article. And I have certainly never called you nor anyone else a "turd" [89], a "drama-hound" [90] or anything similar.Jeppiz (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, so if you really believe someone is being dishonest, it's not a personal attack to say so. Thanks for making my point. (And I'm not the only one calling you a drama hound, I see.) Humanpublic (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're asking for my personal opinion, I would tend to agree with you. At least partly. Calling another editor dishonest is something I'd recommend avoiding. Calling a particular edit dishonest, if there is reason, is something I personally would judge on a case by case basis. None of that has any relevance to the present discussion, of course. Unless you want to give the basis for calling other users "turd" [91], or "drama-hound" [92] or anything similar. I also seem to recall you calling History2007 a "zealot" as well. All of those are uncivil edits of yours for which I find no reason whatsoever.Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that User:Humanpublic has been clearly informed that Wikipedia requires civility of its participants, and that he has gotten a final warning which states that he will be blocked if he continues to make personal attacks. The diffs provided by User:Jeppiz contain personal attacks that are made after that final warning. Is there a reason that we wouldn't block this user, at least temporarily? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to as my final warning, but to my knowledge I've received a "warning" only from people breaking the same rules they're warning about. I could be slapping these warnings on their Talk pages, if that is considered relevant to evaluating their behavior. This entire matter was just reviewed in an extremely long discussion here less than a few days ago, and I received no warning from any uninvolved admin. What personal attacks have I made after the "final warning" anyway? Humanpublic (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about your question. "Turd" and "drama-hound" are both personal insults. Do you disagree? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I support the idea of Humanpublic being blocked, in fact he should've been after his performance in the previous ANI involving him. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Turd" has already been examined, discussed, and dismissed for a week in this forum. Seems like something about double jeopardy applies. The editor, Seb, had already harassed me, deleted my comments from a Talk page, falsely called me a vandal, been warned here (now deleted or archived), called me self-important, told me never to post on his Talk page again, and then kept posting to my Talk page. In that context, "turd" doesn't seem like a big deal, but if you want to block me I guess you can. "Drama-hound" seems the same level as "disruptive" and "dishonest" to me. I'm not going to repeat everything that has already been said in a thread here that lasted a week and was just closed. Humanpublic (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't see the thread here before, so clearly there is context I am missing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic, where was your "turd" insult "examined, discussed and dismissed" a week ago? And how could it be, as it was made this Monday? The "drama-hound" and "find some new carcasses to pick at" are both from today. I'm also mildly surprised that you argue a thread where many users thought you should be topic-banned as something in your defense for breaking WP:CIVIL.Jeppiz (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::::I just went back and found a thread about you, but it seemed to be about whether your editing primarily in the subject area of Jesus was problematic. I don't see anyone mentioning personal attacks, and civility is barely touched upon; it's a discussion of your editing of articles. Is there a different thread that I'm missing? Is your future interpersonal style likely to be different, or about the same? I don't see anywhere in the thread I found where you really address the question, and your statement that 'turd' and 'drama-hound' don't seem to be very significant problems concerns me. It's easy to lose one's temper in a heated discussion, but a person who doesn't know which words are rude is a person who won't be able to stop using rude words. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The thread was closed with this comment: "Closing as this has descended into bickering, going around in circles, and no action will be taken at this point. GiantSnowman 14:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)" The "turd" comment was brought up several times. The same editor beginning this thread, Jeppiz, proposed a topic ban for HP, which did not achieve consensus. Jeppiz is now forum-shopping, basically, um...drama-seeking. I've seen admins describe editors with some variant of "drama-queen". Odd that you are focussing your strict definition of "rude" only on HP. Strangesad (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic is exhibiting problematic behaviour in various ways. Earlier today he advised a user to "start being honest", accused him of "being obstructionist and distorting sources" [93]. He then removed a sourced statement from an article, referring to "bogus" sourcing [94]. Humanpublic started a discussion on DRN full of accusations on 18 February which has been archived as no one volunteered to mediate [95] but he today chastised other users for not participating in this process which is no longer taking place.[96] Some intervention seems necessary to me to prevent a continuation or escalation of this pattern of behaviour.Smeat75 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ho hum. Idle browsing....The user HP called a "turd" was Seb az86556. Here's a recent comment from him on an unrelated topic.... "this isn't about you, this isn't about being a drama-queen and attention-whore. Go be famous elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)" [97] Gives you a sense of how that editor treats people. I can't say I've waded through all the archives, but the goading is clear to me. Strangesad (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hohum... Admin calls editor "silly drama queen": "Stop being a silly drama queen. Nothing was moved, so the question of out-of-process does not arise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)" [98]. A violation of civility rules????? Strangesad (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've pointed out above in the thread concerning Strangesad (who is reported for persistent edit-warring), Strangesad's tactics in all discussions of this kind is to change the topic. To reply briefly

• I'm certainly not "forum-shopping". Forum-shopping is taking the same even to different forums. I've taken different events to the same forum.
• Strangesad is right, I should perhaps not focus WP:CIVIL only on HumanPublic but on Strangesad as well. Strangesad suggests a topic-ban on me (after ONE edit) to make a point, Strangesad calls me a drama-queen, etc. But why does Strangesad think that the fact the s/he also breaks WP:CIVIL has any relevance for this discussion?
• Same thing for the last point. Yes, it appears HumanPublic was in a heated exchange, but that is not an excuse. Another user breaking WP:CIVIL does not give Humanpublic the right to break WP:CIVIL. And it certainly does not get HumanPublic the right to be uncivil with others, such as he's been with both History2007 and me.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) I think the community is beginning to get tired of Humanpublic and Strangesad's WP: GAMING. The blatantly unwarranted and WP: POINTy proposal for the topic ban of Jeppiz above (similar to another false proposal by Humanpublic) clearly shows the WP:LAWYERING done by H&S. IMHO, this is really getting old, and, has to stop. H&S really need to ease up on the incivility throttle before things get really bad, for both sides. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Licensed to insult? I only respond (really should not waste my life doing this) because the get tired of this comment by Herr Kommisar resonated. But I will make no further comment on this thread after this. As I said on his talk page, this is a user who has done around 40 article edits to date and been on ANI three times already. Does that sound like productive encyclopedic development in any way? If Humanpublic is allowed to walk away from this scot-free, it will create "agent Humapublic: licensed to insult". If Humanpublic goes quiet for 3 days and this thread closes with no action, that can then be used as a rationale for continuing insults against other editors. Every time one is to make an edit to Wikipedia, there will be the prospect of another insult from this editor and that will just drive away other editors who are under the impression that civility is a pillar. If the traffic laws are not to be enforced, why have them at all? History2007 (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• The previous two ANI threads have clearly determined that Humanpublic is exempt from WP:NPA. I suggest no more discussion be held on this subject. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody (except for Jimbo) is exempt from WP: NPA. Some admins may tolerate it (if it is a minor outburst), but Humanpublic intentionally using PAs to cause grief to other editors, and disrupt Wikipedia as History stated above, is not acceptable. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Are there any diffs for my "long history of PA" that are more than 6 days old? Humanpublic (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Filing an RFCU might be a good idea here. It's generally preferable over repeatedly opening ANI threads about someone. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Cool-down. What I see is a series of (too) heavy discussions on Talk:Jesus, in which noone, on one side and on the other side, could claim his full "innocence". Maybe it's time to protect that page for a while, as the previous ANI discussions had the only effect of making the relations between some involved users still more tense than they previously were. And noone appears to attempt to deescalate the situation and calm down. Cavarrone (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That would certainly vindicate what History2007 and Seb say, that HumanPublic is exempt from WP:NPA. This is the third time he is discussed at ANI, each time there are people suggesting a "cool-down". Clearly it isn't working.Jeppiz (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you agree with me that noone here is fully innocent? And that noone is exempt from having used harsh/uncivil language and/or having done inappropriate actions? C'mon, the best suggestion here was the one by NE Ent, "ignoring" and avoiding escalations, but it seems you guys just want blood. Previous ANI clearly didn't solved the problems but just have created more tensions, protect the page for a while (and possibly stop the related discussions in your respective talk pages) could be a solution. Cavarrone (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking, when and where have I (or History2007 for that matter) said something even remotely like "turd", "drama-hound", "go pick at carcasses"? To the best of my knowledge, never. That being the case, I do object to putting us all in the same both, I don't think it's a fair characterization; there's a vast difference between arguing passionately for a case and deliberately insulting other users. Neither History2007 nor I have ever hurled out insults with the sole purpose of insulting.Jeppiz (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you agree with me that noone here is fully innocent? And that noone is exempt from having used harsh/uncivil language and/or having done inappropriate actions? No, I don't agree with that at all.Smeat75 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning to this editor. The exchanges noted above are a very poor contribution to a collegial editing atmosphere. I would have blocked but the most egregious was some days ago now. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you have issued the first warning to me. The other "warnings" were from editors involved in the content dispute. In other words, opinions. Their "final" warning for personal attacks was because I said "He has a tendency to add sources he hasn't read." Maybe, instead of throwing your power around, you would like to educate me about how that's a personal attack, particularly given the context. You're right this is not a "collegial" atmosphere"--do you think threats will make it more collegial? Humanpublic (talk) 19:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

When I say "final" I mean it's because there won't be any further warnings from me before I block. I don't usually throw my admin powers around, as regulars here will know. But in this case I do think my threat will improve collegiality. Either you will heed it, change your ways and edit more collaboratively, or you won't heed it, you'll carry on as before and I'll block you. In terms of improving the atmosphere here, that's a win-win. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of Seb showing up at an article he had never edited prior to his conflict with me, reverting me without explanation in the edit summary or Talk, as he just did this morning? [99]. Since you have decided to seize control, you should be fair and treat everyone equally, no? You have researched this weeks-long dispute carefully, and are in a position to understand context and anatagonism that exists farther below the surface than the word "turd." You know I sought dispute resolution, and Seb refused. [100]. You know he was warned for his treatment of me: "Slapping archive tags on conversations with pointy comments about editors is not a good move, not actually supported by written policy, and is itself disruptive. NE Ent 00:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)" and "Agreed with Ent, although I would be less soft: moves like this one are highly disruptive, plain and simple. Humanpublic is free to express opinions and concerns in the talk page, especially if supported by sources, even if they are minority views, and noone is allowed of misleadingly marking them as vandalism. Cavarrone (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)" [101] And since you are warning over rather mild attacks like "tends to add sources he hasn't read", you duly noted Seb's comment to me "Learn to read" his titling of threads on my Talk page like "You're not that important" and comments like "get over yourself; I can revert whatever I want" [102] when I asked him not to follow me around reverting (which he just did). You are careful and fair. Humanpublic (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the diff of my request on his Talk page, that he not follow me around to articles reverting me. [103] He deleted my comment with the edit summary "get over yourself", came to my Talk page to tell me that posting to his Talk page was vandalism, tell me to get over myself again (in case I hadn't noticed the first time), and put a bunch of templates on my Talk page. Now, he has followed me around and reverted me again. So tell me, when dispute resolution is refused, when requests on Talk pages are met with "get over yourself" and accusations of vandalism, and saying the guy is being a "turd" gets *me* a warning, what exactly do you suggest? Improve collegiality with education, not threats, if you can. Humanpublic (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Frankly, Humanpublic's continued personal attacks and sarcasm in their above response to Kim, along with his stated indifference to being blocked, his PA's against Kim, and now accusing Seb of Wikihounding, leads me to believe that the camel's back has already been broken. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Der Kommisar, please don't pour oil on this fire. HP has been warned and there is nothing to be gained by agitating for further action right now. As far as I'm concerned this thread would be best off closed as it's only going to attract further inflammatory posts if it stays open. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Der Kommisar. To be blunt: the best way to avoid further inflammatory posts is to block HumanPublic as he is the one making all of them. Appeasing him has been tried, we've seen that it doesn't work.Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to block right now (though my finger is on the trigger) and apparently neither is any other admin. These shrill attempts to get us to change our minds only have the effect of weakening your case. Jeppiz, the post you have just made is a perfect example of fanning the flames - so it's not only HP who is adding fuel to the fire. Back off everyone, you don't win at Wikipedia by getting your enemies blocked. We're here to edit an encyclopaedia, remember? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, that is the central point of this thread, in that admins have their finger on the trigger. This kind of behavior has been tolerated before, but no longer. Any further disruption from Humanpublic is likely cause for a block, but not yet. There is still an opportunity to defuse this peacefully, and I am afraid I may have sent it from the frying pan into the fire. I shall strike my inflammatory comment immediately. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations by User:Irvi Hyka

Irvi Hayka has been continually copy and pasting copyrighted content (translated from a foreign language) into the project. I've warned the user numerous times about copyvios ([104], [105], [106]) however he just keeps adding them.

The latest example from today (courtesy of google translate) is:

"Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, D. M. Jayaratne, invited the Prime Minister of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, on a visit to Sri Lanka, and promised that special attention will review the request for recognition of Kosovo."

vs

"Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, Mr.. Jayaratne invited to Prime Minister on a visit to Sri Lanka, and promised that special attention will review the request for recognition of Kosovo."

I can provide many more examples if requested. Perhaps some admin can step in? We might need to do a WP:CCI to clean this up as well. TDL (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:CP is the best place for it. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, CP is just a forum for addressing copyright problems. I've already fixed this specific case. I brought the issue to AN/I because of the larger issue of Irvi refusing to stop adding copyrighted material to the project which I believe requires administrator involvement. TDL (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have indeffed Irvi Hyka. Considering the previous blocks for sockpuppetry and edit warring, plus the not so recent inability to listen to copyright warnings I think this is finally a case of WP:NOTHERE. The last block was 59 days for socking, so I didn't see any merit in issuing an even longer temporary block, and opted for the indefinite version. De728631 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130224. MER-C 11:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone with the toolkit please check Irvi Hyka's unblock request? I've got a feeling they've now been waiting long enough. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please unprotect Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann

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 have a user account in good standing, I could easily edit it using that if I wanted to. But I feel it ought to be open for anonymous IPs (as I presently am) to edit it - it was protected in 2011 and there is no real reason it needs to be protected now. It may be that I should have brought this somewhere else but ironically I would have been using Twinkle to tell me where it was I should have gone!

Thanks in advance! 81.131.131.235 (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of reasons. So no. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• It was protected with BLP concerns, so I think the BLP noticeboard would be where you'd start... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To be clear I'm only asking for the talk page to be unlocked, not the article. And if it doesn't work then it can always be relocked. Teh primary loony has just been given a suspended prison sentence so I doubt there's that much threat any more... 81.131.131.235 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am reopening this discussion. Asking that a Talk page be unprotected 2 years after it was originally protected is a reasonable request regardless of whether the editor asking is logged in. Redirecting him or her to a better venue may be appropriate but it's inappropriate to dismiss the question (a) without answering it and (b) solely because he or she is not logged in. We expect better of the editors in whom we have placed special trust, administrators. ElKevbo (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Has been answered: "No." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that you'll be surprised that I think a more substantive answer should be provided; it's quite rare that Talk pages are even semi-protected and doing so for a period of several years is extraordinary. I imagine it's been done for good reason so I don't understand why you're so reluctant to provide that reason. ElKevbo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The likely reason is the loonies who think the McCanns did it. However, the loonies have recently been pwned by this court decision. So no real reason to worry about them. Egg Centric 02:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If the IP is sincere about making sincere edits, he could (1) tell us what other IP's and/or user ID's he's edited under; and (2) tell us what edits he proposes. If he's not willing to answer both questions, then the page should be kept protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:AGF? ElKevbo (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Precisely, and thank you ElKevbo. The user is me and I have for a while just been doing edits as IPs, as I have not really needed to login for a while (mostly cause of the extreme safety of the edits I have been making).

I'm certainly not one of those nuts who thinks the mcccanns did it or anything. I only wished to discuss the article itself for formatting reasons. But yeah, now you know who it is. Not that it should matter one jot. Egg Centric 02:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your candor. And to those of us who have been here a while, it does matter. First, because BLP trumps nearly everything else. And as a practical matter, because all too often, IP's or redlinks with very few edits gripe about semi-protection, and refuses to comment on either their past user IDs or their future intentions, and some inexperienced soul cries "AGF!", unprotects the page, and as sure as the sun comes up in the east, the vandalism of the page resumes. ElKevbo has probably not been here long enough to have run across that kind of problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected as far as edits go; I've left the move protection as it was. 20+ months is quite enough of protection for any talk page; we don't protect anything that long unless it's a heavily used template or an article with a massive history of problems. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nyttend. My goodness. 20 months locked from discussion. That seems unheard of. I am shocked that the talkpage was locked to begin with. Extraordinary. I have never seen that in the 6 years I have been editing on Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Uncommunicative disruptive IP - too complex for 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.

---

187.153.58.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The above user has made 58 edits over the past two weeks, most of them either deleting information without explanation, or changing songs' genre without consensus. Both problems are exemplified in this edit. The user has ignored six warnings from four different editors, has never made any attempt at communication, and after the expiry of a 31-hour block rapidly resumed the behaviour they were blocked for. Given their history, it seems all but certain they'll continue with their disruptive edits. So can an administrator please block?

As a second issue, I reported this user to WP:AIV like this:

* 187.153.58.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Was recently blocked for frequent undiscussed changes to song genres, sometimes contrary to references. The block expired and the IP has resumed the same behaviour. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The report was declined with the comment "Stale. Last edits approximately 12 hours ago." This must be the third or fourth time I've made what I thought was a straightforward AIV report and had it declined for what seemed to me like a solely procedural reason, contrary to WP:NOTBUREAU. So I'm seeking some feedback on my use of AIV. Is it reasonable for me to report this kind of thing there, or should I be using ANI? Note I reveiw edits via my watchlist, rather than recent changes, so it's pretty common for me to find editors with a consistent history of disruption but who haven't edited for several hours. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC) User notified. Tweaked for tone and clarity. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP got blocked for 31 hours on 22 February but since they have resumed their course, I have now reblocked for one week. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:SchrauwersSchrauwers, disruptive editing

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

---

Here is a small summary of this incident with appropriate diffs:

Takes out request for citation without discussion and omits edit summary: [107]

Again takes out numerous citation requests without discussion and omits this from edits summary: [108]

False edit summary, claims to add lost source, but in reality takes out citation request in addition: [109]

Reverts all edits that are not his without discussion: [110]

takes out clarififcation request without disucssion and omits edit summary: [111]

takes out page request without any kind of explanation anywhere, no discussion, no edit summary. This request clearly explained in the discussion and in the tag it self in the article text in an attempt to prevent him from simply deleting it (that is further expalation for him, in case he does not understand. [112]

Edit summary claims to be adding a ref, but actually is deleting a non-primary source request in addition. This even when the reason is discussed on the talk page, and he does not give an counterpoints there: [113]

takes out Original research template without discussion or mention in edit summary: [114]

After discussion on the talk page, some other editor reverts his undiscussed deletation of the primary source tag, but he reverts it saying the sumary that there is no primary source problem, which clearly is not true as it cites one single study claiming itself to be the starter of the anthropologicala dicussion on gift economy, when this claim has been challanged, and even if it were true, would still be primary source (i.e Malinowski claiming to be first sourced with Malinowski himself). Editor claims to be PhD and is explained the differences in Wikipedia editing and academic writing, but ignores this.[115]

Conflict resolution was attempted by leaving a message on his talk page. User responded to this by deleting the discussion. [116]

What has made this conflict especially frustrating is the fact that the editor has agreed that his one of his entries is his own synthesis, after the majority views has seem it like this. This after a long disruptive edit scence, where he first deleted request numreous times, then provided as a source something that was not cited in the original paragraph, refused to give page, deleted request and when finally gace page, it was clear that the claim was not in the source mentioned. This part was deleted and he requested it back. But after others agreed that it could be brought back, in the case that a source is found that states so, he simply reverts the edit yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpylkkö (talk • contribs) 08:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Tpylkkö, please sign your posts with four tildes as such: ~~~~. Also, if you put URLs in a pair of single square brackets like this [] you'll get a nicely-formatted unique ID to the underlying link. I've formatted the above to make it easier to read. Garamond Lethet
c 09:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr Pylkko does not make reference to the extensive discussion that went on in the talk page. I have been editing the page on Gift economies for about two weeks. The page is on a major topic in anthropology, yet little of the extensive literature was cited. I have reorganized the page, preserving what was there, adding citations to existing material and adding my own material. The task is now nearing completion.

The gist of our discussions on the talk page revolve around footnotes, and derivatively, claims of original research. Mr Pylkko prefers a footnote at the end of every sentence, even if it is the same source. I would direct you to the last entry on the talk page (which is actually from early on in the discussion) in which he tagged one paragraph with 7 requests for footnotes. Since he would not accept that the paragraph was covered by one note at the end, he also added a tag about original research. In the talk page, we laborously worked through the paragraph at at the end we established that the single citation at the end was valid as a principle. When I applied the principle, he reverted my edits - plus additions that I had made.

Currently, he is concerned about a paragraph in the lead where I cite a primary source that was included in a major anthropological debate. I explained that I provided the reference because it is a major work for which bibliographic information should be provided. There is a citation at the end of the paragraph which covers the debate itself. To ensure that reference note is not confusing, I most recently placed it next to the relevant link "Kula exchange" rather than the end of the sentence. I was accused of being sneaky. Again it was reverted and other interim edits also deleted.

Further down, he contested the sentence "Property is not a thing." He added tags for footnotes, which I explained was one sentence down. He contested the source. He removed my material claiming it was original research. After discussion he agreed that the points were valid and I could re-add them. He then reverted them again. These do not appear to be good-faith edits, or discussion on the talk page.Schrauwers (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see yet what administrators are supposed to do in this content dispute. I see that Schrauwers's edits would benefit from more edit summaries, but the same applies to the plaintiff's--let this example stand for many, that is, many edits where tags were placed without explanation. This is another example (and there are page numbers in the citation). As for those page numbers, there is discussion on the talk page (about style and such), and I don't understand why, when that discussion seems to be relatively friendly, the plaintiff seeks out this board at this time. There's a lot of other possible venues--third opinion, dispute resolution, request for comment--which are much less antagonistic. My personal opinion is that while I can see that the complainant has some valid points on the talk page there is indeed, as Schrauwer comments, an over-fetishizing of the footnote. At any rate, this is not (yet) a matter for ANI since there is no disruption that requires admin intervention, and I hope it never will. To both of you, without pointing fingers: don't start edit-warring, please. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe this is not about edit summaries per se, but about removing other peoples requests for citations and other clarifications without discussion. And continueing to do so even when other people make valid points. I noticed that the page needed tag I was using is intended for requesting the pages of the work, not the exact place where the statement is in the work. Sorry about that. I hope this will resolve itself without going into edit waring though. In that case I'm going to leave it be, because I don't care. Concerning the actual content dispute, I have seeked thrid opinion the usual way. Tpylkkö (talk) 10:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Advertising at Balun

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

---

Please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#radiondistics.altervista.org for details. It appears that no one is taking any action about any sites listed at Spam-blacklist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Could this be handled with an edit filter? De728631 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with WP:Edit filters. If it were possible to prevent any edit to Balun that adds the string "radiondistics.altervista.org" I suppose that would solve the problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

On further investigation, it seems links to this site have been a problem for a while. See User talk:2.193.212.47 which states that XLinkBot has been going about deleting links to at least one page on the radiondistics site since July 2012. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I made an edit filter for this after learning how to do it really quick... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will note the edit filter at the black list talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Refusal to sign

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.

---

somebody else try telling 70.44.58.168 (talk · contribs) to sign posts; consistently refuses to do so. thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what you're talking about. Wikipedia doesn't say I have to sign my posts to edit an article. I also don't know why you think you can tell me to do something. If you're going to ask me to do something because of a rule, then provide a link to the rule. Don't act like your the boss of someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SIGN: "Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TPG#signature NE Ent 01:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Refusing to sign talk page posts will eventually be seen as disruptive and in bad faith. There's no good reason not to. —Rutebega (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Per Seb and Rutebega, we suggest that you use four tildes to sign and date your posts, before it is seen as disruptive and blocks are handed out. P.S. Technically, admins are our bosses. If they have something to say, it almost always has a good reason. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say admins are our bosses at all. They have earned the community's trust, and are to be respected (and listened to, as you said), but nobody serves anybody else on wikipedia; we're all here for the project's sake. And for selfish reasons. Oh, and if you were referring to Seb, he's an admin on the Navajo wikipedia, and doesn't have the tools here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if there were not a rule, it's a good idea to follow widely-established conventions unless you have a good reason not to. Signatures help us to follow conversations. (Ideally we'd have a better forum system that would eliminate the need for signing, but we don't.) Dcoetzee 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

_{We do, it's just not "ready" yet. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)}

We're apparently dealing with someone who doesn't give a shit unless there's a rule. That rule has now been given. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

We've laid down...THE LAHW!. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, anonymous editor: respect our authoritah!--Shirt58 (talk) 06:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

With a new editor who doesn't understand how to sign, we ask nicely, and help if there's a problem. But if a user understands what signing is, and how to do it, but refuses to do it to prove that no one is the boss of her, that is bad manners, and counter to the spirit of cooperation which is the foundation of Wikipedia. I think it's reasonable to ask this person to sign her posts from now on, with a clear understanding that if she will not, she will be temporarily blocked from editing until she masters this simple but important Wikipedia coding skill. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

(e/c, but I agree with Fisher Queen.) I sometimes wish "attitude problem" was an official block reason, specifically in the sense of refusing to comply with polite common-sense requests unless a "rule" is supplied about it. It's more frustrating than a few cusswords, and is tremendously unpromising. @Shirt: What? Bishonen | talk 16:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC).

Lo and behold! This post has been signed. Was it really that hard to type four tildes? I hope not, so IP 70.44.58.168, please continue signing your contributions to talk pages. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do what FisherQueen says

−I am rather drunk but I have to say that FisherQueen from my memory is if not the best Wikipedian, very close to it, and whatever she says you should all do. Egg Centric 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, this post is fairly amusing. :D Lukeno94 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• ALL FOLLOW THE FISHER QUEEN. GiantSnowman 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Be careful, it might involve free trouts for all followers! De728631 (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Compromize proposal

Make a signature that says: "Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.58.168 (talk)". Then you can pretend that you didn't sign your post. Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Keithstanton returns to egregious deletions and POV-warring after block

User:Keithstanton was blocked as a result of my report here [117]. and as soon as his block lifts he's back at it. Per [118] and [119]. This in ARBMAC-land. Can I get some firm and friendly admin attention here please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like time to send him up for an Arbitration enforcement action. Either that or just indef him off the bat. Blackmane (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt anyone who knows my work would regard me as lazy, but I reckon he's lost the plot and ARBMAC would be overkill and a waste of my time. IMHO, indef is quite a reasonable sanction given the wholesale nature of the deletions/reversions. If he wants to play nice he can appeal. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Keithstanton should be blocked indef, no need wasting any time on such a clear case, particularly not concerning ARBMAC. I looked at it before the first block, and it was clear already then that this was a WP:SPA involved in heavy vandalism (removing long sourced sections over and over again). The fact the he immediately returns to it is sign enough that a limited block has no effect. In addition to his immediate return to vandalism and edit-warning, his behavior is also a cause for concern [120] [121] Jeppiz (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Indef Per Jeppiz, for obvious WP: NPOV and WP: CIV problems. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• I am inclined to indef based on what I have seen here, but will allow Keithstanton to make his case before deciding. GiantSnowman 14:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• I have blocked for one week, purely because active deletions are recent and ongoing. This is without prejudice to a indef or a ban being imposed and is purely to prevent further damage while we decide what action to take. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• I should note that I reverted this edit of his from Nado's talk page following Nado's ArbCom enforced topic ban, which was basically just gravedancing and trolling. Blackmane (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If I could just add if it has not been spotted, I've reason to suspect this account of being used by the same person. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SPI please - in name of AGF we need solid evidence of block evasion, not mere speculation. GiantSnowman 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

IP is blocked. Obviously the same editor. Garion96 (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I realised that, thank you Garion for the intervention there. I didn't explain myself properly in the brief message. The nature of the IP edits certify that the users are one and the same but I was not raising a SPI matter, I don't think this was a sockpuppet case - I thought puppets are where one individual uses more than one account, but we can all edit as IPs and I too have submitted edits as an IP when it was not immediately apparent to me that I wasn't logged in. If the IP edits here came after Mr.Stanton was blocked then I guess the same person could have used another PC so long as he didn't leave footprints by logging on. The point is that the taunting of Nado158 over a topic ban and this stupid edit make it clear that we are dealing with a clown, someone evidently posting disruptive messages/edits whilst laughing at the screen; I don't suspect a real character here. The user page claims he witnessed atrocities in Kosovo whilst on a "KFOR peacekeeping mission" and yet the outfit was established after the end of the war, either an oversight or a test of other editors' intelligence. One thing is for sure, this is a joker, so I favour an indefinite ban of the Keithstanton account. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Dave_smith_home

The User:Dave_smith_home seems to be making an awful lot of itty bitty edits, and has made major changes to an old template.. Not sure if there is a problem or not, but a few second opinions may be needed. edits can be found at this link.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 21:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Mildly annoying but not obviously disruptive. Leave a message explaining your complaint and what they can do better (use the preview button? do more stuff before hitting submit?), and see what they say. —Rutebega (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Selft correct

Resolved

Please can someone undo my weird, double ns thing: [122]? Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Time to invoke BLPSE?

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

---

I'm concerned with JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs)'s recent edits regarding John Kerry. Might it be time to invoke WP:BLPSE and counsel him to be much more careful with his edits regarding biographical information? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you please provide some specific diffs of "edits regarding John Kerry" beyond this series which resulted in the re-instatement of my edit (subsequently reverted by a third editor and now the subject of an ongoing dispute resolution RfC) and the issuance of a block for edit-warring and disruptive editing in the original series of edits? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest a topic ban from all articles related to John Kerry may be the best way to prevent further occurrences of this particular timesink. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Given this user's forum shopping, frequent hostility, and intense negative focus on the subject of the article (I find few of his edits from the last three months to be about anything but Kerry), this is the most logical solution. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, JakeInJoisey has created a lot of anti-Kerry articles, and kept a copy of one of the attack articles in his userspace for about a year, which is currently up for MfD. His attitude to editors who wish for this userspace article to be removed also has left a lot to be desired. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have created zero "anti-Kerry articles"...and specifically had zero involvement in the creation of the current MfD article, originally forked from John Kerry to John Kerry VVAW Controversy and now, apparently, about to be expunged from this project space. WP:NPOV notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• "John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned. Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules (as does you constant citing of them, despite the fact they actually disprove your points) Lukeno94 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

John Kerry VVAW Controversy" is not an anti-Kerry article? Well, I'll be damned.

First, I didn't "create" this article. I've attempted to improve upon the original article based upon the objections noted in the prior AfD, the first of which were that it was a "non-controversy" and "unsourced and speculative".

Second, whether or not you personally perceive it to be "anti-Kerry" is irrelevant to a consideration as to whether or not it currently satisfies WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP Wikipedia policy criteria as I've amended it. This WP project is replete with Insert Name Here Controversy content...all in apparent compliance with WP:POLICY criteria.

Usage of terms like "expunged", "purged", etc, as you frequently do, show you don't understand Wikipedia's rules...

Specifically, which "rules" are you alleging that I don't understand? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• support ban on all Kerry-related articles, including swiftboating. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban for any edit or comment associated with John Kerry or associated topics such as Swiftboating. JakeInJoisey is an experienced editor who knows to not blatantly cross the line. However, inspecting an MfD shows that a topic ban is warranted: see the two comments above mine in this permalink (they have been redacted from the ongoing Mfd; diff, diff, diff). In Jake's last 1000 edits, 459 mention "swiftboating" or "swift vets" or "john kerry", and there are perhaps another 50 on the same topic on talk pages without those terms in the title. In Jake's first 50 edits in 2005, 43 are on the same topic. Good editors have wasted enough time resisting such dedication. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• This is still going on?? It's been years -- enough already. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the expungement of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP John Kerry content is still in fine fettle...despite the efforts of good faith editors (besides myself) who will no longer even go near the topic(s)...where any gf attempt to insert sorely needed WP:NPOV improvements will be met with a battleground mentality all too typical in articles with political consequence. (Redacted)

With little doubt, any editor who might deign to attempt to correct the misrepresentative absurdity of this remnant entry should be prepared to endure an editorial juggernaut of opposition, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP be damned. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban related to John Kerry, broadly-construed. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I just redacted the BLP-violating section above, as that's the second or third place I've seen Jake post that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You have redacted links to existing and quoted WP content and to my improved article, originally placed on my talk page by administrative action in pursuit of improvement, and now the subject of an MfD. Interested editors will thus be denied the capability to view the improved WP:V, WP:RS sourcing and content which forms the basis for my now redacted comments...rendering what's left to be almost a non-sequitor. I will restore the link to the referenced content already incorporated in the related VVAW article. I would imagine you have no problem with that. Are you suggesting that a link to the improved article is in violation of WP:BLP? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - it's very clear that JakeInJoisey is completely obsessed with violating WP:ATTACK with his numerous edits against John Kerry. And he also constantly violates WP:BLP, which applies everywhere, broadly, throughout Wikipedia - not so much in articles, as everywhere else. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - JIJ's WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality with regards to this subject is not conducive to collaborative editing, even if he were 100% and completely right. The fact he refuses to even consider he might, possibly, be in the wrong indicates to me that this measure is, regrettably, necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Per the consensus of this discussion I have now notified JakeInJoisey that he has been banned from editing pages about John Kerry, broadly construed, including swiftboating and discussions about Kerry. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

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

As a result of this discussion, should User:JakeInJoisey be listed at WP:BLPSE? RNealK (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I listed the outcome of this discussion there yesterday. But I would like to note, that it is not a special arbitration enforcement since it was based on a regular community discussion. De728631 (talk) 13:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that those two need to be exclusive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, BLPSE is a tool for administrators to apply discretionary sanctions without prior community discussion. Hence the extended requirements of counselling and warning. The fact that BLPSE was suggested by the OP of the above discussion did neither influence my closing of it, nor the instatement of the topic ban. I have however logged the outcome at the BLPSE page for future reference. De728631 (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Persistent edit-warring

Strangesad is involved in a rather disruptive edit-warring campaign against the expressed consensus at Resurrection of Jesus. The factual matter is simple. Strangesad insists on inserting a paragraph into the lead saying that resurrection is impossible. Other users have pointed out that while they agree, this is not relevant for the article. The article is where people come to read about the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection, not the article where people come to learn about Death.
Whether to include the paragraph or not is of course a content-dispute and not the subject of this report. There is a broad consensus on the talk page not to include it [123], [124], [125], [126], [127]. No other user has supported Strangesad's proposed paragraph, but despite this, Strangesad insists on ignoring the consensus and imposing, with small, variations "his" paragraph all the same, [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134].
While he is careful not to violate WP:3RR, inserting the same version six times in six days and against a consensus not to include it is clearly edit-warring. I have pointed this out to him [135] but obviously he doesn't care. Some other actions of his also seem odd, such as this reply when the consensus was against him [136], or his idea to strike out user comments on ANI that he disagreed with [137] even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate [138].Jeppiz (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support block. Pass a Method talk 12:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This belongs on the edit-warring noticeboard. However, it is false that every other use opposes the information that the resurrection of Jesus is impossible in an article on the resurrection of Jesus.

• Jeppiz's comment that this is where readers come to read "the Christian view of Jesus's possible resurrection" is specious. The Christian view is that the resurrection was possible--as Jeppiz's comment implies. Thus, whether it is possible is relevant.
• The title of the article is not "The Christian View of...." It is, flatly, Resurrection of Jesus. The possibility of X is obviously relevant in an article devoted to X. Unicorn makes it clear that the subject is fictional in the first sentence.
• The article has a section on the historicity of the resurrection. It quotes a source saying the majority of scholars consider the resurrection a biography not a myth. I am not the one trying to introduce the truth/fiction theme; I'm trying to keep Wikipedia secular by adding balance.
• It is sort of ironic that I previously commented atheists don't win popularity contests, and now I find myself repeating the situation. Jeppiz has taken it upon himself to follow me around by getting his editing ideas from my contribs [[139]]. He had no prior interest in Resurrection of Jesus before I edited it, and the recent ANI on a related subject.
• It seems obvious that Wikipedia's policy of secularism collides with its policy on consensus, in the case of Christianity (probably in the case of any dominant religion on any of the Wikipedias). How is Wikipedia going to resolve that problem? Most of the editors opposing this edit are plainly Xians, as seen on the Talk pages or edit history.
• Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article. Jeppiz just seems to be a drama-seeker, finding controversies on ANI, and then showing up at the related article to take sides and "get people in trouble." That kind of thing is disruptive.

I suppose this will go down as either a content-dispute, or I will be blocked. Wikipedia's secular principles are not a content dispute. The use of an easily-mustered Christian consensus to override the project's secular principles needs to be dealt with administratively. Strangesad (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to point out that there is no "secular" policy or principle as such on wikipedia, but a policy of neutrality, see WP:RNPOV.Smeat75 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• It doesn't belong on the edit-warring noticeboard, because there is some inappropriate behaviour in there. Strangesad, myself and others noted, during that ANI, that striking other's comments for the reasons you gave was horrendously inappropriate. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment I see Strangesad is trying what he always does, passing it off as a content-dispute. That is not the reason he is reported. He is reported for massive edit-warring [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146] despite a strong consensus against that version [147], [148], [149], [150], [151].

Quite frankly, Strangesad's response only confirms my worries. Rather than addressing the topic, his edit warring, comments such as "Anyway, my edit, for better or worse, is intended to improve the article." shows that Strangesad is determined to insert the WP:TRUTH against a consensus to the contrary. Calling me a "dramaseaker" is also in line with his earlier comments [152]. As for me following him around, anyone is free to check my edit history and his. We've come across each other at two articles. On one we agree, on one we disagree. So much for the accusation, which of course also suits Strangesad's tactic of discussing anything except the topic of the report: his persistent edit-warring.Jeppiz (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't strike out anyone's comment (except my own). In fact, I made a conscious effort to avoid that. When does deliberate distortion become a conduct issue? I struck the "votes," calling attention to the fact that they were from editors excluded by policy from the consensus process on that matter. I left the comments untouched.

Jeppiz also misleads by saying: "...even though it was pointed out to him that this in inapppropriate." It implies I struck the votes after being warned, which is wrong.

I also wasn't made of any particular authority in the person who gave me the "warning" Why should I consier a warning from a non-admin anything but an opinion? (Also, please stop referring to me as "he." Not everybody in the world is male, you know.) Strangesad (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

for the record, the story of the "edit-war" is that History2007 initially didn't oppose the statement that it's impossible to come back from the dead, he just disagreed on the right way to source it. The first 3 or so edits Jeppiz mentions above involve only History2007 and myself, and the consensus was different than it is now. I didn't realize History2007 had changed his mind when I made one of the reverts. Jeppiz mentions none of this. Maybe because he wasn't aware of it, because he came to the article only after the recent ANI.....

• Comment As is clear to see, Strangesad is intent on changing the topic, mostly to talk about me. As I've made just one edit to the article, I'm a bit surprised by this. Even more surprised by his/her retaliatory suggestion below that I be topic-banned. The fact of the matter is that:
• There was never a consensus for Strangesad's version.
• Strangesad has edit-warred by inserting the same version six times in six days.
• The latest two of those reverts were both made after being aware of a strong consensus (5-1) against that version.
• Strangesad thinks I should be topic-banned after having made one edit in line with the consensus, but thinks s/he is right to revert over and over again against the consensus. How's that for irony?Jeppiz (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Propose Topic (or Interaction?) Ban for Jeppiz

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 editor just launched 2 ANI threads regarding Jesus articles, both concerning matters that just wound down after an exhaustive previous ANI thread in which he also launched an unfounded sock accusation. He seems to have only come to the Jesus articles as a result of seeing them on ANI threads. His characterizations of conduct are consistently distorted. There is sometimes some truth at the kernel--neither Humanpublic nor I have been perfect in every regard, but Jeppiz assumes bad faith averywhere and misrepresents the truth. I am tired of this drama, I suspect the community is too. He seems to have no interest in the articles themselves, never having added a single new source. (I'm willing to topic-ban myself as well, but its the folks who only get to articles from ANI threads, and only stir up muck, that really drive me crazy.)Strangesad (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Strangesad is one of the least suitable people to propose this, also it is making a load of incorrect statements - "assumes bad faith everywhere"? That's completely false. You striking out people's comments in a terribly inappropriate manner, plus other misdemeanours, means it should be you who faces sanctions. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not strike anyone's comments, and when that accusation has been repeated 3 times, after corrections, I consider it dishonest. Strangesad (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's a statement of fact. You did strike the comments, citing the reason being "involved editors are not allowed to vote". Which is an incorrect assertion to make about something that wasn't a vote. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you literate? I did not strike the comments. Strangesad (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fantastic, because comments like that really will help your case... </sarcasm>. Also, neither will downright lying.[153] Lukeno94 (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, watch it. I heard it is a personal attack to accuse someone of lying. At least when atheists do it, not so much everybody else. Anyway, the diff you provided does not show any stricken comments. I struck the "vote" and left the comment intact. I have made this point to you an insane number of times. Nothing was altered, the point was that involved editors cannot participate in the consensus-building process for a ban, and writing "support" seemed an attempt to do that. This has been pointed out an insanely large number of times, and was discussed in the closed thread. Is there a reason you keep bringing it up and distorting what happened? I struck the "vote" and left the comments intact. Now please don't accuse me of lying. It's a personal attack. Strangesad (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's not a personal attack when, here, it's an accurate statement. You striking a vote, in something that was not a vote, is basically striking a comment. When you make blanket statements like "I didn't strike the vote", without clarifying it, constantly, it's incorrect. At least now you are saying the truth. Also, if that's a personal attack, then what about your completely irrelevant comments about atheism, and your completely inappropiate "Are you literate?" - seems like you're happy to abuse others, but can't take the slightest hint of criticism yourself. Funny, that... Lukeno94 (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tell it to the admin threatening blocks for the word "dishonest." As for the rest, you just don't seem able to get it right. I did not say "I didn't strike the vote." I said I did strike the vote. I did not strike any comments. I clarified this quite a while ago, in the original thread, you just didn't listen. Strangesad (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Whether I should be topic-banned or not is for others to decide; I've contributed as best I can and if Strangesad have diffs to show why I should be topic-banned is for him to post them. Earlier today I reported him for edit-warring. In all his posts since then, he has consistently been coming after me, never bothering to explain his edit-warring, but instead focusing on me. It is absolutely true that I don't consider Strangesad and Humanpublic constructive users. It's not because I disagree with them (I disagree with a lot of other users, that's life and usually there's no problem) but because Strangesad consistently edit-wars and Humanpublic hurl insults like "turd", "drama-hound" and "zealot" on other users. That is the reason I have reported them, and I guess this proposed topic ban for me is Strangesad's retaliation. As for striking, I provided the diff so everyone could check for themselves.[154]Jeppiz (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Diff shows comment intact. Humanpublic (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

As a point of semantics and pedantry, the comments weren't struck, merely the word of support. However, in the scheme of the discussion, this a minor point and is effectively viewed as being the same as striking out someone else's comments. Furthermore, being involved in a discussion does not bar them from indicating their support or opposition to a sanction because there is no voting on Wikipedia. What you are thinking of is WP:INVOLVED which only applies to administrators. I also oppose this proposal per WP:POINT Blackmane (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The policy on community bans, which I cited in the closed thread, clearly states that only uninvolved editors may participate: "a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute... a consensus of uninvolved editors" [155]. The distinction was not "semantics and pedantry" to me. I was careful to only strike the word "support" and leave the comment intact, because my only purpose was to call attention to editors excluded from consensus by policy. How many wrongful bans there have been because admins didn't know the rules for banning? This is the third time I have quoted the policy on this page in less than a week.Strangesad (talk) 03:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Their support/oppose will be assessed at the close by a neutral admin. That's why we've trusted them with the mops. It's up to them to determine the consensus in a discussion and to weigh the arguments by neutral and involved parties. Also, it's a very big no no to edit another editor's comments unless they're outright attacks or BLP violations. I'm sure someone will link to the appropriate guideline/policy for me. Excessive quoting of policy often has the opposite effect. Blackmane (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Non starter This sub-thread will go nowhere. There is no way on earth that it will lead to a ban on Jeppiz. Please just end it now. I an not going to say more on this. It is a non-starter. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose nonsensical proposal. Jeppiz is obviously a good-faith editor who's here to improve wikipedia. (Is there something missing in your post, Jeppiz? Your drift is unmistakable, but you don't "consider Strangesad and Humanpublic"… what?) Bishonen | talk 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC).
• Bogus WP: POINT proposal Merely a retaliatory act by Strangesad. Jeppiz is an obvious WP: AGF editor with no reason to impose a topic ban. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for obvious reasons. (POINT, BATTLEGROUND, etc.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

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

More advertising at Balun

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

---

Please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#radiondistics.altervista.org for details. It appears that no one is taking any action about any sites listed at Spam-blacklist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Could this be handled with an edit filter? De728631 (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not familiar with WP:Edit filters. If it were possible to prevent any edit to Balun that adds the string "radiondistics.altervista.org" I suppose that would solve the problem. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

On further investigation, it seems links to this site have been a problem for a while. See User talk:2.193.212.47 which states that XLinkBot has been going about deleting links to at least one page on the radiondistics site since July 2012. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I made an edit filter for this after learning how to do it really quick... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will note the edit filter at the black list talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the edit filter does not work. Maybe some more administrators should be recruited to monitor the black list; it seems to be more of a black hole. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP de jour is 46.232.139.1. Warned. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now blacklisted the url. De728631 (talk) 14:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism/edit count spike?

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.

---

Something weird going on... very busy hugglers right now as the edit per minute count is 4x usual (600 per minute vs. 100-200 normalls) and spiking as high as 900. Anyone know what's going on? Sailsbystars (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You may want to throw the question out at the Village Pump if it's still spiking unusually high.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 03:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to have died off now, but you can see voxel bot logged edit counts of 619/min (averaged over 30 minutes) earlier. Never seen anything like it and figured this was the place to report something that would attract a lot of eyes in case it were malicious. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It could well have been caused by Addbot (talk · contribs). Graham87 10:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Vandalism by anon IP

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

---

I am reporting the following vandal: User:80.251.5.106

Diff.-Links:

• [156] (here using the F-word)
• [157]
• [158]
• [159] (here once again using the F-word)

as well as various "bad faith" changes in main articles, such as:

• [160]
• [161]
• [162]

--Lysozym (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours by Reaper Eternal. Have you tried WP:AIV before? De728631 (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Bad relists by User:Mediran

This is nowhere ripe for ANI and shouldn't have been brought here without a prior discussion and evidence. I'm therefore closing this but, honestly, I don't see any real issue with any of the relists Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Mediran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) A few hours ago, Mediran, a non-admin, ‎relisted 10 AfDs from February 19 in today's AfD log. A number of these were relisted despite only having non-keep opinions expressed; those should have been closed. I'd appreciate it if admin looked over some of those relists and closed when appropriate pbp 16:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I have notified the user in question. Have you tried discussing it with them before coming here to ANI? GiantSnowman 16:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC) I notified the user of my concerns, yes. But what is really needed now is an admin to clean up the mess he's made, not more discussion pbp 16:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Please can you provide diffs to where you have tried to discuss this with the editor in question before bringing it to ANI? I have had a quick look at some of the AfDs you believe should not have been re-listed, but see no problem in them being re-listed at all. This, for example - yes, no 'keep' !votes, but no real consensus over whether the article should be deleted or merged. This AfD had only one 'keep' !vote - that does not constitute a consensus, and re-listing for wider input is a wise move. GiantSnowman 16:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC) In order for there to be more discussion, there has to be some discussion to begin with. All I see is you posting on Mediran's talk page and then going to ANI tem minutes later. That's not discussion, not even close. This thread should probably be closed as (very) premature. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Uploaded wrong file. Please delete.

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 accidentally uploaded the wrong file to Wikipedia. I see no way to correct the error without an administrator's help. The file is File:Educational Attainment in the United States 2009.pdf. Please delete. --JHP (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Done for you. (There is a more straightforward way of requesting deletion as the sole author, see WP:CSD but unless you know it's there, it's hard to see I know! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

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

[Copernicus' nationality] Blatant attempts to silence down Polish users.

AN/I is not for ranting, or for block evasion. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. You can watch how German nationalist users and their puppets, while mute to all valid arguments being presented on this Talk page, are blatantly trying to silence down the Polish users, Astronomer28 and myself (Mieszko_8). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN3#User:Mieszko_8_reported_by_User:William_M._Connolley_.28Result:_Blocks.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Astronomer28 While temporarily blocked, I can't even make a comment in my own case re edit warring, and my comments sent as anonymous have been (and are being) deleted. That's really pathetic. Wikipedia (allegedly professional & neutral) governance sucks and will act to its detriment. Mieszko_8 via 93.107.93.220 (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC) You were blocked for a 3RR violation by the looks of things. Currently, there is no nationality listed on Nicolaus Copernicus's page, in the respective lead or infobox. If I were you, I'd engage in talk-page discussions (after your block expires) which appear to be ongoing as we speak. --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. When (if) your block expires you should calm down, try to discuss constructively and refrain from calling every user who disagrees with you "pro-German" and "German nationalists". Zaminamina (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Mieszko 8 - you, the editor, are blocked, not the account. If you continue to try and evade your block then I will increase your block to indefinite. GiantSnowman 17:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited lede

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kamrup_region&diff=prev&oldid=540047202 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhaskarbhagawati (talk • contribs) 11:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Both users warned (3RR). Go to talk. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please guide regarding next step. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The same as all content disputes: follow dispute resolution, and if either of you editwar you'll get blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, will go for it. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Seb az86556 for letting me know of this notice, since User:Bhaskarbhagawati did not inform me of this. Chaipau (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As adviced here we have to move to DRN, till then can you restore the cited lede because your version is not sourced. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the first step of DR is to talk it out on the article talkpage to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I have summarized the dispute here: Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary. We may discuss this situation there. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As this sourced lede is identical to original one which you disputed, please restore the same till we reach consensus in DR process. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This dispute is part of a larger issue involving many other articles. User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) has been WP:POVFORKing Kamarupa to define his own boundaries and history of the Kamrup/Kamarupa. Some of the other articles he has created, besides Kamrup region are: Greater Kamrup, Early Period of Kamarupa, Kamarupa of Bhaskar Varman, Kamarupa – Late to_end_period etc. His effort, in all these articles, are focused on excluding the eastern portion of the Kamarupa kingdom. Though three dynasties are associated with the Kamarupa kingdom, he excludes the middle dynasty from his edits because the capital of this dynasty was in the eastern portion of kingdom. My experience with BB has been that it is very difficult to have an informed discussion with him because he will keep on insisting his claims and will not address the issues raised by other editors. It has been pointed out to me by others that giving him considered arguments amounted to feeding the troll (diff), and that by engaging him, I have wasted other people's time diff. I tried to engage him on Talk:Assam/Etymology of Assam and it took months to resolve, and that too, after someone had to warn BB not to revert (diff) Even so, BB raked it up once again (diff) So my question is: is there a remedy for this kind of behavior, or do we have to spend months disputing sentences and ledes? Chaipau (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Chaipau mentioned on my talk page that this discussion had been opened. I saw something of these exchanges, a while back. Very briefly, my opinion from observation is that Bhaskarbhagawati has disrupted Wikipedia by unreasonably pushing a POV. Andrew Dalby 17:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati's behavior that I've seen, mostly at Kamarupi Prakrit and Kamrupi dialect, is classic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He's been warned before regarding the issues that Chaipau has brought up and he knows his boundaries. Chaipau has been pretty patient with him, but I think it's time to make his life a little easier and implement a topic ban for Bhaskarbhagawati, who is either unable or unwilling to edit without bias regarding this topic. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it is appropiate to address the new issue brought in by user Chaipau nevertheless same can be clarified once again. First issue brought is povforking, but i ask user Chaipau to look inside those articles which deals in different genres of subject. Regarding so call warning ((diff)), here i explained the issue to him. I also like to add that from the day this is passed after toil of months (thanks to user Chaipau for posting on numerous forums), he involved in disputes in almost all Kamrup related articles.

Again i don't understand why instead of giving sources for matter in hand, he brought in this issues and invited uninvolved users here and here with whom i have some disputes in past and diverting the main issue at hand. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 06:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Since the issue that Chaipau has brought up is your conduct, it is in his interest to invite others who have dealt with you on the topic to contribute to the discussion and show that it's not just a conflict between two editors. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

BB, I have addressed the specific issue by creating a summary section on the talk page. References to sources are given in the text of the article (extensively). As is your wont, you have replied to that by just reiterating your claim.

Thanks, Andrew Dalby and aeusoes1, for participating in this discussion and for clarifying matters. Others should know that I left notes on their talk pages because I wanted to let them know I was using their statements to illustrate a problem I am facing. I am, of course, very glad that they have agreed with me here.

Chaipau (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have tried to clarified those conduct issues. At this point only me and use Chaipau is involved with the subject, point is that Kamrup is a ancient region centered around Kamakhya which is there even before dawn of common era. This way it is prepared but currently it is shown as region originated only in late seventeenth century.So i requested that we keep it as original till we reach consensus in DR process. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 06:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the issue here is user conduct, particularly yours. Speaking of the DR process, you said you would initiate DR over a month ago and yet nearly two weeks ago you seemed to say that you had no faith in the DR process. I may have misunderstood what you are saying, but if you still plan on pursuing the matter through DR, I don't know why you're dragging your feet. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Reisio disrupting Ref Desk incl. personal attack

User:Reisio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:Ref Desk / Computing (recently archived)

Disagreement about a computing question has led to a personal attack by User:Reisio, which seems indicative of his general attitude to anyone who disagrees with him. He seems to see every question about Apple/Mac to be an opportunity to inject his personal bias about the company and/or its computers. For past examples: [163] [164] [165] (a search of the Computing archives for "Reisio Mac" brings up over 200 entries)

Others seem to ignore him so I see now that I made a mistake in responding to what seems like trolling, but do those previous comments really belong on the Help Desk? And worse now, his responses escalated to what here reads like a personal attack: "It’d never come up if people like you weren’t attempting to delude others in addition to yourselves". I removed it [166] and he soon restored it [167]. I tried again with the {RPA} tag [168] which he reverted [169]. I ask that an admin step in to advise him to remove his personal attack and warn him about such disruption at the Help Desk. Thank you. El duderino ^(abides) 03:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it but I didn't see any personal attacks in the first 3 diffs. I can understand why the fourth diff can be considered a PA, but sometimes it's better to ignore such comments instead of drawing attention to them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if there was a PA then as far as I can see it was on both sides. I don't see that accusing another user of having a chip on the shoulder is different in nature to accusing them of deluding themselves... both relate to the user not to the content of their edits. I am inclined to close with no action needed. --BozMo talk 09:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for looking into this. The 'chip' comment may be questionable but I don't think it's equivalent to his insult -- especially since he seemed to sort of embrace it (with a joke? hard to tell) earlier in the thread. Another admin acknowledged that Reisio's usual responses about Macs are "over-eager and somewhat abrasive" and also advised me to ignore it. I can do that, but I think he will continue the uncivil snark at the Help Desk and thereby discourage others from participating, whether to ask or answer. El duderino ^(abides) 20:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Reference Desk (which is a quite different thing to the Help Desk, by the way) is largely an ego trip anyway. It doesn't help improve the encyclopedia, it distracts some of those who would be doing so from our main goal, and it attracts others who are more interested in having themselves listened to than in contributing to articles. We tolerate it so long as editors do not egregiously step over the line, which hasn't really happened here. Attempting to police it more thoroughly than that would simply divert more of the community's time away from our actual purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair reflection on the reference desk which does lead, in my perception, to a steady stream of improvements in both the presentation and content of the main encyclopaedia. Anyway if we have it civility rules are the same as anywhere else; just here I don't think they were broken. --BozMo talk 14:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User Ameba mcare, promoting a dubious Edvard Munch

• Ameba mcare (talk · contribs)
• Madonna (Edvard Munch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Madonna (Edvard Munch) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

The account is WP:COI (see [170] and [171]), using Wikipedia to promote a painting of dubious and unconfirmed attribution. Points regarding the timeline of Munch's 'Madonnas' seem designed mainly to argue on behalf of the picture in question. JNW (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a genuine problem. If editors cvan upload garbage like this to Commons claiming it to be the work of Munch then we may be in for more such masterpieces. Paul B (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I've seen it done before. It's a fairly serious issue if someone is attempting to use Wikipedia to confer credibility and 'authenticate' a work. JNW (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Link to the file for art connoisseurs: File:MADONNA REVISED 1922 VERSION.jpg. Here is the fully researched analysis: "The eyes of the lady Madonna if we viewed at any direction slightly closed and slightly Opened depends upon the angle of audience view as the smile of Mono Lisa of Da Vinci exists in any angle of view in its original print. The nose is “grayed” as resembles with “Browny” appearance of Lady of Asiatic race. Still some more notable differntialities [ vide : separate report] he made with this extreme style of Hyper magical Surrealism,a new concept of art style coined in his life time after 1920 in Paris and for the first time in Berlin where same styled paintings were either destroyed or hidden by Hitler’s Nazi forces." Paul B (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

At painting's talk page the user is claiming to be part of a research team; I'd like to know which museum or university they're connected with. JNW (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've already had three emails from Ameba mcare arguing about the number of versions. Paul B (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Lucky you! Have they divulged the identity of the research team? JNW (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the answer, such as it is [172]. I'd ask that the user be blocked. Beyond that, the larger issue is how to prevent the addition of fraudulent materials via pseudo-scholarship. JNW (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Strangely, no. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I got a good laugh from looking at that hoax painting. I suggest an indef block, as this SPA is only editing disruptively and is also unable to communicate in proper English. Zaminamina (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Her breast size has increased impressively from the earlier versions. Paul B (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Implants. So poorly drawn, and with a faux signature. Someone's trying to pass something off. Nice additions by Johnbod and Paul Barlow. JNW (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this is the only one of Munch's "works" that is a "BIO COSMIC ENERGY EMITTING ARTWOK" (sic). --Shirt58 (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Damn, tits those emitting of BIO COSMIC ENERGY! Zaminamina (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering about the IP block for "impersonation".--Amadscientist (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Artwok? Awesome, how do I get one? Is that part of the new Andy Warhol cookware range? BTW, all you cynical b*stards - you clearly haven't read SOME EVIDENCES Stalwart111 13:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You get a free Mono Lisa with it; sadly, the Stereo Lisas are no longer available. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems the owners may be persuaded to part with it if you can offer them an (unspecified) price to compensate for their loss. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone even follow their atrocioius english? May want to consider a CIR indef. Blackmane (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we could cut them some slack on the language issue if they came here to make constructive contributions. The number of Madonna themed works is a trivial matter, and a fallback stance after being challenged on the fraudulent image. Support an indefinite block. JNW (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note - blocked by Fut.Perf. for a week. Appealed. Rejected. I don't know that we're necessarily going to get a changed attitude a week from now. But anyway. Stalwart111 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just for your information. I've just deleted the picture in commons. It doesn't comply with our policies, being a derivative work of a work still copyrighted in Norway (as all of Edvard Munch works). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Thank you. JNW (talk) 12:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He's continued to send me emails commenting on the article. He now seems quite reconciled to the current state of the article, so I don't expect serious future problems. Paul B (talk) 12:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Archetypex07 is back

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

---

Archetypex07 (talk · contribs) who was indeffed last week for trolling, harassment and racist remarks is back as Velocityflux (talk · contribs). (Previous ANI thread here). I know where SPI is, but this is really quacking loudly, even as far as getting right back into the original pattern of inserting the false etymology on Man, deleting the previous discussion I had with Archetypex07 about that on Talk:Man and making racially motivated edits: 1, 2. Clearly block evasion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• And done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

JudgementSummary has written a POV/OR essay in Clockwork universe theory and refuses to remove it

User:JudgementSummary created his account in the midst of a POV/OR expansion by 71.198.45.10 and 71.133.107.222. He is at least one IP (proof), probably both, and he's proceeded to carry on their expansion in the same manner, with identical writing style. He's writing a POV/OR essay about Determinism and his personal philosophical views, under the guise of five "Objections/Considerations" sections. One can experience this monstrosity immediately by glancing at the article.

By far the most important diffs:

• Net IP contributions before JudgementSummary created his account. ~40 edits [173]
• Net change between JudgementSummary's account creation and just before I tried to intervened: ~400 edits [174].
  • most of this is either JudgementSummary or one of the two IP's, with occasional blundering appeasements by User:Tgeorgescu, like: [175]]

Multiple warnings:

• he creates a fifth "Objections due to Free Will" section [176].
• My 1st explanation/warning to him: [177]
  • he doesn't get it: [178]
• I throw out four WP:OFFTOPIC WP:COATRACKs: [179],[180], [181], [182]
  • he reverts, changes their names to "Considerations", requesting discussion: [183]
• 2nd explanation/warning: [184]
  • he accuses me of being a sockpuppet, doesn't get that his content is POV, OR and SYN:[185]
• 3rd explanation/warning, cautiously firmer: [186]
• 4th warning: [187]
• I request a WP:THIRD from Machine Elf 1735: [188]
• Machine Elf 1735 concurs, and warns him, suggesting WP isn't for him: [189]
  • JudgementSummary ignores Machine Elf, complains about reverts of his other POV content: [190]
• 5th. After extreme patience, I suggest he's being disruptive: [191]
  • He learns a new word, and accuses me of being disruptive: [192]
• He breaks WP:3RR by reverting 5 of my attempts to purge various WP:NPOV phrases: [193], [194], [195], [196], [197]

Related:

• proof JudgementSummary is 71.198.45.10: [198]
• The Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Clockwork_universe_theory is going nowhere fast.
• Because the result of a recent AfD was keep, JudgementSummary is convinced his essay is worth keeping.

Given the duration over which this WP:Tendentious essay-writing has taken place, given that he has ignored several attempts to dissuade him, and given that he still doesn't get the fundamental complaint about his WP:OR/WP:NPOV essay, I don't think Wikipedia is for him. (First time, have mercy if I'm utterly misinterpreting this), but I request a 1 week block on JudgementSummary and the two IP's mentioned above.

—wing gundam 13:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be a tedious edit-war between Wing gundam and JudgementSummary, the edit history of Clockwork universe theory is depressive reading. It's quite likely that JudgementSummary violates WP:OR. It is absolutely certain that both Wing gundam and JudgementSummary edit-war extensively, with no respect for WP:3RR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Balderdash, I've tried hard to avoid edit-warring. After he reverted my initial removal, I left it, and went to the Talk. He reverted several other attempts of mine to cleanup different sections. Sorry if I pushed WP:3RR last night: The last revision is his; I stopped when I realized what was happening. I probably waited a day too long before coming here, but I was hoping the Talk would come to fruition. JudgementSummary has heeded neither the Talk nor WP:ORN discussion. Tell me I'm wrong on this, and I'm gone. —wing gundam 13:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment JudgementSummary seems to only edit this one page, and wing gundam's first edit there was four days ago, so I don't see how there could have been a "tendentious edit war." Eebster the Great (talk)

The most recent exercise after the keep was twice a removal of major sections without specific comment. I did appreciate the appology by Wing Gundam on his talk page. Subsequently there were 4-5 deletions of exactly the same material again without specifics. There was in addition a dispute over whether Newton supported a "clockwork universe". I can honestly say I tried to detail my reasoning in the talk section and tried to keep the exchange civil. I would suggest the other party did not. I do agree it is depressing.JudgementSummary (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• JudgementSummary, you've been given specifics over and over: [199], [200], [201], [202], [203]. You've had ample opportunity to come to terms with the objections. Don't cry wolf. That you still don't understand the fundamental problem with your POV/OR essay is horrifying.

Forget about the minutiae: my only concern is with your "Objections"/"Considerations" essay. You've stalled too long, and they must be deleted. —wing gundam 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There are no citations relating the removed material to Clockwork Universe Theory. More than 90 percent of the article consists of objections, all of which seem to be WP:SYN and read like a personal essay. On the talk page, JudgmentSummary could not produce a single source from the Objections (now "Considerations") sections that mentioned "Clockwork Universe Theory" at all or developed any of the arguments made. The sources are not easy to check, however, as they are mostly books and many are missing page numbers. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Eebster the Great (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: As WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification requires, his comment was requested in a single, open post, of neutral content. He is non-partisan, just like you were when I requested your comment. You're the two editors I've most recently collaborated with. Your concern is invalid. —wing gundam 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Note: It's not canvassing at all. Who is this "editor" in which you speak Eebster?? If you were referring to yourself in 3rd person then that really says it all... 87.232.1.48 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Note: I wasn't canvassed into agreeing, but when I looked at the article I had no choice. This really isn't a debatable point. The article needs drastic cuts or changes at least. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know why we are whispering but it is considered canvassing when the request includes an action or result being desired as was done here. It is called "campaigning" and it was not a neutral request.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
          • False The only desired action is a block on JudgementSummary. The notification did not include this. —wing gundam 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Sadly, yes. You made it clear the outcome you desired in your post to the editor and oddly enough after I mentioned it on their talkpage you struck it out and claimed not to see it. Nice try but that is indeed campaigning. It was a notice to comment at the article, not the AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
              • False again. I struck them for their controversy. "Claimed not to see" what? The only desired action is a block on JudgementSummary. The notification did not include this. —wing gundam 11:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "clockwork universe" is not a scientific theory at all but rather a paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability based largely on Newton's discoveries which still do pretty good at calculating how a clock works. And to the extent Newtonian predictability has been discredited most notably by quantum weirdness and chaos and new mathematical theorems and whatnot, a summary of that work and an explanation of those discoveries seems to be especially relevant to the paradigm. Especially as they are well documented... JudgementSummary (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, it is not a "paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability". The clockwork universe is the general concept that the universe obeys a few discrete natural laws, contrasted with pre-scientific thought: that diseases, natural disasterss, and solar eclipses were punishments from a deity. This has been pointed out to you several times, most recently here, with sources.

Your essays are off-topic, and advance WP:SYN arguments not made by your sources (e.g. that string theory discredits a clockwork universe, that the existence of entropy discredits the same, that the existence of chaos theory discredits the same, etc). I reiterate, none of your sources make your claims. —wing gundam 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Wing gundam: The topic Clockwork universe is a paradigm for mathematical predictability based on Newton's work and the even the reference you gave, here, states, I believe clearly, "quote"

"Then, at some point in the 1600s, a new idea came into the world. The notion was that the natural world not only follows rough-and-ready patterns but also exact, formal, mathematical laws."

supports that.

New thinking on the "limits of logic", chaos theory which points out that even simple ODEs (not to mention the wider world) are unpredictable, QM with is intrinsic indeterminism/unpredictability of individual events and general weirdness, the very old argument on free will, the fundamental consideration of entropy and the flip side of information NOT being lost even in black holes (Hawking recently conceded the point), are all exciting topics relating as to whether we live in a predictable clockwork universe or not. Your objections seem to be religious and I am sorry if I offended your sensibilities... Indeed most books (2000+] which even mention "Clockwork universe" continually hash and rehash these very same topics ...

The information I contributed in all five sections and fairly summarized with numerous references (indeed you demanded a reference for nearly every phrase and I now think the article is top heavy with them) should not be suppressed... I think it is reasonable to stand behind the material and would be happy to describe the literature in even greater detail... But your actions

a) immediately after a request for deletion of the topic was denied... deleting without comment most of the article twice. User Talk:wing gundam

b) deleting the exact same portion each in a series of 5-10 edits no less than five times...

c) then inserting nearly 20 objections all at once on every conceivable possibility

d) again arguing by backdoor means to delete the entire article by making arguments like "it must all be deleted" and "it must all go and go quickly" and "he refuses to remove it [all]" or indeed anything other than the most superficial mention of the material

are not reasoned objections... I believe the science behind the material I summarized is manifest and well-accepted... Would be happy to discuss in more detail, and I think you will find the literature is very much on the side of the information I put in the article... Thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not the venue to carry on a dispute. The wall of text and links all seem very confusing and I am not at all sure the filing here was appropriate at the moment. The OP has clearly campaigned and this reads more like a content dispute than anything needing admin intervention. I could be wrong, but I think it is best to close this and suggest the dispute resolution process. An RFC seems appropriate here but could well be a candidate for the DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then remove the wall of text, and WP:BUREAU all you want about Eebster, but there's consensus (disregarding JudgementSummary) in the most recent Talk threads (This article is unnecessary and Neutrality and POV) that the article is a personal essay. Since JudgementSummary blocked attempts to remove the essay, it seemed like a conduct issue (i.e. for ANI). But could be wrong too. —wing gundam 11:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the whole article is just an essay, would it not be prudent to nominate it for deletion? Apologies, I have only just realised it was nominated for deletion two weeks ago. – Richard BB 12:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Consensus was keep, and there's some legitimate information in the first few sections (#Art, #World machine, #Opposition). The talk page discussion took issue with what follows, and deemed it an essay. —wing gundam 13:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Remain baffled over repeated generalizations the subject isn't about math predictability esp. with regards Newtonian dynamids... Even the simplest search for definitions of "Clockwork Universe" gives

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clockwork+universe?r=66 An image of the universe as a clock wound up by God and ticking along with its gears governed by the laws of physics. This idea was very important in the Enlightenment, when scientists realized that Newton's laws of motion, including the law of universal gravitation, could explain the behavior of the solar system.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clockwork_universe A universe in which all of the actions of matter and energy operate as reactions according to predetermined rules set down by a creator, like the movements of a clock.

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=clockwork%20universe http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=clockwork_universe http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/clockwork_universe#word=clockwork%20universe http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clockwork+universe The view that the universe resembles a clock built by God and ticking along according to Newtonian mechanics

And repeated attempts to delete the entire thing... twice by Wing gundam User Talk:wing gundam without comment is not a good thing in my opinion. Would be happy to discuss the content, which is well researched, amply documented, and well supported by the literature, but get only the most sweeping wholesale condemnations... HELP....JudgementSummary (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. At this stage nobody has recently done anything blockworthy as far as I can see, although if I went back far enough I'm sure I could block one or both of you for edit-warring if I chose to. What I'd prefer is for you each to start collaborating, rather than manouvering to get the other person blocked. This means neither of you is going to get entirely the version you want; you'll need to find a way to incorporate your opponent's thinking but make it acceptable to you (eg by rewording, by finding references etc). I recommend quick closure of this thread as most of the discussion here is simply further content dispute, nothing for admin action.

{{/adminhatoff}} For what its worth, I think the sections complained of are full of OR and read very unencyclopaedically. They are much too essay-like and speculative and are just written in the wrong 'voice'. Look, you've even dragged me into the content dispute! Get back there and work it out!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Doubtful, I keep my nose clean, I do. But anyway, I'll try again. Though I've been slamming my head into this Talk for a quite while. My money says JudgementSummary will keep his essay there, as is, until he's blocked. Well. —wing gundam 18:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles, or any part of an article. You are at liberty to edit at will, and don't have to persuade JS to do anything when you can do it yourself. Don't just delete or revert, improve bit by bit and set yourself the challenge of making the improvements so good that even JS has to agree to leave them in place! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yessir Kim! —wing gundam 18:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Orhanghazi WP:OR and personal attacks

This user constantly misrepresents sourced material on a particular topic for the etymology of Malaysia and Melayu Kingdom. For Melayu Kingdom it is this edit: diff. In Malaysia article he gives a "reasoning" for his revert: diff: removed misleading info. The Tamil term 'Malai'+'Ur' is originated from an 11th century inscription in Brihadeeswarar Temple. The existence of other variants of 'Malay' predates this inscription. as if this temple had a language itself, which was the source of the Tamil words, an original research, not sourcable. The rest of his revert regarding an etymology of Melayu through Sanskrit is OR as well, misrepresentation of sources, as explained at the talkpage of Malaysia by me: Talk:Malaysia#misinterpretation_of_sources. User:Orhanghazi is not interested in presenting sources as they are or give proper explanations at talk pages as demonstrated here, instead wants to cleanse Tamil heritage of Malaysia through original research, also exemplified by his ultra Malay-nationalistic reaction regarding my warning defaming me as supremacist: diff -- Dravidian  Hero  12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That supremacist comment is a borderline mild PA but nothing actionable. The rest is a content dispute. There's nothing to be done here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider also the level of editing behaviour User:Orhanghazi displays at Mahathir Mohamad history, possibly using multiple accounts, including IP User:60.52.112.227 and one purpose account User:The_Auditor_In_Chief at the same time during an edit war. -- Dravidian  Hero  14:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is this way if you want to make that particular case. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

JudgementSummary has written a POV/OR essay in Clockwork universe theory and refuses to remove it

User:JudgementSummary created his account in the midst of a POV/OR expansion by 71.198.45.10 and 71.133.107.222. He is at least one IP (proof), probably both, and he's proceeded to carry on their expansion in the same manner, with identical writing style. He's writing a POV/OR essay about Determinism and his personal philosophical views, under the guise of five "Objections/Considerations" sections. One can experience this monstrosity immediately by glancing at the article.

By far the most important diffs:

• Net IP contributions before JudgementSummary created his account. ~40 edits [204]
• Net change between JudgementSummary's account creation and just before I tried to intervened: ~400 edits [205].
  • most of this is either JudgementSummary or one of the two IP's, with occasional blundering appeasements by User:Tgeorgescu, like: [206]]

Multiple warnings:

• he creates a fifth "Objections due to Free Will" section [207].
• My 1st explanation/warning to him: [208]
  • he doesn't get it: [209]
• I throw out four WP:OFFTOPIC WP:COATRACKs: [210],[211], [212], [213]
  • he reverts, changes their names to "Considerations", requesting discussion: [214]
• 2nd explanation/warning: [215]
  • he accuses me of being a sockpuppet, doesn't get that his content is POV, OR and SYN:[216]
• 3rd explanation/warning, cautiously firmer: [217]
• 4th warning: [218]
• I request a WP:THIRD from Machine Elf 1735: [219]
• Machine Elf 1735 concurs, and warns him, suggesting WP isn't for him: [220]
  • JudgementSummary ignores Machine Elf, complains about reverts of his other POV content: [221]
• 5th. After extreme patience, I suggest he's being disruptive: [222]
  • He learns a new word, and accuses me of being disruptive: [223]
• He breaks WP:3RR by reverting 5 of my attempts to purge various WP:NPOV phrases: [224], [225], [226], [227], [228]

Related:

• proof JudgementSummary is 71.198.45.10: [229]
• The Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Clockwork_universe_theory is going nowhere fast.
• Because the result of a recent AfD was keep, JudgementSummary is convinced his essay is worth keeping.

Given the duration over which this WP:Tendentious essay-writing has taken place, given that he has ignored several attempts to dissuade him, and given that he still doesn't get the fundamental complaint about his WP:OR/WP:NPOV essay, I don't think Wikipedia is for him. (First time, have mercy if I'm utterly misinterpreting this), but I request a 1 week block on JudgementSummary and the two IP's mentioned above.

—wing gundam 13:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This seems to be a tedious edit-war between Wing gundam and JudgementSummary, the edit history of Clockwork universe theory is depressive reading. It's quite likely that JudgementSummary violates WP:OR. It is absolutely certain that both Wing gundam and JudgementSummary edit-war extensively, with no respect for WP:3RR.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Balderdash, I've tried hard to avoid edit-warring. After he reverted my initial removal, I left it, and went to the Talk. He reverted several other attempts of mine to cleanup different sections. Sorry if I pushed WP:3RR last night: The last revision is his; I stopped when I realized what was happening. I probably waited a day too long before coming here, but I was hoping the Talk would come to fruition. JudgementSummary has heeded neither the Talk nor WP:ORN discussion. Tell me I'm wrong on this, and I'm gone. —wing gundam 13:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment JudgementSummary seems to only edit this one page, and wing gundam's first edit there was four days ago, so I don't see how there could have been a "tendentious edit war." Eebster the Great (talk)

The most recent exercise after the keep was twice a removal of major sections without specific comment. I did appreciate the appology by Wing Gundam on his talk page. Subsequently there were 4-5 deletions of exactly the same material again without specifics. There was in addition a dispute over whether Newton supported a "clockwork universe". I can honestly say I tried to detail my reasoning in the talk section and tried to keep the exchange civil. I would suggest the other party did not. I do agree it is depressing.JudgementSummary (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• JudgementSummary, you've been given specifics over and over: [230], [231], [232], [233], [234]. You've had ample opportunity to come to terms with the objections. Don't cry wolf. That you still don't understand the fundamental problem with your POV/OR essay is horrifying.

Forget about the minutiae: my only concern is with your "Objections"/"Considerations" essay. You've stalled too long, and they must be deleted. —wing gundam 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There are no citations relating the removed material to Clockwork Universe Theory. More than 90 percent of the article consists of objections, all of which seem to be WP:SYN and read like a personal essay. On the talk page, JudgmentSummary could not produce a single source from the Objections (now "Considerations") sections that mentioned "Clockwork Universe Theory" at all or developed any of the arguments made. The sources are not easy to check, however, as they are mostly books and many are missing page numbers. Eebster the Great (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Eebster the Great (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 03:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Note: As WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification requires, his comment was requested in a single, open post, of neutral content. He is non-partisan, just like you were when I requested your comment. You're the two editors I've most recently collaborated with. Your concern is invalid. —wing gundam 10:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Note: It's not canvassing at all. Who is this "editor" in which you speak Eebster?? If you were referring to yourself in 3rd person then that really says it all... 87.232.1.48 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Note: I wasn't canvassed into agreeing, but when I looked at the article I had no choice. This really isn't a debatable point. The article needs drastic cuts or changes at least. Eebster the Great (talk) 03:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know why we are whispering but it is considered canvassing when the request includes an action or result being desired as was done here. It is called "campaigning" and it was not a neutral request.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
          • False The only desired action is a block on JudgementSummary. The notification did not include this. —wing gundam 09:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Sadly, yes. You made it clear the outcome you desired in your post to the editor and oddly enough after I mentioned it on their talkpage you struck it out and claimed not to see it. Nice try but that is indeed campaigning. It was a notice to comment at the article, not the AN/I.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
              • False again. I struck them for their controversy. "Claimed not to see" what? The only desired action is a block on JudgementSummary. The notification did not include this. —wing gundam 11:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "clockwork universe" is not a scientific theory at all but rather a paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability based largely on Newton's discoveries which still do pretty good at calculating how a clock works. And to the extent Newtonian predictability has been discredited most notably by quantum weirdness and chaos and new mathematical theorems and whatnot, a summary of that work and an explanation of those discoveries seems to be especially relevant to the paradigm. Especially as they are well documented... JudgementSummary (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• No, it is not a "paradigm/metaphor for mathematical predictability". The clockwork universe is the general concept that the universe obeys a few discrete natural laws, contrasted with pre-scientific thought: that diseases, natural disasterss, and solar eclipses were punishments from a deity. This has been pointed out to you several times, most recently here, with sources.

Your essays are off-topic, and advance WP:SYN arguments not made by your sources (e.g. that string theory discredits a clockwork universe, that the existence of entropy discredits the same, that the existence of chaos theory discredits the same, etc). I reiterate, none of your sources make your claims. —wing gundam 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Wing gundam: The topic Clockwork universe is a paradigm for mathematical predictability based on Newton's work and the even the reference you gave, here, states, I believe clearly, "quote"

"Then, at some point in the 1600s, a new idea came into the world. The notion was that the natural world not only follows rough-and-ready patterns but also exact, formal, mathematical laws."

supports that.

New thinking on the "limits of logic", chaos theory which points out that even simple ODEs (not to mention the wider world) are unpredictable, QM with is intrinsic indeterminism/unpredictability of individual events and general weirdness, the very old argument on free will, the fundamental consideration of entropy and the flip side of information NOT being lost even in black holes (Hawking recently conceded the point), are all exciting topics relating as to whether we live in a predictable clockwork universe or not. Your objections seem to be religious and I am sorry if I offended your sensibilities... Indeed most books (2000+] which even mention "Clockwork universe" continually hash and rehash these very same topics ...

The information I contributed in all five sections and fairly summarized with numerous references (indeed you demanded a reference for nearly every phrase and I now think the article is top heavy with them) should not be suppressed... I think it is reasonable to stand behind the material and would be happy to describe the literature in even greater detail... But your actions

a) immediately after a request for deletion of the topic was denied... deleting without comment most of the article twice. User Talk:wing gundam

b) deleting the exact same portion each in a series of 5-10 edits no less than five times...

c) then inserting nearly 20 objections all at once on every conceivable possibility

d) again arguing by backdoor means to delete the entire article by making arguments like "it must all be deleted" and "it must all go and go quickly" and "he refuses to remove it [all]" or indeed anything other than the most superficial mention of the material

are not reasoned objections... I believe the science behind the material I summarized is manifest and well-accepted... Would be happy to discuss in more detail, and I think you will find the literature is very much on the side of the information I put in the article... Thanks...JudgementSummary (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not the venue to carry on a dispute. The wall of text and links all seem very confusing and I am not at all sure the filing here was appropriate at the moment. The OP has clearly campaigned and this reads more like a content dispute than anything needing admin intervention. I could be wrong, but I think it is best to close this and suggest the dispute resolution process. An RFC seems appropriate here but could well be a candidate for the DR/N.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Then remove the wall of text, and WP:BUREAU all you want about Eebster, but there's consensus (disregarding JudgementSummary) in the most recent Talk threads (This article is unnecessary and Neutrality and POV) that the article is a personal essay. Since JudgementSummary blocked attempts to remove the essay, it seemed like a conduct issue (i.e. for ANI). But could be wrong too. —wing gundam 11:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that the whole article is just an essay, would it not be prudent to nominate it for deletion? Apologies, I have only just realised it was nominated for deletion two weeks ago. – Richard BB 12:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Consensus was keep, and there's some legitimate information in the first few sections (#Art, #World machine, #Opposition). The talk page discussion took issue with what follows, and deemed it an essay. —wing gundam 13:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Remain baffled over repeated generalizations the subject isn't about math predictability esp. with regards Newtonian dynamids... Even the simplest search for definitions of "Clockwork Universe" gives

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clockwork+universe?r=66 An image of the universe as a clock wound up by God and ticking along with its gears governed by the laws of physics. This idea was very important in the Enlightenment, when scientists realized that Newton's laws of motion, including the law of universal gravitation, could explain the behavior of the solar system.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clockwork_universe A universe in which all of the actions of matter and energy operate as reactions according to predetermined rules set down by a creator, like the movements of a clock.

http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=clockwork%20universe http://www.rhymezone.com/r/rhyme.cgi?Word=clockwork_universe http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/clockwork_universe#word=clockwork%20universe http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clockwork+universe The view that the universe resembles a clock built by God and ticking along according to Newtonian mechanics

And repeated attempts to delete the entire thing... twice by Wing gundam User Talk:wing gundam without comment is not a good thing in my opinion. Would be happy to discuss the content, which is well researched, amply documented, and well supported by the literature, but get only the most sweeping wholesale condemnations... HELP....JudgementSummary (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. At this stage nobody has recently done anything blockworthy as far as I can see, although if I went back far enough I'm sure I could block one or both of you for edit-warring if I chose to. What I'd prefer is for you each to start collaborating, rather than manouvering to get the other person blocked. This means neither of you is going to get entirely the version you want; you'll need to find a way to incorporate your opponent's thinking but make it acceptable to you (eg by rewording, by finding references etc). I recommend quick closure of this thread as most of the discussion here is simply further content dispute, nothing for admin action.

{{/adminhatoff}} For what its worth, I think the sections complained of are full of OR and read very unencyclopaedically. They are much too essay-like and speculative and are just written in the wrong 'voice'. Look, you've even dragged me into the content dispute! Get back there and work it out!! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Doubtful, I keep my nose clean, I do. But anyway, I'll try again. Though I've been slamming my head into this Talk for a quite while. My money says JudgementSummary will keep his essay there, as is, until he's blocked. Well. —wing gundam 18:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody owns articles, or any part of an article. You are at liberty to edit at will, and don't have to persuade JS to do anything when you can do it yourself. Don't just delete or revert, improve bit by bit and set yourself the challenge of making the improvements so good that even JS has to agree to leave them in place! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yessir Kim! —wing gundam 18:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Orhanghazi WP:OR and personal attacks

This user constantly misrepresents sourced material on a particular topic for the etymology of Malaysia and Melayu Kingdom. For Melayu Kingdom it is this edit: diff. In Malaysia article he gives a "reasoning" for his revert: diff: removed misleading info. The Tamil term 'Malai'+'Ur' is originated from an 11th century inscription in Brihadeeswarar Temple. The existence of other variants of 'Malay' predates this inscription. as if this temple had a language itself, which was the source of the Tamil words, an original research, not sourcable. The rest of his revert regarding an etymology of Melayu through Sanskrit is OR as well, misrepresentation of sources, as explained at the talkpage of Malaysia by me: Talk:Malaysia#misinterpretation_of_sources. User:Orhanghazi is not interested in presenting sources as they are or give proper explanations at talk pages as demonstrated here, instead wants to cleanse Tamil heritage of Malaysia through original research, also exemplified by his ultra Malay-nationalistic reaction regarding my warning defaming me as supremacist: diff -- Dravidian  Hero  12:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

That supremacist comment is a borderline mild PA but nothing actionable. The rest is a content dispute. There's nothing to be done here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider also the level of editing behaviour User:Orhanghazi displays at Mahathir Mohamad history, possibly using multiple accounts, including IP User:60.52.112.227 and one purpose account User:The_Auditor_In_Chief at the same time during an edit war. -- Dravidian  Hero  14:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• WP:SPI is this way if you want to make that particular case. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User:NeverGetWhatYouBargainedFor

The User User:NeverGetWhatYouBargainedFor is continually making disruptive edits on various pages such as Awake and Breathe (album), B*Witched (album) and Destination (Ronan Keating album). This user has many warnings on their user talk page but continues to make disruptive edits to pages. I have reverted a number of these edits. The information they are providing has no source and does not belong where they have placed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.148.245 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't see any intent of disruption by this user. Add some {{needs citation}} tags and it should be OK unless this persists. Zaminamina (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible sock of User:KirkleyHigh. Looks like someone beat me to SPI. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing other people's comments

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

---

IP editor editing my comments [235][236] after being warned in an edit comment [237] and a userpage warning[238]

Given the lighthearted nature of the previous conversation (him making a not-really-serious comment about wikihounding[239] and comparing me to Hamlet's mother[240], me jokingly calling him a drama seeker while implying that the entire discussion is tendentious editing[241]), I really wouldn't want to see anything harsher than a gentle warning about not editing other people's comments after they ask you not to do that. BTW, If using bold emphasis really bothers him, I have no problem with removing the bolding if he asks me to instead of editing my comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've dropped a note on their talk page. An optimist on the run!   12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! You can mark this one as resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Francesca Hogi

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

 – Closed for good now.  Sandstein  20:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

can someone do something about the repeated closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi? Frietjes (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the non-admin closure by an unregistered user. Someone should tell the IP that he is wrong. A redirect is tantamount to deletion, but I don't think the outcome is a clear delete. Chutznik (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Return to David Hedlund

Less than a week ago, I requested assistance in dealing with David Hedlund (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of excessive unattributed copy-paste between articles. The problem extends to copying from outside wikipedia, as well. Another editors has noted copyright violations. After blanking the user talk page notices, one copyvio was restored. Further examination reveals an unmitigated pattern of copy-paste.

Alcohols in alcoholic beverages (which I will likely flag for speedy deletion, but my examination is not over) is rife with passages that can be traced to other works:

"poisoning due to" cached prior to article creation
"as four milliliters" cited, but pasted
"No epidemiologic studies" cite, but pasted
"unhealthy levels" [242]*
"absorption of 4A" [243]*

*also appears in Applejack (beverage) and Fractional freezing

Production of alcoholic beverages has been copied from Trappist beer, Alcoholic beverage, Alcohol industry, and possibly more. I still have barely scratched the surface.Novangelis (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today I tagged David for two copy and paste violations [244] [245] both of which were cited, but directly cut from the original sources. After informing him of the copyright violations I explained to him the reasons we needed to avoid cut and paste from journal articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As an aside the user also refuses to provide edit summaries in his edits, and many of them can come across individually as vandalism on a quick glance due to deletion of information. In addition the editor seems a bit spammy in pushing their views around Wikipedia. While they have now stopped (for now) posting inappropriate hatnotes (like this one.) I'm also starting to get a little concerned that they are pushing an anti-alcohol agenda throughout the project. Canterbury Tail talk 20:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not an anti-alcohol agenda, I'm trying to educate people that there are different alcohols in alcoholic beverages but that is explained on the Alcoholic beverage article now. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not know when I was doing wrong of my nearly 4000 edits so Its not weird if some problem have been encountered. However, I do not copy-paste that much any more and I add edit summaries most of the time now. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

to bring a second voice into the conversation regarding David's editing style and agenda, here is an example. On January 20, David placed this picture on 62 individual pages (First edit, last edit) with subjects ranging from alcohol related topics such as "Alcoholics Anonymous," "neonatal withdraw," "French paradox," to substances that didn't even appear in the study, "Salvia divinorum," and "Legal status of salvia divinorum," among others with the exact same subheading "Results of the ISCD 2010 study ranking the levels of damage caused by drugs, in the opinion of drug-harm experts. When harm to self and others is summed, alcohol was the most harmful of all drugs considered, scoring 72%" regardless of what page he was pasting the file on. This example is characteristic of his editing style.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that study suits in most of the articles that it is added to (which was quite many). I agree that it didn't suit in the examples above. --David Hedlund (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, the study didn't suit most of the articles and has since been removed from a majority of them, secondly your commentary specifically mentioned the dangers of alcohol, even though it wasn't the only thing demonstrated by that picture, and was added to articles such as the legal status of Salvia Divinorum among other articles which didn't have anything to do with alcohol or with the study. A specific message was being broadcast, and that message wasn't related to the content within the articles.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Have also encountered some difficulties. They added this

This page is about the recreational drug ethanol (ethyl alcohol, known as "alcohol") dominated in alcoholic beverages. For alcohol family content, see alcohols in alcoholic beverages.

to 38 articles such as here [246]. It appears to be an attempt to promote an article they had just created.

And what is "alcohol family content" This term occurs zero times on google books and zero times in google scholar"

They also expanded a template on a few dozen more [247].

No templates are expanded now. I was informed how to use "Psychoactive substance use |state=expanded" as mentioned stated in the template. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Combine this with plagiarism such as here [248] which is from this source word for word [249] and this user is creating a fairly large mess for others to clean up. The response "I do not copy-paste that much any more" is not reassuring. I would support at least a topic ban.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop copy-paste for good. I will take a break for a week to think about the current situation and learn to work in new ways. Please do not ban me meanwhile. --David Hedlund (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The sheer extent of copy-paste is astounding. I missed another copyvio notification that occurred in the five days since the editor undid three edits and declared "problem solved". If I look at any edit of more than a few hundred characters, I find copied material such as in this one which has text copied from here and here (and I haven't examined every sentence). As I keep digging, it gets worse, and the fact that it persisted past numerous warnings suggests that mild measures are unlikely to stop the damage.Novangelis (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes basically someone needs to go through ever edit they have made and revert them. It is a little complicated as many of their edits evolved the moving of text from one page to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban is unlikely to be effective. As this edit shows, copying was not restricted to alcohol-related articles.Novangelis (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I just tagged Django Software Foundation for a speedy deletion due to copyright infringement. But User:Novangelis is right, the entire page was a straight cut and paste from the foundations main website.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Before we start implementing blocks or topic ban's I would like to propose something. Right now we have established that David's editing style is problematic. What I don't see is evidence that they ignore warnings when placed on their page. Going through the history of their talk page I see a huge amount of warnings, but they evolve. Additionally David isn't edit waring over their edits, and in fact frequently lets reversions stand. So I am saying that we are faced with one of two different problems, each of which have different solutions

1. David is a bad editor who ignores community input. This can be proven if we lay out differences demonstrating that David ignores warnings when placed on their page (the copyright vio's that I left on their page were for edits done in the past so they may have already changed their behavior but I am not sure). If this can be proven then I think that sanctions are necessary.
2. David is an enthusiastic editor who has developed several "speed editing" tricks which, while infuriating to clean up, demonstrates an enthusiasm for the project. Mistakes were made out of ignorance of wikipedia policies and they learn and correct problems when given a warning. Unfortunately due to their style, once a problem has been caught they have already repeated the mistake hundreds of times. David isn't demonstrating a lack of concern for community standards, he just hasn't been given the chance. This again will be proven due to differences. If we can show that once David gets a warning they change their style I think we would only need to coach them on wikipedia policies and we would have developed an enthusiastic new editor who will be an asset to the project.

Now I am not sure which one applies, and today I don't have the time to go through the edits, but I think this should be taken into consideration before we apply any sanctions.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I posted to his page a copyright warning,[250] and he then followed up the conversation on my talk page,[251] where he seemed to think that it was okay to copy and paste if the source allows you to do so but I explained that this is not appropriate for building an encyclopedia and we must summarise in our own words regardless etc. Only a couple of days later and he is doing the same again, after I have warned him, copying and pasting into articles and getting warned for it by other editors.[252] He again violated copyright despite warnings from myself and others on toulene toxicity[253] and on the anxiolytic article.[254] He even went as far as to begin an edit war over his copyrighted material,[255] on the anxiolytic article reverting an editor even though this editor had taken the time to explain why adding copyrighted material is wrong.[256] I do not think that he has been editing in WP:GOODFAITH at all and in fact he has been a WP:DISRUPTIVE editor. It is possible that he will change his ways and become a good editor in the future but at the moment he is ignoring the community and is causing an enormous amount of damage to the project. Many of the people issuing warnings are probably unaware of the huge amount of warnings this editor has been receiving for not using edit summaries, copyright violations as he routinely blanks his talk page.[257],[258],[259],[260],[261]--MrADHD | T@1k? 16:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

David Hedlund The Talk page says that you can remove its content. And no, it's not encouraging to only see warnings on the talk page when most of the earlier job have been in good faith. --David Hedlund (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the above, it does appear that David did insert copyrighted material [262] [263] after MrADHD had a discussion with David about that problem. Although I would resist the characterization that he was edit waring, because after he reverted the edit and reinstated the copyrighted material, it appears that he tried to correct the copyright problems according to the information I had given him on his talk page.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. I think that it would be of benefit to get a further response(s) from David Hedlund to see his thoughts on the problems being raised here. It may be the case that a (indef) block can be avoided here - perhaps he is a good faithed editor who was just over-enthusiastic newbie?--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I informed David that we are interested in hearing from him. He has taken a week long wikibreak so I don't know if we will hear from him anytime soon.

David Hedlund: As pointed out by MrADHD; I am a over-enthusiastic newbie who made a mess. However, my purpose have only been to help Wikipedia but I know realize that I have to read trough lots of documents like Wikipedia:Tutorial, particularly Wikipedia:Copyright.

I am glad that Coffeepusher have been a humble supporter to me, perhaps you other guys could learn from him. In the end you only loose contributors by being aggressive. When you are trying to learn or have a feasible discussion it's not nice to get pessimistic responses like "And?" or "then I am going to be very angry.", only being accused but ignored by certain positive factors, or nearly being personal attacked. You know who you are. Remember that you have a social responsibility for the Wikipedia project if you want to get new contributors like me to have patient to get a good editor. This is like a new practice place where I'm trying to learn to write encyclopedic text, it's not my working place.

I have some important questions that I would appreciate if you could answer to me:

1. My native language is Swedish by the way, so the copy-paste method was used to save time and typo correction from other people. Is it possible to select your native language at your account preferences? That could help people to figure out why language barriers show up. I am not interested to set "Internationalisation" to Svenska, are there other ways to solve this?
2. I cannot find anything about the copy-paste problem is not highlighted in Wikipedia:Tutorial and I think it should be mentioned more clearly in Wikipedia:Copyright. This apparently occurs more often in the english articles from users with non-native english like me which I also think should be mentioned.
3. Who should I contact if I have support questions?
4. Where should I put text or ideas for reviews before I use them for articles if I'm uncertain if it would violate copyright for instance. This is particular important if I might say have of interest to add a new template to dozens of articles.
5. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words.

I've seen plenty of quotes at wikipedia. Example:

To quote the British National Formulary: "Alcohol is a poor hypnotic because its diuretic action interferes with sleep during the latter part of the night. Alcohol also disturbs sleep patterns, and so can worsen sleep disorders."

Are the limit of what's ok to quote determined by number of words or characters or something else?

I hope my ~4000 contributions have been more useful than of trouble, otherwise the Wikipedia platform are still to weak to prevent people from doing so.

--David Hedlund (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok David. I will attempt to answer some of your questions:

1. no idea, I only speak English and Advanced English Profanity.
2. The copyright articles clearly state that you can copy the ideas but not the form. While this is clear for a native speaker, we can discuss later how to make this clearer if you think there is a problem with non-native speakers.
3. If you are not sure you can go to WP:New contributors' help page at the bottom there are instructions to place a "help me" tag on your talk page if you need assistance on something. You can also go to the WP:MENTOR page and request that another editor mentor you through your journey as a wikipedian
4. You can place the question on talk pages or if you like you can create a sandbox on your page and have your mentor look it over before you post.
5. Again you can copy the ideas, but not the form. Short quotes are ok, long quotes are ok as long as they follow WP:WEIGHT guidelines, the problem was that you weren't indicating what was a direct quote and what wasn't using quotation marks. When we see a chunk of text, with a citation, yet no quotes that indicated that the text is a paraphrase. When that same text is an exact replication of the original text, it is a copyright violation. as a rule of thumb try not to quote unless it is imperative that the form remains the same, in which case you indicate that you have copied the text using quotation marks.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:HELPDESK would also be helpful to you, David. As Coffeepusher has suggested, seeking a mentor would be very useful. Although he is rather busy now, I suggest User:Worm That Turned, who is an admin and on the Arbitration Committee, or possibly User:Ryan Jessey as editors to seek out for mentorship help. To other option would to contact User:Moonriddengirl, I would consider her as an expert in copyright matters on wikipedia due to her work with copyright violation investigations on wiki. Blackmane (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Note: The above described "break for a week" has ended in less than half a week.Novangelis (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

David Hedlund: Yes, I have read some of Wikipedias polices and had many questions answered from Coffepusher. I'm trying to clean up after me. View my History if you doubt my new contributions. --David Hedlund (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The attempted cleanup is trivial. A few words are changed, such as "active" to "psychoactive", but the transformation is only to a close paraphrasing. I have initiated an AfD discussion for Alcohols in alcoholic beverages to address the specific article.Novangelis (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Bob K31416 and User:Danjel violate Wikipedia:Etiquette etc

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.

---

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:IZAK and WP:POLEMIC, where I have been requested to file the following, as I now reluctantly do having wanted to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND, as previously noted on my talk page:

In contravention of the usual and required policies of Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:Civility; Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and following my considered outside opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Outside view by IZAK, here is a list of recent discussions that relate to me where at no point was I ever informed about them by the parties who commenced the discussions, primarily by User User:Danjel backed by User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs). Some of them were quite serious and had I known about them in a timely fashion I would have taken the time and effort to respond:hranevl reastee l [ [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK]]. (Fortunately I did manage to comment after a user not connected to the compliant brought it to my attention. The SPI "investigation" ended quickly and was also quickly deleted without any action taken and in effect rendering the spamming of a link to it on other forums that in effect rendered anything to do with that moot.)

1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view.
2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#IZAK's view criticism of children's account.
3. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Epeefleche#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK.
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IZAK

Per WP:WIKIQUETTE, when commencing a discussion about another user, be it on any talk page and certainly on an official forum, and definitely when making serious allegations against that user, it is not just common decency but almost required to inform the user concerned or even any other interested parties. See for example Category:User warning templates, such as: Template {{ANI-notice}}: "Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you."; or Template {{SPIusernotice}}: "A user has stated concerns that you may be misusing multiple accounts... Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIusernotice for evidence..." and others like this.

While User Bob K31416 (talk · contribs) has had things to say about me lately, yet he has:

1. Been suspected of sockpuppetry WP:SPI himself: User talk:Bob K31416#Sockpuppetry case; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bob K31416/Archive.
2. Been criticized for accusing an established user of being a sockpuppet: User talk:Bob K31416#SlimVirgin that violates WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
3. Accused an established user applying for adminship of being a sockpuppet User talk:Bob K31416#unsupported allegations in a request for admin; Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/History2007#Oppose in violation of WP:AGF and WP:EQ.
4. Forgets that Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Constant focus on toughening WP policies, thereby making user contributions more difficult, and thus reducing the ability of new users to join (a constant lament at the present of the WP Foundation) and is takes his causes to Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) even coming up with an idea for a "WP Commission" that would have the "final veto" on policy (even as he freely edits away constantly in areas of WP:POLICY) that flies in the face of what WP is all about about which he is reminded and that was rejected: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 85#Policy commission, as concluded by User Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs): "At the end of the day, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I think we are in danger of thinking of wikipedia politically in terms of policies rather than focusing on what is most important, encyclopedic content. In fact if many on here cut the bureacratic/governor pretense and wrote articles instead the site would be massively better off.. And if much of the time spent discussing policies and wiki politics instead went into actual development planning and how to feasibly greatly improve overall content we would start meeting our real objectives...♦ Dr. Blofeld" [264].
5. Wikipedia founder User Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) disagrees with his "off-wiki" obsession: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 125#Consensus and off-wiki canvassing: "I don't think it's a serious issue. I don't like the term 'canvassing', even on-wiki. I think it's more often used by people who want to shut down an open dialogue than people who have a righteous cause for concern. Another word for 'canvassing' is "engaging more people in the discussion" - it's open to all sides. The idea that it's bad to go out and recruit editors when you see a problem in Wikipedia is problematic. That isn't to say that some kinds of approaches to that aren't annoying - they are - but in general, this paranoia about it is not justified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [265] and "I don't disagree with it (much) as written, but I think people tend to overstate the likelihood or importance of it, and tend to underestimate how often the real problem is people screaming 'canvassing' to prevent people from seeking outside voices. Many things on Wikipedia would benefit from more participation, more eyeballs, and the bias against recruitment means that decisions are made in obscure corners without relevant people being properly notified. This may suit the interests of a group that has a majority in that little corner, but knows that they are in the extreme minority in the broader community or world. But it doesn't suit the interests of Wikipedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)" [266].

See also related:

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Violation of WP:NOSHARE
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Role account used by User:Danjel the latter an extension of
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Short term block proposal:User:Danjel

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Both users have been informed [267], [268]. IZAK (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Gee, if only there was a place where editors could go to deal with WP:ETIQUETTE problems. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, read the whole megila it's only the tip...IZAK (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. I commented on the previous ANI, it does seem like you're forum shopping a bit here. Anyway, I'm not sure how Jimbo's comments support your viewpoints at all, and I also don't see an issue with a user who wants tougher policies. The comments about false sock allegations are definitely valid here, that I will admit - but that point also reflects that, just because someone's been accused of socking, doesn't mean they have - so why you reference a SPI that found nothing is beyond me. Your wikilawyering appears to have driven Danjel away (in addition to some personal reasons that, combined, you gleefully tried to gravedance on, with your ANI thread about his retirement). In addition, I see no need why he should need to notify you about specific threads at an RfC where you could reasonably have been expected to be watching - it is, after all, involving you, and you had contributed the day before. I'm not claiming Danjel and Bob are completely flawless and innocent: they're not. But you're no better. Lukeno94 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• After reading IZAK's message, I don't see that there is anything for me to respond to. FWIW, I think it's a very strange message to post here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• IZAK - As someone who has largely taken the same side as you in this issue, I just see nothing actionable. No body is perfect and that's what you've basically outlined. While I'd love to see Danjel trouted for his disruptive behavior lately, bringing back to back ANI threads against each other isn't going to settle the matter. The smart thing to do is be patience and the better person and let your opponent make an ass out of themselves without your help. Bob just hasn't done anything worth an ANI thread and I think you need to quit bringing him here. And Danjel's has been discussed plenty of times lately, there is nothing new to discuss. I agree with Bob that this is a strange message.--v/r - TP 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support closing thread as nonactionable, which raises the question why it was brought here in the first place. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• The only thing actionable is a trout or warning for IZAK for being a bit disruptive and doing a bit of gravedancing, really. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I find it incorrect calling "gravedancing" the most current dispute, seen just a couple sections above. Also, calling "disruptive" a person who tries to defend themselves against others' accusations is ..er.. disruptive? He was not the one who stirred the shit. And not even a trout's bladder for the opposite side? - Altenmann >t 03:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• They're as bad as each other, which I said earlier in this thread. This is the second ANI in just a couple of days opened by IZAK, both are which are disruptive as it's clear that nothing was actionable in either (the first was a "misuse of retirement template"), technically, this is defending themselves against other users defending themselves against IZAK's previous ANI. The previous dispute was gravedancing, and it's had the effect of forcing danjel to edit more, when they clearly no longer wanted to. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, now that we've heard out your "grievances", it's time to delete it from your talkpage. I'll notify you that I've responded here, because you might get upset if I don't. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I definitely agree that Danjel's made some rather apalling poor choices, probably the most blatant being the Epeefleche RFC. But both his user and talk pages say he's retired, so I think we should assume the best and take him at his word. If he comes back or sockpuppets, then there's definitely issues that can be raised and dealt with, but if he wants to retire we should let it be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You're following an old link. You were very clearly looking for Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Danjel.27s_misuse_of_active_versus_retired_status_etc, not this thread. Your tangential comment above, combined with IZAK's near-admission that he engages in offwiki canvassing, exemplifies how I made some "apalling poor choices" in who to criticise. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

This needs an action

I've restored this from the archive (a) because IZAK hasn't come online to respond since posting the above (and he might want to, or he might feel even more aggrieved); and (b) the WP:POLEMIC still needs to be removed from User talk:IZAK. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a totally inappropriate attempt to NAC this by User:Calton (diff). My retirement and the fact that it doesn't matter, was dealt with in a previous ANI thread. There is NO policy that says that I can't edit while retired. However, there is a policy that says that users shouldn't have pages dedicated to attacking other users in their userspace (WP:POLEMIC), and that needs to be dealt with. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

diff Leaving aside the issue of refactoring someone else's talk comments (i.e., removing my point above), OK, fine. I'm unretired as if it should matter. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• You're right, action needs to be taken. I think your re-opening this is probably more harassment then you know. I fail to see WP:POLEMIC in IZAK's clearly-linked responses to issues raised against them on their own talkpage. Now I'm not sure why you were not indeffed ... action wasn't taken against you before (in part) because of your "retirement" - so now you're unretired we can proceed? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

From WP:POLEMIC: "Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed." Clearly you're not interested in throwing anything but oil on this fire, but, from our previous interactions, what should I expect? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry? I'm not aware of our "previous interactions", and your suggestion that I'm merely "throwing oil on the fire" is particularly offensive. Stop pointing fingers and review a) your reasons behind this series of actions, and b) your reason for loudly requesting "action" - does it benefit you, or the project? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to reopen the whole thread, can you at least show us what exactly you want deleted from IZAK's talk page? Is it the entirety of the 'List of recent discussions concerning me where I was not informed' and 'People who live in glass houses' subthreads or what? Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Oi. Sure. Sorry, it seems blinking obvious that I should have done that.

Essentially, it's that content which IZAK has copied & pasted above.

• User_talk:IZAK#People_who_live_in_glass_houses
• User_talk:IZAK#List_of_recent_discussions_concerning_me_where_I_was_not_informed
• User_talk:IZAK#No_good_deed_goes_unpunished (the bizarre transclusion of my talkpage is what irks me most in this section)

I raised the issue with IZAK at User_talk:IZAK#WP:POLEMIC. Once I had raised it at his talkpage, IZAK launched Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Danjel.27s_misuse_of_active_versus_retired_status_etc, and then his polemic was discussed at [[269]] (which was initially put in as a subsection of IZAK's thread; not entirely sure how it ended up at Level 2 itself). Most of it is problematic, because it is a list of flaws ("negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems...", from WP:POLEMIC) of other users that has now been aired publicly, and widely rubbished, and so should be deleted ("[removed, blanked] once no longer needed", also from the policy). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would support deletion of the two subthreads I mentioned since they are basically the same thing as IZAK posted here and don't seem to be directed at anyone in particular so don't see the point there. I don't think I'd support removal of the no good deed thread since it was started by someone else and while they didn't have to reply their comments don't seem that unresonable in reply. I would support removal of the transclusion, that just confuses matters and is unfair to you. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support the deletion of the purely polemical stuff, specifically of User_talk:IZAK#People_who_live_in_glass_houses (that appears to not even be a response to a message but just a polemical complaint), and then a speedy close for this. Cavarrone (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, "polemic" is today's secret word. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course, IZAK wasn't notified of this... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Cavarrone (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He hasn't edited since Feb. 21 ([270]) so, diff..? Are we now required to repeatedly invite people back to threads that they themselves started? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As this was returned to the page after it was archived, I'd say at least a polite notice would be prudent. Not everyone continually watches this page after the section they're involved in gets archived. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion no action is required or would be justified. I've just read through all this thread and its blue links and I am appalled at the waste of time and energy. None of the protagonists comes out of this with the remotest credit. For goodness sake, if you think the other person is behaving badly then do the grown up thing and ignore him. All this thread is doing is to shine a harsh light on your respective poor editing styles. Please, get back to editing articles. I implore the next admin who agrees with me (as a NAC has already been overturned) to close this thread. If the next admin disagrees then by all means propose or enact a remedy. But either way can we now please get this thread to sleep? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

DFTT.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
IZAK is a very problematic user who has been subject of multiple final warnings in the past. He has also been subject of an ArbCom decision where he was convicted of violating multiple policies. He is in need of a long-term block, mentoring, and a civility probation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.58.251 (talk) 00:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/Institute-of-Krav-Maga-UK

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

---

Could someone more familiar with the grab-bag of problems here (UAA, COI, history merges) have a look at this one? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a UAA report for using a promotional username. Zaminamina (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've now notified the user about this discussion and the username issue. De728631 (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

User page blanked per WP:FAKEARTICLE. GiantSnowman 17:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Accusations of racism

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 have recently been accused, without any evidence, of being a closet racist, by User:HACKER HEADSHOT ([271]). In the diff I just linked to, you can see that he has also falsely accused me of personal attacks (presumably on his talk page). The root of this affair comes from the edit history of the article Chess, where I undid his edits twice, explaining my reasoning at [272]. In two of his edit summaries, he called me a racist and Indophobic. After each of these two accusations, I left a message on his talk page, but he nevertheless went to my talk page, and kept his accusations up (as shown in the first diff I have placed here with this edit). The editor's behaviour is a contravention of WP:WIAPA. Toccata quarta (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Administrators,

I am new to this page. User: Toccata quarta has accussed ME of accussing S/HE OF being racist here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations_of_racism

This is wholly false. This started with User: Toccata quarta vandelising the chess article after I added chess is a board game "of Indian origin" and introduced the notion of "Grandmaster" by early on describing current World Champion, V. Anand, as a Grandmaster and linking "Grandmaster" to the Grandmaster page.

This is all I included and have contributed to Wiki, to which User: Toccata quarta reverted my post saying that "Modern chess is different from Indian chess" and that "Grandmaster is unnesscary".

Ofcourse, I never said anything about Indian chess and modern chess, only saying chess originates from India in the introduction.

To which I replied:

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

I never accused User: Toccata quarta of being racist but simply asked if he has a biased view in editing the chess article with my specific use of question marks after asking him questions about his bias.

User: Toccata quarta then taunts me to not attack him when I simply ASKED (NOT ACCUSED) the question of whether he was racist and has a biased view in editing the page as can be seen with User: Toccata quarta's comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HACKER_HEADSHOT

Now I reply with further questions about the absurdity of what User: Toccata quarta has written. He writes, in brief, "I edit article about India therefore I am not racist".

To which I rationally respond:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Toccata_quarta#Personal_and_Racial_Attacks

Please note, I do NOT accuse him at all of being a "closet racist" but simply make the obious statement that defines closet racists - they have friends of all colors/races.

How is this a personal attack by me?

ESPECIALLY since he gloats and taunts me that he has reported me to YOU with this further heated comment on my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HACKER_HEADSHOT

(look under "February 2013")

I am worried User: Toccata quarta will continue to flame people if User: Toccata quarta is not given a warming about his repeated use of deleting posts unjustly and provoking other users into fights like this.

Thank you for your service Administrators.

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HACKER HEADSHOT (talk • contribs) 21:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"I never accused User: Toccata quarta of being racist"

Yes you did—here and here. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

HACKER HEADSHOT, in your edit summary, you explicitly said, "Please keep your racism at bay." That is directly accusing Toccata quarta of being racist. Are you willing to withdraw that statement? Second, don't try to play the whole "I just made a factual statement" game. That was simply a slightly indirect way of accusing Tq of being a closet racist. Wikipedians are very familiar with this type of attack, and you can't just lawyer your way around it. Your the one who made this about race, and who started attacking the other person. You need to immediately stop or you will be blocked. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you please stop hijacking my posts and re-editing to defame me? That is not correct.

Both those instances ask whether you have a premeditated bias in responding to my edits, by simply ASKING , NOT ACCUSSING, you of racist and Indophobic views.

Racist views are way you could have a bias in editing the Chess article especially given the rich Indian history of Chess, but this was ONLY asked with QUESTION MARKS.

NEVER, in both those instances, or any other for that matter, did I say you ARE racist and INDOPHOBIC.

I am not happy with these charges of libel and defamtion from User: Toccata quarta, especially given User: Toccata quarta's history of editing articles in a very bias manner.

HACKER HEADSHOT (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

"User: Toccata quarta's history of editing articles in a very bias manner."

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over a year and have edited en.wikipedia.org over 6,000 times. Although I have been involved in some disputes, this is probably the first time that anyone has accused me of "editing articles in a very bias[ed] manner." You have made another false statement. Toccata quarta (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

HACKERHEADSHOT, you are very rapidly approaching a block. You may not call someone a racist. Period. Okay, if it were blatantly obvious to all observers, maybe...but generally, no. Tocatta quarta's edits are not racist. Disagreeing with you adding extra details is not racism--it's a content dispute. If you are unable to edit without seeing racism in this type of dispute, then Wikipedia may not be for you. The best thing for you to do right now is to withdraw your claims...but if you don't want to do that, the next best thing for you to do is to temporarily walk away. Then, come back to the article calmly, and start discussing the matter on the talk page without lobbing personal attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

After a thorough look at this, I say that these are some totally unwarranted claims of racism and attacks.

As of this version of the chess article, there was (and still is) a section on the predecessors of the game that contains a sentence "Chess is believed to have originated in northwest India during the Gupta empire [4 references]." So while I don't see a reason for the immediate revert by Toccata quarta that removed the Indian origin from the lead, your edit summary, Hacker Headshot, (""Please keep your racism at bay.") was totally uncalled for and it did directly address Toccata. Apart from re-adding the disputed content to the article with an even more offensive edit summary [273], you also later added a cynical comment at Toccata's user talk page that was indirectly calling him a closet racist. This is absolutely not how Wikipedia works. Not everyone who disagrees with your edits is automatically an indophobic racist vandal; in fact, Toccata's reverts were not vandalism at all.

You have been here long enough to know that Wikipedia is built on finding consensus and discussing possible disagreements – an option that you have so far not taken up. Hacker Headshot, I would strongly advise you to read WP:Civil and WP:Edit warring. I have now blocked you for 31 hours for this 4th revert in the chess article. De728631 (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Guy Macon and Anon editor

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

---

Could someone look at the issue(s) between Guy Macon (talk · contribs) and 76.189.111.199 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) please - see their recent contributions, #Editing other people's comments above and this message on my talk page. There's obviously some bad friction between these users here, but I'm just too tired to look at it tonight. Thanks. An optimist on the run!   23:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just looking now and I am not seeing "harrassing comments" from Guy.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The IP is wrong here, although he's normally a pretty intelligent fellow. Let this issue drop completely by both sides and any external parties. If the IP refactors in the same way again, I'll leave him a note. Ryan Vesey 23:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan. I posted my reply to you but it disappeared. Hang on. Haha. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again. :P ... Ryan, this issue is not about the refactoring (me removing the bolding from an insulting message Guy posted to me); that was settled this morning by Optimist. This issue is about Guy coming to my talk page to post his condescending messages after the issue had already been settled with me by Optimist. It amazed me that even though an admin had already handled the issue, Guy chose to come to my page anyway and lecture me. But I just told him the matter was over and politely asked him not to post on my talk page again. I thought that would finally end it. But he ignored my request and came back yet again and posted another condescending message via his edit summary. That is harassment. In any case, my message to Optimist sums up the current issue. Please read it so you will understand why I wrote the admin that handled the AN/I. OK, "save page" again. Haha. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, other than editing my comments, none of the IP editor's comments prior to him being warned requires any action beyond my possibly responding with a comment of my own, and probably not even that. I interpreted everything he wrote before he started editing my comments as either polite disagreement or good-natured joking and was not at all offended. I have no comments about his behavior after being warned except to say that if I did do something wrong I want to know about it so that I can apologize and not do it again. I am going to WP:IAD now and let the matter drop unless someone needs me to answer a specific question. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Unbelievable... Guy Macon took me to AN/I for refactoring (removing his bolding) last night, yet he just just did it to me. There was no AN/I when I posted that. It didn't become an AN/I issue until over an hour later when Optimist brought it here. And by changing that heading, the two links to it in this thread were broken. And wikilinked headings are used all the time on user's talk pages, not to mention the help desk and many other discussion pages.... including this one. I reverted to the original heading. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the change to an AN/I heading was the most accurate but you never create a header on article talkpages using another editor's username. Discuss the contribution not the contributer.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That is incorrect. If the topic is related to the actions of a certain contributor, that contributor's username is a perfectly acceptable section title. If I created a section heading "User:Example" and said "Example is an idiot. He can't do anything right. I saw on his user page that he like's chicken wings. What kind of loser likes chicken wings?" That would be an inappropriate personal attack and that is what is referred to at WP:NPA. If I created a section heading that said "User:Example" and said "I'm concerned about the edits Example makes. He seems to use unreliable sources at times, and at other times he misrepresents them. I contacted him about this, and he blew me off. Can you take a look?" the section heading would be completely appropriate for the topic of the section. Ryan Vesey 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I misread the timeline. Thanks for correcting my error. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. We do not use the article talkpage to discuss editors. I am sorry but you will need to demonstrate that per policy as the guidelines clearly state to discuss the contributions and not the contributer. Creating a section within an articles talkpage with the header of another editor is NOT appropriate.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This was on a user talk page, not on an article talk page. Ryan Vesey 04:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the timeline was. That's irrelevant. I posted that message to Optimist, not here. Optimist is the one who started this thread, on his own, and linked to my post. And WP:HEADINGS applies to articles only. It is WP:TALKNEW that addresses headings on talk pages and discussion pages. So there was absolutely no reason to change it, no matter what the "timeline" was. And based on the circumstances of why we're here, it's perplexing that it wouldn't cross your mind that it might be a very bad idea to refactor one of my edits of all people, especially after your huge objection to my removing your bolding/shouting last night. So you refactor my edit after getting so upset at someone refactoring you, and you post on my talk page after the AN/I was settled this morning by and admin, and then again after I asked you nicely to stay away. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Boy, that wasn't a very smart decision on Guy Macon's side given the circumstances. That said, I still don't think any action should be taken at this point. Both Guy Macon and 76.189.111.199 should refrain from interacting with eachother except any interaction necessary for continued discussion on the Village Pump page. Ryan Vesey 02:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I support his decision to alter that title to remove his name. That was not appropriate of the IP user to begin with.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. What in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines allows Guy Macon to do so? The section headings information appears to apply more to article talk pages than user talk pages and even if you don't take that view, there were a number of reasons Guy Macon shouldn't have made the edit. Ryan Vesey 02:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Part of that was my mistake Ryan. I believed that the heaing was on an article talkpage, however I don't believe creating an entire section devoted to another editor on your own talkpage is still acceptable.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Re "What in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines allows Guy Macon to do so?", here is a direct quote (emphasis mine): "Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate..." Also note that I referenced the above in my edit comment.

You can argue that my choice was not appropriate, but please do not claim that, if appropriate, it is not allowed by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. It is. In fact, the guideline is clear: you own your own comments, but you do not own the section heading, even if you wrote it. Also note that we don't sign the heading, even if we place it above another editor's comments.

I would also note that when someone searches for my name on Wikipedia any place where my name is in the section heading goes to the top of the list. This seems appropriate in the case of a post to ANI, SPI, etc. -- those heavily read and any obviously false accusations are responded to -- but in the case of what is basically an internet flame posted to a user talk page -- which many people advise not responding to -- is there some overarching principle that makes replacing the name with neutral wording somehow harmful? I know that by choosing to use my real name on Wikipedia I chose to forgo the protection that our privacy and BLP policies give those who use a pseudonym, but why go out of the way to do something that I dislike and which has zero benefit to anyone? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, Guy uses a nuclear bomb to kill a fly, instead of a fly swatter. Who gives a shit about the damn header on someone's personal talk page? Pretty fucking "lame" (as someone else put it) to do that, especially when it's an admin's page. Did you ever think that if Optimist wanted the damn thing changed, he would've done it himself?? And everyone knows damn well that having a user's talk page header or discussion board header with a user's name is extremely commonplace. But like I said before, this is yet another ridiculous, irrelevant distraction. Guy whines about someone fucking with his italics so he can shout an insult, but he has no problem screwing around with someone else's edit on an admin's talk page. Makes total sense, right? Now, does anyone want to ask Guy why the hell he posted all that bullshit on my talk page after the AN/I issue was dead and buried? Or why he posted again after I asked him to stay off my talk page? Or why, after the AN/I was resolved, he was acting like a parent scolding a child, repeating: Are you going to comply with the rules? Are you going to comply? Who the hell does he think he is? And who in their right mind would even think to go and post crap like that on the talk page of the person you just reported, even though the incident was over? A rational editor would stay away from the person, not seek him out and reopen already-resolved matters. Right? He just cannot let things go. He could have 100 people tell him the same thing and he will not accept it, or at least he'll fight tooth and nail to reinterpret every policy and guideline cited by very experienced editors. Don't believe it? Well, read this thread and this thread and you'll see for yourself. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You can note in my comment above that I was aware of the section you referred to. I did mention that I felt the entire policy was directed towards non-userspace talk pages, but we can ignore that for now. One requirement is that a better header should be appropriate, I would argue that the header at the time was very much appropriate (even had your timeline not been off). The header was descriptive, not one sided, and there were no accessibility issues. It also stated that it is suggested that you discuss the matter with the editor who started the thread. This didn't occur, and if there ever was a situation where this should occur, this would be it. Ryan Vesey 04:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Madscientist, user names are used all the time on talk pages and I'm sure you know this. In any case, I have no problem not doing it. I don't really care one way or the other. It's just a distraction to the real issue here. You don't see the irony in what he did? He refactors the editor he was so pissed at for refactoring him just the night before. Hello! ;) Ryan, that's the only reason we're here... to keep Guy away from me. I had already moved on after Optimist settled the matter this morning with me. It was quick, simple, and friendly. Guy Macon is the one who made the choice to start interacting with me again... on my talk page. Is anyone going to have the guts to stand up to him and ask some obvious questions, such as "Why the hell did you go to the IP's talk page after the admin in the AN/I had already handled the matter?" Or "Why did you go back and post on his talk page again after he asked you nicely to stay away?" Or "Why did you repeatedly post the refactoring guidelines and insist that he tell you if he would comply, as if you're an administrator?" I'm sure you have other questions in mind. This is a black and white issue; no gray. The refactoring issue was already resolved. Guy Macon went out of his way to start trouble again by coming to my talk page again and again, and now I have his instigating/condescending comments on my talk page history, which is precisely what he wanted. Look at his second post (after he was asked not to post again); he strikes his previous comment, only to post his condescending comment as the edit summary instead.[274] And wants everyone here to believe that he's not aware of doing anything inappropriate. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry "IP" user. I don't know that. The edits you draw attention to have been exagerated and you are trading on bad faith by making false claims of harrasment. I am truly beginning to feel the best solution is to just block you from editing for misrepresenting the situation and attempting to place blame on another for defending themselves. Clearly your approach was to just tell Guy to stay off your page thinking it would win the argument. Problem is, there is no argument. I feel you should stay away from Guy as you are the one who seems to not undertand policy and have attempted to undermine Guy. He isn't in the wrong here from what I am seeing. He has justified his actions per policy without exageration. But that is just my 2 cents.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Amadscientist, false claims of harassment? Bullshit. I suggest you read WP:HARASS. It says that "trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment" and that the "policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user, such as repeated and unwanted correspondence or postings". Let's keep this simple. He went to AN/I over the silly italics, an admin took care of it with me, and the issue was done. And after that, Guy comes to my talk page and posts his condescending crap. And not once, but twice. Including after being asked nicely to stay off the page. That is harassment by policy and using common sense. --76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no black and white on Wikipedia. There's not benefit to Wikipedia in trying to sort out winners and losers. Yea, refactoring your title was lame, calling you Our resident IP drama seeker' was lame. But saying "he went out of his way" is lame too. Best just to move on. NE Ent 02:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry NE Ent, but his choosing to go to the talk page of the editor he just took to AN/I, after the matter was resolved, is indeed going out of your way. And if you honestly don't see that, or that there are definitely some black and white issues on Wikipedia, then you are definitely not someone I'd ever look to for any editing advice. Would it be OK for me to post an editor's home address and telephone number on numerous talk pages if the editor never posted that info themself? Is it OK for an editor to go around and completely blank dozens of articles? Can we post details of someone's death if we know they're still alive? Can I type an entire article on the English Wikipedia in French? Are any of those issues black and white? Or do you still insist that "There is no black and white on Wikipedia"? 76.189.111.199 (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, I got reported for removing Guy Macon's excessive bolding so he could shout an insult at me, which NE Ent acknowledged. But let's be serious; it was a bogus AN/I issue. Someone posts a childish, shitass comment and when his shouting gets removed, he whines and complains about it. Haha. And how's it handled? Pretty quickly, an admin came to my page and reprimanded me for removing Guy's precious italics. And not a word to the editor for his bullshit insult. Not a word. See NE Ent, that was black and white for that admin. I was wrong and the bully was right. Fine. Whatever. I accepted the laughable reprimand and moved on. So remember that everyone... you are perfectly welcome to hurl personal attacks at someone and put most of it in bold, and if your victim removes the bolding, he's a wikicriminal and the bully is the victor. Makes a lot of sense. And the admin said well, caps wouldn't be allowed but bolding is ok because it's for "emphasis"... lmao... not kidding![275] That is a perfect example of an admin acting like a wiki being instead of a human being. I wonder if I was the registered editor and Guy was the IP, how the admin would've handled it. ;) 76.189.111.199 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits or not of the rest of this case, you should be more careful with your language than you were in the above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not call other editors names like "bully", "childish", and "shitass". You are not a victim. Standard user warning templates warning you to not edit other people's comments are not insults. Emphasizing links to policies like WP:TPOC which you are ignoring is not "shouting", and it was Wikipedia that decided that WP:TPOC should be in ALL CAPS. An admin giving you a warning does not "settle" anything if you refuse to agree to stop editing other people's comments and instead call the warning a "laughable reprimand". The specific situations where deleting/editing someone else's talk page comments is allowed are listed at WP:TPOC. Even if another editor breaks a rule (including WP:SHOUT), you are not to edit or delete that person's comments except where WP:TPOC specifically says you can do so. Do you agree to follow that guideline? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. Guy Macon needs a time out. Seriously Guy Macon, you're going to mock the IP by posting the same crap as you did earlier? Does m:Dick mean anything to you? Ryan Vesey 05:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? You just called Guy a dick and you think he needs a time out? LOL! Guy, I see nothing you posted that appears to be taunting the IP user, but you could have just left it to the last post by The Bushranger. This is making it look like you are beating a dead horse to some.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? That meta page has never been more applicable. When this edit and edit summary is part of the issue posting this with the same edit summary and similar edit content should be out of the question. Hopefully Guy Macon is tired and not thinking straight, I know I'm a bit off at this point and I've had to seriously curb what I've wanted to write. But his last edit here was not one that an editor thinking rationally would make unless they were trying to be a dick. I mean really, his "Do you agree to follow that guideline?" bit is patronizing and completely rude. Ryan Vesey 05:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You ever wonder why that essay was deleted off Wikipedia Ryan? If you cannot remain civil here then perhaps your judgement needs to be questioned, respectfully.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Amadscienist apparently thinks it was perfectly appropriate for Guy Macon to come to my talk page after the AN/I was already resolved and post his mocking, condescending comments. And then to ignore my polite requests to drop the matter and not post on my talk page any more. I had been nothing but courteous through all the bullshit, but I will not be bullied. And if editors like Amadscientist don't have the balls to stand up to him and say "Why the fuck did you go to the IP's talk page after the dispute was settled?", then nothing else he says has any credibility with me. 76.189.111.199 (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If linking to a meta essay is an uncivil as I get around here, I'm pretty dang proud of my restraint, and I'm much more civil than many editors here. I find your sign off "respectfully", when you clearly don't mean it, to be, patronizing and at least as uncivil as linking to m:dick. Ryan Vesey 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a sign off. It means you should be questioned respectfully even if you have no respect yourself. And no Ryan...that is obviously NOT as uncivill as you get. You should be treated with respect. I just think you have completely lost sense of yourself for the moment.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly 76.189.111.199 has a battleground mentality and an overactive imagination. I support the IP editor being blocked for such. Whether that be for two or three days to indeff doesn't really matter, but clearly you need to be discouraged from further behavior of this sort.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Francesca Hogi revisited

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

 – moves reversed, protection applied, and editors blocked

could someone move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi old vote back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi, then move protect it and edit protect it? also, I think semi-protection for Francesca Hogi would be good for the near term given the recent activity (check the edit history of both the AfD and the article). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

and now it's been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesca Hogi (1st nomination) Frietjes (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The move has been dealt with by Fvasconcellos.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

yes, all is well again, thank you. Frietjes (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully, semi-protection will suffice for the article now that Senor Taichi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked. If not, feel free to drop me a line or re-file at WP:RFPP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attack on talk page

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

---

I'm really not sure what's going on here, but Darcy.hobba (talk · contribs) made a serious personal attack on my talk page. I warned him for vandalism a week ago. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Revdel'd and blocked as a vandalism-only account. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible vandalism by Drmies

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 honestly don't understand why Drmies did all this: [276], [277], [278], [279], [280]. There are many more edits like these. Okay, he thought that there were too many covers, too many videos, too many external links... But why remove everything including the link to the main version of the official video? There might have been too many external links, but Drmies removed all of of them, all the external links. This may be considered vandalism. (By the way, each and every one of them was perfectly okay.) He called official links spam: [281]. My only explanaition of what he did is that he wanted to show some people that they were not welcomed in Wikipedia. And after he removed everything, he tags the article as overly detailed: [282]. Is this a joke? --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And where were so-called "intricate details" and a "fan point of view" in this: [283], [284], [285]? I think if Drmies actually wanted to help make those articles better, he would have explained what problems he saw in the articles on their talk pages. I don't think a Wikipedia administrator should act like this. Considering that he is an admin and I'm absolutely honestly afraid to confront him, I think he overused his power. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Confusing page moves and deletions

I'm exceedingly confused as to what Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is up to with moving talkpage archivesuserspace pages around and deleting/undeleting them. I asked a while back what was up, but didn't get a useful answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he's just dumping everything from his own userspace. Perhaps with no intention of returning. Nothing, imo, to worry about. --regentspark (comment) 17:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The way I understand it, he's allowed to delete archives of his talk page (or anything else in his userspace) but not User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim itself. I don't see any need for admin actions here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

... unless he actually moves his usertalkpage to an archive, and then tries to have it deleted (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking again, that is what happened. He moved it, deleted the moved page, then recreated his user talk without the history. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I get the history of my talk and user page deleted too? Volunteer Marek 19:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Me, too, please? Bielle (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Holy fornication, Batman ... he's done it more than once! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Abuse of admin rights

As an admin, Deacon would know as well as anyone else that user talkpages cannot be deleted; period. It appears that based on the logs, he has moved the contents and then deleted the new subpage more than once. This is a clear violation of the trust that the community provided him. "Retired" or not, this is an offensive and improper situation (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Since some of you idle dramaqueens insist on drawing attention to this, I'm streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out. There is actually no policy that prevents me deleting my talkpage if I want to contrary to the assertion above (and per WP:DELTALK), but as it happens all but a fraction of my talk page is undeleteable due to its high number of edits and will remain available to view until I get a crat to delete it some time in the future. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of usertalkpage cannot be done by the editor themself, and you know that. Only in very rare circumstances will the usertalkpage be deleted upon retirement, and you also know that. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure why I'm commenting, since the damage is already done, but he's not just moving his old talk page and then deleting it (which, if determined to be a bad idea, could be reverted by another admin); he's moved most of his subpages (one at a time) to the same page, deleted it, then moved another pages to that page, and deleted it again. As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle. That's not "streamlining my pages to facilitate the process of getting out". There's no "vanishing" type rationale for doing this. I suppose it's too late to get upset about it as long as he's leaving soon and requesting a desysop, but if he's planning on staying, I stongly object. Didn't another admin do something like this a long time ago, causing a giant uproar? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

"As a result, the histories of all those pages is going to be impossible to disentangle." And that, of course, is why he has done it. Why doesn't someone with the power take away his tools immediately, before he makes any more messes that are advantageous to him, and are difficult, if not impossible, to clean up? He had proven he cannot be trusted. Bureaucrats, where are you? Bielle (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

They've got their own board ( Wikipedia:Bn#User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim ) but they can't do anything per constraints of policy. Can they be blocked, or would they be able to simply unblock themselves? NE Ent 01:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically, he could unblock himself. And seeing as he's already broken policy, I see no reason he wouldn't. Regardless, this could be construed as an emergency situation, in which case either per some policy I don't wish to bother finding or IAR an emergency desysopping can and should be performed. gwickwire^talk_editing 04:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Both WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#U1 (policy) and WP:User pages#Deletion of user pages (guideline) disallow speedy deletion of a user's main talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim has created a large WP:HISTMERGE at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion. No independent admin would have fulfilled its many deletions, G6 or otherwise. For convenience, these are the move logs relevant to the main user and user talk pages: [286], [287]. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I plan to challenge the deletion at WP:Deletion review, as no justification has been presented. Another relevant page is WP:Courtesy vanishing#Deletion of user talk pages (guideline), which includes the sentence, "User talk pages should never be moved to become user subpages to facilitate deletion." Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I looked at the logs of User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim after DoP's comment, "all but a fraction of my talk page is undeleteable due to its high number of edits". I found one remaining archive at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI (history, info), covering 2005–May 2012 (when it was move-archived). As DoP wrote, it is mostly EdwardsBot delivering WP:Wikipedia Signpost after late 2011. I'm not sure why DoP was unable to delete it, as its info page lists 3500 edits, and the bigdelete limit is at 5000, according to WP:Deletion process#Pages with many revisions. He did successfully delete User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive I through XX (my guess is cut and paste archives). Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Ive done some digging, there are 61 pages that have been combined in that one page, If an admin is interested in undeleting and restoring the individual pages I have some information that will be useful, and make it easier. Werieth (talk) 06:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Please can you post that information under the DRV to assist anyone contemplating undeleting this mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• its not something that is easily posted on wiki, nor should it be made public as it may violate a few foundation policies about releasing information on deleted content. If an admin wants to undelete please either drop a note on my talk page or email me. Werieth (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Deacon be blocked promptly to prevent any continuation of this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Yet with his admin-bit, if I remember right, he could just unblock himself.. gwickwire^talk_editing 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bureaucrats don't seem to have any interest in stopping this misuse of the admin tools. In fact, they are downright patronizing about the complaint. I don't get it. I am quite sure the rest of us, admin or not, wouldn't be allowed any such privilege. Bielle (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking oneself is grounds for an emergency desysop. --Rschen7754 19:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Contrary to apparent belief, bureaucrats are not allowed to punitively remove the admin flag. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

In what respect would it be punitive? The evidence here is that DofP is using his admin powers to do something he shouldn't be doing, the desysop would be to prevent him from continuing to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, only ArbCom is authorized to desysop people. --Rschen7754 05:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucrats idle. Should we notify Jimbo?

Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action, and it is clear that this is an emergenmcy situation (per gwickwire), perhaps we should inform Jimbo of the abuse? He might be able to do something. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably not going to pursue this, since (as I said above) the damage is done, and it appears he isn't going to stay active, and ArbCom is such a hassle. But if you want him desysopped, you're going to have to go to ArbCom. That is - literally - the only way to desysop someone against their will. Jimbo won't do it anymore, and Crats (even if they wanted to) are forbidden from involuntarily desysopping someone without direction from ArbCom. Whether ArbCom will desysop... or instead chastise/admonish/warn him... is an interesting question. I know what I'd do, not sure what they'll do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I think the best thing to do is to wait and see what happens in the next day or two. This will quite possibly resolve itself on its own. I note that he has not done this anymore, ever since this thread was started. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If this "resolves itself on its own" in the sense that "he does not do this anymore"... can I get the history of MY talk page and user page deleted? Why or why not? Volunteer Marek 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I meant "resolves itself" in the sense of "he requests a desysop and retires". It's unacceptable to me that he does this and stays active, but that doesn't appear to be the case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Since it appears that the bureaucrats are failing to take any action..." I've yet to see anyone in all of this illustrate what they would like the bureaucrats to do that we are actually allowed to do according to policy. I keep looking at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Removal of permissions and I see nothing relevant. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want someone desysopped, you have to go to ArbCom. Not commenting on whether a desysop is appropriate here. --Rschen7754 21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I must've read the policy wrong (trouting self now). Stewards can emergency desysop, as would be appropriate imo now. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

They have the power to, but they very rarely interfere with large wikis like enwiki and dewiki for such a relatively trivial matter like this. But if you don't believe me, m:SRP is thataway. --Rschen7754 05:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the current version of that policy in 2009 and I'm a bureaucrat-steward, so I might have an overly detailed perspective on the topic, but no, this isn't an emergency, under the GRU, CRAT, or ADMIN policies. An emergency is where someone is doing something that is very harmful or can't be undone easily and the person has shown an unwillingness to stop or is perceived to be likely to engage in very harmful or permanent actions if not stopped. If I perceive correctly, the subject's last actions were over 24 hours ago. They consisted of deleting user talk pages with less than 5,000 revisions. The subject's deletions were (and are) reversible, they do not impact the ability of other users to edit nor directly harm other users, and the subject has not "wheel warred" or otherwise indicated he is likely to perform very harmful or permanent actions. Additionally, while it appears his deletions are against policy, no one has even attempted to obtain a consensus to overturn them at WP:DRV. Therefore, they are not an emergency and are best dealt with by Arbcom (if Arbcom so chooses to take a case). It's further worth noting that under Arbcom's own emergency procedures Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Removal_of_permissions, this situation would be unlikely to be an emergency because the subject is not actively using (and has not for 24 hours) his advanced permissions in a harmful or destructive manner. MBisanz ^talk 06:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it the case then, that any admin can undo DofP's actions? DofP's deletions are a first action, the undo would be a second action, and a (theoretical) third action would be the forbidden wheel-warring, if I understand correctly. If that's true, then -- without concern for DofP's status -- why doesn't an uninvolved admin simply restore these pages (utilizing the help offered above) putting things back to the staus quo ante, then delete all the pages one by one from their original names (without the obfuscating move DofO utilized), except the user talk page, which can be courtesy blanked. Then, a block for DofP would seem to be in order for blatantly misusing his bit. He then would have the choice of unblocking himself, and being desysoped for it, or turning in his bit, which he really doesn't need anyway because he's going bye-bye.

The whole megillah does bring up a more general question, which is what to do when admins go off the deep end -- not that it happens that often; still, it would be nice to have policy which says that when the signs are that an admin is clearing the decks leave, he or she no longer needs the admin bit, because they no longer have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. The bit, after all, doesn't belong to them, it's been given so that they perform specific tasks in aid of the project. Once they turn away from that, the bit should be removed. It's silly to wait to "see what develops" when every indication -- including messages from DofP on his talk page -- are clear that this admin wants no part of the project anymore. That's fine, that's his perogative and his choice, but if so, there's no reason he needs the bit anymore. We should not leave it to the (obviously) departing admin to decide when to give it up, because his or her personal concerns are no longer congruent with those of the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I decided to start a DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 24. --Rschen7754 09:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I just closed the DRV. Seriously? Seven days of process wanking. over this? Just undo it already. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... I meant that because there was the option of going to DRV to undo the action, it wasn't an emergency. Not that we should race ahead and file a DRV. MBisanz ^talk 17:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts were to start a process to at least do something measured about the matter to pacify the people wanting a desysop, without an admin going in there and reverting everything and then having Deacon delete the pages again. I'm rather disappointed that my middle-of-the-road proposal was speedy closed. --Rschen7754 18:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Beyond My Ken, if the Deacon's actions could be reverted, and as there is a pretty unanimous consensus that these self-deletions are wrong, simply restore these pages and undo his actions. Cavarrone (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Floq is right here, the best thing to do is see how this flushes out, and clean up afterwards. There is no need to overreact. His actions are obviously out of policy but they aren't affecting any other user directly and can be easily undone. As Rschen points out, only Arb can strip the bit outside of an emergency. All this talk of emergency bit-stripping is very premature. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, if these actions are fine (which they might be), then when and if I put up the retired flag on my user page, can *I* get the history of the user page and talk page deleted? Volunteer Marek 17:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's well oiled and effective de-sysop process strikes again. It is quite ridiculous then most logical solution for blatant abuse of admin privileges is waiting and hoping that abuser is nice enough to do everyone favour of retiring voluntarily.--Staberinde (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As I've said elsewhere, this is a victimless "crime". His deletions may be out of process but this isn't the same as an abusive block, so I recommend we keep things in perspective. We have deletion review, which is the proper way to deal with this. As for retiring, that seems to be his objective and he has stated as much. This isn't normally a basis for desysoping someone, it is a reason to have a discussion, get a solution, and then if he were to interfere with that solution, you could entertain stronger action. No one seems concerned that we have a very long tenured editor, who has the admin bit, who is upset and leaving. That is a bigger issue than the small amount of work it would take to undelete his talk page via delete review. I'm not so worried about the temporary loss of access to his talk page. Everyone here knows that if deletion review says to undelete, it will be restored. Nothing is permanently broken. I'm more concerned about the human being who feels disenfranchised enough to leave. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It may very well be victimless. But then the question is - do regular editors get the same privilege when they retire or is this a right reserved for administrators? Accepting that he does indeed retire, there's two ways this could go. Either someone undoes all these deletions, or not. If not, then it should be clarified somewhere that this is something that *any* editor, admin or not, is allowed to request (since they cannot do it themselves) to have done.

Otherwise, there needs to be an explicit and obvious statement somewhere that the right to obliterate one's talk page history into "oblivion" (Deacon's choice of words) is a right that for some reason comes bundled in with the standard admin tool set.Volunteer Marek 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of policy is that it is not ok to do this. Being an admin doesn't grant special privileges for anything, you and I agree more than you probably know. Assuming good faith, I do think he is simply mistaken on his interpretation based on his actual comments (it isn't a common topic, after all) and I know that we can undo the delete tomorrow, or next week, so zero will be lost. Undeleting is a trivial thing to do with the admin tools. What we can't undo is losing the editor, so that takes a higher priority. In other words, lets not let the bureaucratic process make us lose sight of what really matters most here: people. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I think that you don't understand the problem if you're calling it "trivial". WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#How to undo a history merge is relevant reading that covers an example of two pages. According to Werieth's comment above, there were 61 pages merged together. I have some thoughts on extracting just the main user talk page, but I think that the merging is practically impossible to undo completely, short of restoring from a WP:Database download. Restricting the target date range to after May 2012 (earlier history at User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI) makes selective undeletion considerably less difficult, but not necessarily easy. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There are only 100 revisions in the date range relevant to the user talk page. Most can be distinguished by edit summary alone (available in the undeletion interface), and page size identifies the remaining few. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Trivial != Quick. The logs show his every move like a recipe, which can be reverse engineered. It only requires time and patience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Information is lost when pages are histmerged: there is no link between a revision and its original page. Viewing the contents of 1,055 revisions (>33 MB of exported XML) is not "trivial". I challenge you to find all the revisions of User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Remezov in User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion. It's not difficult if one understands what information is (not) available. Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"Trivial" != "doesn't make me want to gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon every time I look at it", apparently. Is there any reason that we actually need to undelete this? Can we just say for the record that "This is not cool, nobody do it in the future" and leave it at that? Why, yes, I am extremely lazy; why do you ask? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#U1 (policy), WP:User pages#Deletion of user pages (guideline), and WP:Courtesy vanishing#Deletion of user talk pages (guideline) were not enough to deter DoP. There seems to have been another specific incident some time before WT:Courtesy vanishing#Deleting user talk pages and WT:Courtesy vanishing#RfC on deleting user talk pages (October–November 2010). Flatscan (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All i's must be dotted and all t's must be dotted; thank goodness we're not a bureaucracy ... it's my (Non-administrator comment) understanding that all 847 {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} can view the content of the pages, despite the Deacon's attempted cover-up / overzealous desire for post facto privacy / cleaning up after themselves. Not worth a fuss. NE Ent 15:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If there is no reason to actually undelete this thing, then obviously there is also no really good reason to deny talk page deletion requests of non-admins in 99% of cases. I am sure they wouldn't even demand numerous page merges first, so undeletion would be even less issue then it is here.--Staberinde (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is that there's no way to tell whether something's in the 99% (probably too high a figure anyway) or the 1%, since it depends on what other user's need for the page as a reference. This one case doesn't tell us anything about the general case of which talk pages are okay to delete and which aren't. So, for this case, if anyone needs it we can do undeletion, but since it's kinda a pain, we won't do it unless they ask. But generally, people shouldn't need to ask, so as a general rule, we don't delete talk pages. We can totally have it both ways; no reason we can't. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, no. There is nothing in Deacon's talk page archive that is in any way critical to the encyclopedia. Or for the matter useful to the encyclopedia. There is, however, sufficient information to identify him/her in real life, and he/she has decided to protect his/her privacy on his/her way out. There is no policy that states we cannot ever delete talk pages (only guidelines). This has been a massive over-reaction all round. Just leave things as they are. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Though I completely agree that this has been a massive overreaction, privacy concerns were never mentioned, so I don't see that being relevant in this case. Even if privacy had been the reason, it wouldn't justify doing such a pain-in-the-ass history merge of everything; it should have just been straight-up deleted and/or he should have requested that select edits be suppressed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Deacon has stated that this was done for privacy reasons: [288] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I took that to mean that he just wanted some privacy (i.e.: "stay out of my stuff"), not that there were privacy concerns (i.e.: "there was non-public information that needs to stay non-public"). The latter is protected under policy, but the former is just a "well, that's nice" sort of thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't merely an 'overreaction', it was a mean-spirited wild goose chase. Its end result is not merely to reveal my sandbox along with some notifications and Edwardsbot spam, but more importantly (for you guys) to reveal the character and weaknesses of many of the participants here, as well as the AN/I (or public IRC) platform as a whole. I hope you guys make better use of that revelation than you will those Edwardsbot messages, though I am almost certain you won't!

The best of it is that, for all the bloodlust and frenzied calls for recrimination, I was never actually asked to restore its talk page contents (which was a series of ticks that would have taken 30 secs to 1 min). I would have done so on my own initiative if you all weren't so petty and mean, but despite that I did in fact offer to do so in an email to the crats/EVula. The only response I got was a repetition of the mob's poorly sourced view about my talkpage rights, which is sad for you guys 'cause it would have saved you a lot of wasted time (time you would also have saved if you paid more attention to what I said at the top than you did to the hysterical cries around it).

And indeed Jim, your interpretation of my remarks was correct. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, what bullshit; admins do this to hide things, citing the nebulous umbrella of "privacy" every time. Try researching why David Gerard was stripped of CU/oversight in 2009. Whoops! Down the memory hole that went. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

[ec] Considering that everyone is pretty much in agreement that the deletion of talk pages is wrong (and that DofP was wrong to do so), I don't understand the repeated question of "do I get this right as well?" This isn't a right that non-admins are being denied, it's a one-off event where an administrator did something inappropriate, and can be reversed by undeleting the pages (which I definitely think should be done, though I'm not terribly surprised that nobody has tried yet, given the annoying complexity of the moves and deletions). EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand it to mean, if an admin gets by with it why can't a regular editor? The implication that, since he's an admin & nothing is being done, he's getting special treatment. Since the page has been undeleted, that argument doesn't hold any more, but I can understand where they were coming from. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have undeleted User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion but will not attempt a history reconstruction of the individual pages. Everyone can now see the full history, just like admins did when it was deleted. If there is actual need to get the histories untangled, some further effort can be made (which would probably include redeletion and then partial undeletions and moves), but it doesn't seem to be worth the effort. Note that while this "oblivion" page includes some talk pages (hence the undeletion), the vast majority were not talk pages; also note that the actual main talk page archives apparently were not (and never) deleted, but hidden away at places like User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion/Archive XXI (with six page moves recently...). Fram (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like that oblivion page has been re-deleted, interestingly, it says that the date of deletion is the 22nd. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

At my request, Fram did a history split and moved the talk page revisions to User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XXII. DoP blanked it, as allowed by WP:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. The sandboxes, draft articles, and cut and paste archives remaining under User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion are all covered by CSD U1. Flatscan (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit waring against consensus, requesting page protection

Two users, Thargor Orlando (diff) and North8000 (diff) are edit warring against a consensus reached at the single-payer talk page. I'm requesting page protection and any other measures that might prevent this. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

They may have a point, though -- some of the references that are claimed to talk about "single payer" are actually talking about the public option, standing alongside other insurance options. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean the one Huffington Post article which cites numerous polls and is really only there as an example for the claim of support. As far as I can tell there aren't any public option polls cited in the chart. CartoonDiablo (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Update: Thargor Orlando continues to edit war against the consensus reached at the talk:

• diff
• diff

This seems to be a clear attempt to lock the page into his desired edit. CartoonDiablo (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My only actions have been to try to stabilize ridiculous situation there and support the process of real discussion there, otherwise I absolutely do not care one tiny bit how the core points of contention end up. IMO for months Cartoon Diablo has been just tossing hand grenades and setting the curtains on fire there, lobbing false charges (including pretending that other editors are going against some consensus) and taking it to a range of other forums (I'm guessing about 8-10 threads, included a few here and Arbcom) IMO as a diversion/excuse for not discussing, and this is a continuation of that process. Thargor Orlando has been very cautions and Wikipedian. Finally another editor came along who was in opposition to Thargor Orlando but was really discussing things so I thought "finally" but then that person turned to be a sock or something and is gone. So now once again, (decide for yourself on 74.113.108.2, a wiki-saavy editor, and 16 of their 22 lifetime edits are supporting CD at this article, and who also refuses to discuss specifics) that leaves the article with only one person willing to act as a real editor and nobody for them to actually discuss things with.

Even though CartoonDiablo has tossed this into about 8 venues, a read of the last ~2 months of talk page at the article gives a pretty good indication of what has been happening. What CartoonDiablo has been trying to war in is a huge bundle of changes that covers so many things (formatting of the info (table vs. prose), disposition of many different polls, wording etc.) that it makes a further mess out of the situation, making it nearly impossible to review or discuss and thus a further disruption of the process.

I am also worn out at trying to be the "stabilizer" there due to all of the insults, false accusation tactics from CartoonDiablo that such entails and have been wanting to leave the article. I would like and recommend that an admin to step in in my place at that article, take a thorough look at what has been happening, do what they see fit, and keep an eye on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Officially requested page protection here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So, both "sides" have requested protection. Carefulness about versions is important. See my comment at that request. North8000 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, the page is protected. (BTW, a brand new SPA has showed up who's entire wiki lifetime (3 edits) has been to edit war at that page in support of CartoonDiablo.) In addition to IP 74.... described above. But I would still like to ask if there is an admin who would take a thorough look at this page as a minimum. Even better, if they are willing to stay, to replace me there, but if not a thorough look would be appreciated. North8000 (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat?

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

---

Resolved

 – User blocked. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC))

This might be a genuine trademark/copyright violation issue, but it also seems like it could qualify as a legal threat, so I thought I'd bring it here just to make sure it gets seen.[289] Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting but now perhaps hypothetical since I blocked the account as a username violation. Let's see what happens next. Thanks Dawn Bard, Drmies (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry risk (Not SPI ready)

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

---

Resolved

 – by BWilkins' messages at User talk:Greysony11 and User talk:Pandalover-11.--Chaser (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Greetings.

23:36, 28 February 2013 User account Pandalover-11 (talk | contribs) was created by Greysony11 (talk | contribs)

This caught my attention in the New Users log, both have RedLinks for user, talk and contributions. I'm not sure if this is a SockPuppetry risk or anything but wanted to bring it to the attention of the experienced. Thoughts? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That depends: alternate accounts are permitted under specific circumstances (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that these accounts were created four minutes apart screams sockpuppetry to me, although its probably somebody who is unaware that it is prohibited. Additionally, neither of them has edited yet, so after they have edited, I'd recommend contacting Pandalover-11. If this is an unintentional rule-breaking, the Pandalover account will ask to be shut down, correct? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask why the OP has not notified both accounts of this ANI filing, as is required? That might actually help with getting some clarification. How about welcoming new users? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no need for a strong reaction at this time. BWilkins' suggestion of welcoming and then trying to get clarification and understanding may be a better and friendlier first approach. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Madagascar

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

Needs checked. Last edit cut a citation in half and left a mess, but can't edit it myself, protected page. LCS check (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor noticed the problem and has fixed it. Thanks for reporting -- Dianna (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP vios from IP

110.174.34.129 (talk · contribs) seems to be on some sort of weird agenda, adding what appears to be BLP-violations as well as unsourced additions to various articles (see contribs). A second pair of eyes is requested, and judging from their talk page warnings doesn't work. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, hopefully he would stop. Yes it's radical POV pushing and WP:BLP violations. Secret ^account 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Buyid dynasty

User:HistoryofIran has been repeatedly removing Kurdish, which is referenced, from the possible origins of the Buyid dynasty. HistoryofIran was reverted twice by Gomada,[290][291] then added more reference(s) for Dailamite while removing Kurdish again.[292]

I restored, " or Kurdish origin"[293] and posted a warning to User:HistoryofIran,[294], stating that if he removed Kurdish again without consensus, I would report him. User:HistoryofIran's response was, "Then do it, i don't really care.. because im writing the truth, false edit summary? i even added two more sources that they were only Daylimites, now what are you going to say about that? im giving you this day to answer me back or else i will change it back.".[295] Whereupon, HistoryofIran removed Kurdish again adding some website by a ?Paul White? as a reference. I checked the website and found nothing that says, "Buyids were not Kurdish".[296]

As of this moment, User:HistoryofIran has reverted Gomada and myself, 4 times:[297],[298],[299],[300]. It is only because of HistoryofIran's talking via edit summaries and not on the talk page, that this has been filed.
It is clear this user either does not or will not use the talk page to work with other editors. I believe an Admin is needed to resolve this disruptive editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran has similar contributions in Zazas article. He/she is deleting all sources. You can check his/her last contribution. Many users reverted his contributions but he/she keeps to delete sources. I warned him 3 days ago to discuss on talk page before he deletes sources but he/she doesnt care.--Gomada (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Charsadda District, Pakistan, Charsadda

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

 – Both pages semi-protected for 3 months

These pages were unprotected today after being semi-protected for a week[301] because IP editors were repeatedly re-adding a badly written, unsourced, irrelevant wall'o'text. Here's a sample:

Shamozai, Sultan khel belong to Sultan Muhammad Khan. Famous personalities are Saddar Sarfaraz khan (late) is a president of Khudi Khidmatgar Tanzeem before Abdul Gaffar khan(Bacha khan),Nawab Shanawaz khan(late),Qazi Muhammad khan(salar sab)tha first president of all Muslim league, Ameer khesro khan (late) EX-MPA,Tila Muhammad Khan (late)Chief engr in PWD,Abdullah jan khan EX- MD Wapda, Haji Muhammad Yaqoob khan (late) Cherman MC Utmanzai,Haji saad ullah khan (late) is also a member o khudi khidmat gar tanzeem and a great business man

The whole text is much longer, but this gives you an idea; there's no need for me to repost the whole thing here. After I removed the content from Charsadda this morning, one of the IPs left me a message on my talk page telling me to stop.[302] I had tried to engage on Talk:Charsadda District, Pakistan before the pages were protected, but to no avail. And some of the involved IPs have been warned on their talk pages and even blocked for edit-wars, but the edits continue under other IPs. I don't think this is going to stop on its own, is what I'm saying. I don't know if maybe another semi-protect or blocking a range of IPs would be appropriate, but I thought I'd bring it here to at least get some more sets of eyes on it. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added both pages to my watchlist, notified the user of this discussion and left a 3RR warning on the IP's talk page. Looks like those pages may need protecting again, but we'll have to wait and see. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 07:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend came back for another visit, so both pages have been semi-protected for 3 months by User:Black Kite. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 19:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Polllilur

This user has created a number of articles about 'projected books' by 'Philip Timmins' who, according to the (deleted) article about him, is still at school (13). The other articles created by this user are very brief and about various wars and battles. I had blocked the user to prevent more 'novels', but then found the battles and have unblocked pending a review here. Some may be genuine, but I can't find the Burmese–Siamese War (1849–1855) for one, and have doubts about the others, despite there being work done by respected editors (categorising, etc). I'd be obliged if someone could look into these articles and see if there are any genuine refs for them. I'm not a frequenter of AN/I, but this is the only place I could think of to bring this to. I'm going offline now, and I hope someone can get to the bottom of this lot. Peridon (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

See Military history of Burma#Siam (1849–1855). None of the other battles are hoaxes. The Burmese–Siamese series of wars come from redlinks at Burmese–Siamese wars. I suspect that the "nonexistant sites" are copying errors. Polllilur (talk · contribs) seems unaware of the hyphen.--Auric talk 23:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For example the article Battle of Wuchale was originally sourced from the url "www.traveloxi.com/city.phd?location.--e/n/wuchale", a corrupted version of http://www.traveloxi.com/city.php?location=/en/wuchale, using wikipedia information. Battle of Madab had "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/list_of_battles_1400_1800". The proper article is List of battles 1401–1800 (note the hyphen in the correct link).--Auric talk 23:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I can't speak for the Timmins books and associated articles, Auric is dead on about the method to the madness. S/he started by creating articles from redlinks at Wand Bewossen. Then went to List of battles 1401–1800. Battle of Qlobaa was not a hoax, but a misspelling of Battle of Qolobaa, also spelled Qoloba. Not sure if the editor understands English. Several msgs were posted to his talk page letting him know that using Wikipedia as a citation was not acceptable; the editor never responded, but rather kept creating inappropriately sourced articles. Cindy(talk to me) 00:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Lesson learned: The "battle of fagetta" with characters that sound out of a Batman movie is not necessarily a hoax. Must read more about the history of Ethiopia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Timmins article gave a DoB indicating 13 as the age. As I can't see anyone else writing about his planned novels, I assume that this is him himself. From the name, I would assume a knowledge of English. The description included 'child historian'... Peridon (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a suspicion that the editor was young (WP:CHILD).--Auric talk 15:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Is now editing as User:Baeer. A new Timmins article and the Battle of Qolobaa - both deleted as hoaxes by different admins (not me). Peridon (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The "I created a page" edit summary he uses reminds me of someone. Any ideas? Peridon (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Huh. Battle of Qolobaa (that I deleted) isn't a hoax? Are you sure? My reasoning for the "blatant" in the blatant hoax was the claim that one of the commanders was an American Revolution veteran in 1781; considering that Yorktown was in 1781 (a month after the date proposed for Qolobaa) and the American Revolution itself didn't end until 1783, that seemed pretty implausible to me (though not impossible). I did do a sanity check before I deleted; Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR all turned up completely blank; the only source in the article was the decidedly unhelpful http://allafrica.com/somalia/. The "I created a new page" does sound familiar to me, but I'm not sure where I've seen it before. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I indeffed Baeer because of the hoaxes. I don't have time to figure all this out now. If someone else thinks I acted too hastily, feel free to do whatever. From glancing at the above, it looks like a block is warranted for one reason or for another, particularly if the editor refuses to respond. (Polllilur has created a whole bunch of battle articles. I think they're real battles but doubt that they all deserve separate articles.) --Bbb23 (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure...I'm not finding any sources for them either. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I should rephrase and expand on my earlier comment. I didn't see the article Writ Keeper deleted, but can see it through the cache provided by Auric. In the initial creation, I meant to say that I would not have deleted it as an outright hoax, based on the fact that (the correct spelling of) Qolobaa/Qoloba exists (is not a hoax) and other "battle" or "xarbi" articles have been shown to be valid. I would have offered (another) comment to the editor about creating unverifiable articles and then sent it to AFD to request input from others (primarily editors with knowledge of Arabic or Somali languages). That said, after seeing the second creation of the article and the username now being used by the editor (Baeer) and seeing how that name was used in the first article (but not the second), I'm inclined to agree with Writ and see the article as a hoax. As far as "I created a page", the editor also uses an edit summary "I made a page", which rang a bell with me too. Somewhere in the back of my brain, I'm thinking that there was an editor doing something similar when creating numerous articles about some wineries and a bunch of wines, which were all copyvios. Cindy(talk to me) 21:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This version google cache copy is longer and more detailed than the first. google cache copy Probably a synthesis or misreading of history.--Auric talk 18:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I got the edit summary wrong - it's "I made a page". Peridon (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW and diacritics-related topic ban violation yet again, and NPA violation

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.

---

LittleBenW (talk · contribs) has yet again violated the editing restrictions placed on him as a result of WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive777#User:LittleBenW editwarring against diacritics again, by posting this rant at User talk:Sandstein. Sandstein then warned LittleBenW [303][304] per WP:ARBATC and its discretionary sanctions about personalizing style disputes, whereupon LittleBenW promptly deleted his post with the odd edit summary of "Reverted, intended to be private". Sandstein's warning perhaps makes sense, depending on ARBATC's actual scope, but if so, only addresses the ARBATC problem with LittleBenW's post, not the ANI problem, that it violated his topic ban: "LittleBenW is indefinitely prohibited from making any edits concerning diacritics, or participating in any discussions about the same, anywhere on the English Wikipedia." No exception is made for an admin's talk pages, nor for self-reverting after being chastised. If the post had only tangentially or incidentally touched on diacritics-related inter-editor disputes, "no harm, no foul", but it overwhelmingly dwells on them, despite them being entirely tangential to his legitimate ostensible purpose of simply asking for advice on how to appeal his ban. The rant also clearly consists primarily of violations of WP:NPA/WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL, by making a stream of hyperbolic accusations ("canvassing of a mob", "intimidate", "threats", etc.) without sufficient evidence (the diffs are all old news, and don't support his claims, but are actually evidence that he's already been warned against such behavior repeatedly). LittleBenW was very recently 1-day-blocked for multiple violations of the diacritics topic ban in mainspace and article talk pages.[305] (ANI discussion). Clearly refusing to get the point. User was also recently blocked for NPA violations.[306]. [Full disclosure: I am one of the two targets of LittleBenW's hostility in the post at issue here, the other being User:In ictu oculi, who has also had dealings with LittleBenW's behavior patterns. I brought the most recent of various AN/ANI actions against LittleBenW for style warring, namely the one that resulted in the diacritics topic ban and another that nearly resulted in Apteva's hyphens-vs.-dashes topic ban from being extended to restrict LittleBenW as well. He subsequently supported a now-concluded AGF-related WP:AE request against me, which his rant on Sandstein's talk page was intended to provide ammunition for, somehow.] — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

His removal of the post you are upset with "cured" the defect - just as a self-revert "cures" 3RR. I fear you are now an archetype of an "involved person" with regard to him, and likely should see what others independently arrive at. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can't be half pregnant. He either broke his topic ban, or he didn't. A self-revert doesn't cure a 3RR but makes admins more predisposed to believing it was an error and thus exercise leniency because a subsequent block could be seen as 'punitive'. Anyone should be able to work out from the evidence, and judge for him/herself whether any violation actually occurred. Let's face it, most of these complaints are made by people with issues against the people they complain about. Maybe it took an "involved" party to raise the red flag as the admin himself was too mired in controversy, and thus too distracted to see it. -- Ohconfucius ^{ping / poke} 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• He's also currently planning to violate his topic ban again [307]. Not to mention that diff is actually another violation in itself. I don't understand which part of the topic ban is so difficult for him to understand. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please explain how an appeal of a topic ban violates a topic ban. LittleBen (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• When it's not an appeal of a topic ban, which that isn't - it's a suggestion to take two issues to ArbCom, at least one of which you are completely banned from editing about. Even if you did wish to appeal a topic ban, the correct venue would be that where it was imposed, in this case WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• "self-reverting after being chastised" is surely a blatant lie, as anyone can see from the timestamps.
• As you can see, the post was intended as a private message. It (1) provided links to your abusive behavior on my own talk page, to make the point that your continuing threats and insults are not just limited to the MOS space, and also (2) stated that I had prepared an appeal of the previous topic ban—which a number of people had protested as lacking due process—and said that I plan to submit an appeal soon.
• As for (1), here you see even pro-diacritic Bob Raynor telling you that your threats and insults are not appropriate. Also here SMC says In particular, I have suggested that you be included in the topic bad that will most likely be applied to Apteva, because you exhibit precisely the same tendentious editing pattern on this issue. You have clearly simply substituted dashes for diacritics as something to WP:BATTLEGROUND about, after being topic-banned from diacritis and are behaving as if you are not here to write an encyclopedia, but simply engage in trolling and sport argument to entertain yourself. That is not what Wikipedia is for; try Usenet newsgroups. Such a blanket stream of insults and false accusations is just as unacceptable on a user talk page as on a MOS talk page. And he even tried to get me banned by falsely accusing me of a legal threat. Such abusive behavior, smear campaigns, and lies are surely not acceptable on Wikipedia.  LittleBen (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of topic bans is minimize disruption, not provide ammunition in a continuing saga. Dredging up two day old reverted edits of user talk pages to file ANI reports is not consistent with minimizing disruption, nor is documenting past sins of the thread originator. We simply do not exist to provide a battleground for MOS warriors. See we can't beam them down to Planet Cheron, could someone perhaps mercy kill this thread? NE Ent 14:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since there is disruption -- both current and threatened -- by one specific party, your usual "Not Our Problem" post doesn't really apply here. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to action anything here, but I will leave LittleBen a warning that the next infraction of his ban will result in a block. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• I thought I heard my ears burning. My stance then, as now, is that the diacritics wars are dramatic enough already; grudges between editors make it a lot worse, for no good reason. I think it would be helpful if SMcCandlish backed off a bit, but that does not mean that SMcCandlish is the one to blame here, or even that blame should be shared 50:50. Disruptive editing that was severe enough to earn editing restrictions despite having support from other editors on your "side", then repeatedly going back to that area, is the root cause and it's a bigger problem than the fact that another participant in the diacritics wars keeps on finding and pointing out violations. Even now, LittleBenW frames it as a partisan thing where SMcCandlish is so bad that even people on the "pro diacritics" side are revolted; this is neither accurate nor helpful nor good-faith. If SMcCandlish were to stop (or be forcibly stopped from) pointing out the breaches of editing restrictions and the flaunting of community decisions, that wouldn't solve the underlying problem; let's not shoot the messenger. bobrayner (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

please delete my account.

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.

---

Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No I won't. Basket _Feudalist 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The first respondant's rudeness aside, it's not technically possible to delete accounts on Wikipedia. However, you can simply walk away and stop using it. DMacks (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing (which isn't really just walking away) NE Ent 15:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't you just find another area of interest in wikipedia and stay away from the religion stuff? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Vanishing often sounds like a good idea to frustrated users, but it's supposed to be permanent and most people eventually decide to return. WikiBreak Enforcer or clean start are (in my opinion) usually better options for frustrated users. And note that while accounts can't technically be deleted, most userpages can be deleted at any time under WP:U1. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The second respondant's incapability of recognising WP:Humor and his general WP:Incivility aside, and notwithstanding that it could be taken as a little bit unprofessional for a so-called Administrator it's not technically possible to take that sort of request seriously on Wikipedia. "LOL" etc. Basket _Feudalist 19:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Change name?

Resolved

Where can I change my username; if possible. Merci Username talkpage (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here: WP:CHU. Black Kite (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued misinformation vandalism by anonymous user

User:94.55.149.54 has continued blatant misinformation vandalism after being given a final warning. Two of their four edits since that final warning have been definite vandalism; I don't know about the other two, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt IMHO. Evidence for blocking here. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue - persistent vandalism such as this should go to WP:AIV. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 07:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The notice on AIV states that vandalism must be ongoing or very recent (and I've been told previously that I should post elsewhere when this wasn't the case). However, I'll post there and cite your comment as backup. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps it's far too late for AIV now. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Graham comment

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

---

While this edit was appropriate per WP:NPOV, the edit summary is not appropriate for the article of major religious leader. May we strike the edit summary please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's the word asshole you're objecting to. I'm not even sure who it's referring to. You presumably think it refers to Graham. Would it be OK if it referred to someone else? HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's referring to an editor, and it's not about who it it's referring to but its presence on that particular page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it an issue that it's "the article of major religious leader"? Would it be OK associated with another article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the morality of some of the people who read the article and edit the history. Obviously yo don't agree so why not ignore the request and let someone who does agree deal with it instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo makes a good point; meanwhile, you should notify the editor as you're required to do... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Notifications are usually for blocking. Is it also required for removing of a comment? I've seen entire edits removed here and the editors were not removed, but I can do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I see that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 also commented there. Am only asking for the visibility to be changed, not for the edit to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - You ask me to ignore the request. I ask you why you think some articles deserve different treatment from others. Either asshole is completely unacceptable in Edit summaries, or it's acceptable for every article. Far too many people want religious articles treated differently from others on Wikipedia, and they must not be. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right. I insisted on notification 'cause the guy needs to be told to cool it down in general; otherwise, we'd be revdelling a lot here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone wrote that as an edit summary on an article about a children's television programme it would be unacceptable knowing the audience most likely to see it. If it was on an edit summary for a football team it would be less likely to offend. If it were left on an article about abattoirs, it may be entirely acceptable, in the right context. The context in which the word is used, in this case, does make a difference not only for how it is used but where. While I would never use profanity like this, I do understand that some editors may use it. The question is not about use, which you seem to think is the case, the issue is about the location of the use and its intention to provoke a reaction. It should be hidden. If you want to offend people, then leave it be. If you don't, then hide it, but don't pretend that you don't understand what I'm saying. It's insulting to my intelligence and worse, it doesn't reflect well on you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and the reference to "asshole" was a question in regards to who made the remark or statement that made the text a quote in the reference. In other words they were referring to the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea. Religious leaders, whether they be major or minor do not get special treatment or consideration in this manner. I'm not even sure this is a BLP concern as it is not calling aperson an asshole but refers to a position as being an asshole.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, (1) the pious readers of a page on a "major religious leader" must have special protection from having their "morality" disturbed by the word "asshole" and (2) only "someone who does agree" with the request should deal with it. Ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Help:Edit summary:

* Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

This is not an absolute and is not actual policy or guidelines. The most that would be appropriate here is a possible warning for an uncivil summary that might (and obviously has) offended someone, but it was not aimed at a contributer but at the figure from the reference and not a named person.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something? It seems to me based on the link and the change that the asshole bit was likely directed at the contributor who called Kim Jong-Il a dictator, rather then using a more neutral and encyclopaedic term as the person who left the edit summar substituted with. I don't see how a ref is involved, the only ref doesn't even use the term dictator [308] so why would the person who left the edit summary be calling someone from the reference an 'asshole' over something the did not do? Anyway, while the describing Kim Jong-Il as a dictator in that context was probably not ideal, I don't think calling the person who added it an asshole was a good idea. I do agree the fact the subject of the article of the edit summary is a major religious figure is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly who it was aimed at, and interestingly enough it had been there for many months, at least, so it's not like it popped in there yesterday. On the other hand, Kim was a dictator, so Guto2003 (talk · contribs)'s insult to the other editor was not appropriate. In fact, Guto2003 is openly a Communist, so it's no surprise he would bristle at a Commie dictator being called a dictator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The target of Guto's wrath would be the IP who added the term "dictator" about 6 1/2 years ago.[309] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In the beginning was The Word, eh...? In the interests of being able to dish it out and take it as well it should be used in far more religion articles. Basket _Feudalist 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with Billy Graham or with religion. It had to do with a Communist-supporting user who objected to the Kims being called "dictators". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was incorrect. That was not a reference. It was late and I saw the ref tag next to it. If the editor is name calling at another contributer than that isn't right, espeially in the edit summary.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Although none of that was the point of this thread. The OP is concerned that those of high moral character are, naturally, drawn to this article on this "major religious leader" and they would be affronted to see such profanity as "asshole". Therefore, it must be plucked out, i.e. revdel is called for! DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be what they are asking for but we did need to determine exactly what was being done that was innappropriate. I assumed it was directed at a public figure, but it appears it was directed at another user. As for the rest, we don't know anybodys actual moral character and we don't edit, revert or delete contents to keep from offending a select group of individuals based entirely on a their own moral standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm a preacher's kid who has served in ministry for over 20 years, but when I come to Wikipedia, I put on my hat of neutrality. I have the utmost respect for Walter, but merely requesting that the edit summary be stricken based on the subject of the article as a "major religious leader" or that "those of high moral character" might be offended is simply inserting our own personal opinion into our editing practices. Although DeCausa was being sarcastic, the point was valid. There are people of high moral character creating, editing, and reading all kinds of pages around here. Even people that focus on porn stars and drugs and dirty dancing. Editors on Billy Graham's article or those within the Category:Christian Wikipedians don't have a lock on morality. Like Walter, I don't use profanity. I've come to expect to see it on Wikipedia. "Don't be a dick" is highly offensive to me as a woman. But it truly is an old boys club around here. I've come to realize that boys will be boys. (Warning: Putting on my ministry hat.) This is where grace comes into play: Wikipedia is not censored. There was no personal attack in the edit summary. "Who is the asshole" is very different from "You are an asshole". Oversighting is not necessary here. Just leave a warning for Guto about inappropriate edit summaries and move on. The world won't end and Jesus won't come back any sooner just because someone said a bad word on Wikipedia. Cindy(talk to me) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like HiLo48, I'm mystified as to why it would be an issue because it's on the article about Billy Graham. We should always keep WP:CIVIL, but we should certainly not have special rule for articles about religious topics or persons. A warning to the user about his/her use of language, that's all.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP who was the target of Guto's wrath has not edited in 5 years, so it's just Guto shooting off his mouth about an edit he doesn't agree with. The original poster's complaint here is, at best, "right, but for the wrong reason". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

NOT

...staying off WP:ANI. But thanks for the the threats. Basket _Feudalist 22:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...seeing as he called us a bunch of cretins, perhaps a 72 hour block for disruption should have been indef for disruption/NPA/general jerkosity. I won't be offended if someone extends (but I'd be surprised if someone reduces) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Impressive talk page, especially the first section (attempted Arbcom candidacy after <100 edits). Interesting early edit history. [310] [311] (Apparently, "Paul Barlow eats it" was the user's signature at the time.) [312] ('better' signature) [313] (frivolous BLP vio).

Wikipedia – the encyclopedia that every juvenile troll can edit. Hans Adler 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also [314] and [315]. I see far more heat than light from this editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to swing through their recent contributions and see if the AfC articles they promoted are good enough for mainspace. I moved one back earlier, because there was no credible assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary City is a collection of quotes and closely paraphrased texts, making the whole thing a copyvio. But look at the histories of it and of other AFC's he's promoted: Covered California, Swiss Lanka Hotel School, George Fuller Miller Sr., and The Fralin Museum of Art at least - all created by users with zero history but an uncanny grasp of reference syntax, templates, and complex infoboxes (e.g.) on their first or second ever edit. These users are evidently not new to Wikipedia. 31.185.196.159 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• This guy has been trolling all over the place, I doubt this block will sort the issue out. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have reversed a number of the AFC accepts per my note at their talkpage before losing the will to live and giving up. . I'm minded that they are more trouble than they are worth if they do not buck up their ideas. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

...and did he???

Edit war over use (misuse?) of wikilinks in a table.

Since their debut(s), most of the NYC area bus route articles have had each route terminal's locale (and associated rapid transit services) wikilinked no matter how many times the locale (and services) appears in a table. There are a few tables on each page.

In the article: List of bus routes in the Bronx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), user: Other Side One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started undoing all the edits that I was making so the tables would "match" the other (at least six) articles that contain such tables. At that time, the tables in that specific article were a patchwork of locales' wikilinks and non-links (black text). User also stated on my talk page that I gave them a vague reason (yes, I did originally) why all the links should stay, but it appears the other editor never saw my post on their talk page (two days later) that gave a non-vague reason (since then, this editor has posted on my talk page). Recently, the other editor has edited the tables in List of bus routes in Queens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) accomplishing the same thing (reversing all the wikilinks under the edit summaries of "GOOD FAITH"), although the Bronx article has not been re-reversed at this time. I contend that the links should stay as they have generally always been there with no complaint and the links make for a better wiki experience for the reader (and the editor) by not having to search as many as (or more than) 100 entries in the tables to find a link (or not) to a locale. Also, in my opinion, the links make the table look cleaner.

Diffs: (Bronx article)
It started with one link here: [Feb 7, 2013]

then this whole section: [Feb 9, 2013]

and this section also: [Feb 9, 2013 (2)]

then my reversals: [Feb 10, 2013]

undo from other editor: [Feb 23, 2013]

and my undo to the previous undo: [Feb 26, 2013]

(Queens article)
One time: [Feb 26, 2013]

I will wait to do any further editing on the Queens article (or any further "undos") until there is a response/resolution to this dispute.

Thank you for your time and attention with this matter.

  --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:OVERLINK, the first time something is mentioned in an article it can and should be wikilinked - future ones should not be. It doesn't matter if someone had failed to remove them a week ago or a year ago. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

But here's the rub in regard to "overlinking", this "article" is more a collection of tables, as opposed to a regular "paragraphs" and "sentences" article. I agreed and even stated that in a "regular" article that over/repeating linking should never be done. Under WP:REPEATLINK it is stated: "Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." The linking here does not hurt the value of other links...

Thanks for the expedient response. --SkipperRipper (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And that was the basis of my whole point in removing the redundant wikilinks...both this and plain ol' common sense. This is nothing personal against SkipperRipper and any other editor, I was only acting on good faith. Other Side One (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm tarnished because I think that "List of Bus routes..." articles are a brutal and non-encyclopedic topic. List-of's should only provide a table of contents to existing articles, not provide route schedules (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins! How refreshing to find that I am in perfect agreement with you! This is making a shitty day a lot better. One day we'll tackle the policy/guidelines for lists, one day... Drmies (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of whether we should have these pages...when something is not linked outside of a sortable table, it should either be linked nowhere in the table or everywhere — our tables are sortable many different ways, so it's going to be easy to make it so that the link appears in the middle or the bottom instead of the top. If you're a reader, you're going to be confused if you sort it multiple ways and then look for the link: "Where's that link? Why don't they just link it the other times?" Much better to make it so that readers can click the link every time or none of them, in order to spare them the time of looking for a link. Now...I must say that I agree with the idea of getting rid of these pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

See you at AfD, Nyttend: I'll gladly follow. I'm not leading, since there's a million J-pop fans out for my balls already and I can't multitask that well. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we building an encyclopedia or are we hosting bus schedules?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• What would you call this? (No, it's not a bus schedule.) Drmies (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • De gustibus, Drmies. "Slave of Chocolate"?--Shirt58 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the "more links are better" camp, particularly with tables, and especially those that are sortable (which are cited as exceptions to the one link "rule"). Having them all linked looks less messy than only some links, is certainly more user-friendly than making the reader search for a link (and wonder why some aren't linked), etc. In other sites, you would never see the "one link rule" used on a table (or most of the time, even in articles). I think additional links rarely diminish the value of existing links unless you start linking common words that are likely never to be followed. What's more, I think there are a significant number of editors, and even more readers, that agree. (Tangentially, I don't think WP is the place for rapidly changing things like big city bus schedules, airport destination tables, etc. It just doesn't seem practical to keep them accurate, nor are they likely to be used much unless they add a lot of value over the official sites, which seems unlikely). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their responses. Actually, these articles (tables) are not schedules per se, but more of a "guide", but I have to agree with BWilkins that these lists have little encyc. value, although there is a good amount of info there. I'll visit the articles for the locales in the tables now and again (and now I have the brilliant idea to check those articles for their bus routes...) . That all aside, now what? Keep all the links? One per article? --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issue with sorting and finding links. The other issue which is often missed is that if someone is doing manual cleanup of links, the more you have in an article and the more that can be missed for updates. If we did not have sortable tables, one link would be my answer. With sortable tables, I still think that is correct, but I understand the problem and accept that other editors will have different views. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, can I have a consensus or a decision here as the other editor has now reversed the whole Bronx article citing "overlink". Note that this editor has displayed this behavior before (just six weeks ago), by continuing an edit war while in dispute - please see editor's talk page. Also, can I have either of: page protection for all the NYC-area bus pages or a block on the other editor. From what I have read here, it looks like the edge goes to keeping the links. --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone please block me indef for a sec

Resolved

Use a non-templated reason. Apparently we can't do that anymore. I am refreshing my memory on what it looks like from the blockee's side. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken this request. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You could just look at MediaWiki:Blockedtext Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

humorous note:indef for a sec is redundantSerious note: There's also the MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext and MediaWiki:Autoblocker messages :) gwickwire^talk_editing 01:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think the word you're looking for is "contradictory" rather than "redundant" — Ched :  ?  01:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

actually, i was looking for oxymoronic. regardless, i should c/e my comments first clearly. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you remember to unblock them? If not, :D Mdann52 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfly Productions

What to do with this article? Dragonfly Productions is receiving repeated disruption from IP editors who have some legal dispute over the name of the company, (See also Dragonfly Film and Television Productions) and claims made on the article. It is true that the article needs better cites for a lot of what is said, but the IPs' approach to the situation has been to fill the page with disclaimers, unsourced claims of fraud, and probably BLP violations about the company owner. I've requested page protection, but think some more permanent solution is required. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfly Film and Television Productions seems to be a copyvio since the text is essentially copy-pasted from their website.[316] Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty close. Tagged for db-copyvio. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah

<temporarily redacted>:ANI-notice

95.86.69.45 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

95.86.69.121 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

95.86.113.160 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

212.76.112.148 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

I am experiencing a problem that I need help in resolving resolve

Users are misinforming, but are not logging in and do not have talk pages they use anonymous ISPs to make changes - either deletions of my content with references and/or straight up vandalism against Mayer Alter Horowitz both on Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and his personal wikipedia page

The User originally was <temporarily redacted> (I know this because they used Mayer Alter Horowitz's cell phone number to create their user name - the letters HN probably stand from Horowitz number) and you can see from <temporarily redacted>'s talk page that he was warned of making changes to Mayer Alter Horowitz's page without references since December 2012, but currently the user <temporarily redacted> no longer exists (but his talk page still exists) instead he (we have a feeling of who it is) uses anonymous ISPs without talk pages such as: 95.86.69.45, 95.86.69.121, 95.86.113.160, 212.76.112.148, et. al. You can see that the ISP is dedicated only to making changes at Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and Mayer Alter Horowitz and the main agenda is to purport that Mayer Alter Horowitz is not a member of the Moetzes Agudas Yisroel which is false, and I have provided proof and references through pictures and newspaper articles that continue to get removed by this user through endless reverts which I only know how to revert back to the original which is causing and edit war

What I have been doing is making short comments in the Edit Summary when I try to undo his changes But I'm not sure if that is proper (although he responds in kind so one can see his responses) and don't know how else to handle this I have written on the Talk page of the article Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah for third parties to get involved but I don't know how successful that would be as I don't know who visits that page and how frequently

Consider the following diffs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moetzes_Gedolei_HaTorah&diff=541497036&oldid=541250007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moetzes_Gedolei_HaTorah&diff=540967302&oldid=540967023 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moetzes_Gedolei_HaTorah&diff=540547668&oldid=539209881

Note that I always log in and identify myself, am trying to be polite, non-objective and provide proper references I myself know Mayer Alter Horowitz, aware of my potential bias, but am knowledgeable of the content and am only trying to project truthful information and if anything I am writing is non-objective or unsupported I am willing to have my copy edited by others but my content and references should not be deleted just because of a personal vendetta of an individual

Please advise on my talk page Thank you for your help

BetzalelGersten (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ... odd. It's related to a real-world dispute, but all of the parties involved in the dispute claim that its against their religion for the internet to exist so I'm not sure why they're bringing it here. I suspect semi-protecting the page would solve the problem quickly. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that temporary semiprotection of Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah is justified. The article has a number of good sources but also several unsourced lists of council members that probably shouldn't be there. The warring IPs seem to be trying to insert negative information about Mayer Alter Horowitz and the Bostoner school. It's getting near the point where disruptive editing blocks could be issued to the IPs but semiprotection is simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion above be oversighted, as it discusses someone's phone number?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda

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 case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

• He uses Wikipedia:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
• See here [317] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
• See here[318] and
• here [319]
• here [320]
• Inserted a biased source here [321] and
• veiled criticism in the name of history section here [322] again
• here [323].

• This POV pushing based on single source [324] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
• Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [325], *[326],[327]
• Blatant accusations [328],
• Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [329]
• Again accusations [330]
• Blatant POV and lies [331]
• Editing to prove a Point [332]
• Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[333]
• Inserting his POV [334]
• Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [335]
• Again tampering [336]
• Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [337]

• Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here[338] and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here [339].
• Unsourced POV here [[340]]
• Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here[[341]]

• Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here [342]inserting his POV here [343]
• Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
• Ya Muhammad here[344]

• He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
• for speedy deletion [345],
• [346],
• [347],
• [348],
• [349]
• Mohra shareef here
• Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [350]

• This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
• He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [351]

• Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[352].
• He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.

• He is doing this since long-[353]
• See a small example here [354] and here
• reverted by other editors [355].
• Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [356]

• Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [357]

• This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article [358],User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.

• One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
• If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [359]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• One major issue is that the majority of Msoamu's diffs are also very old, I believe, and yet being presented as if they're a recent issue... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here [360] ,[361].Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See here

• Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.

• I have brought this case here to examine his edits in depth and to seek comments on his editing pattern.Msoamu (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: [362] as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:

• Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:

• Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:[363]. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:[364].
• Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
• His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.

Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Dear Luken,I learnt a lot from this discussion here.I will try to be calm and cool.Many times third person can clearly tell us that what is really wrong.Hope to see your cooperation in editing,I regret my complaint.Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unfortunate that you decided to go against the discussions I'd tried to have with the pair of you, as it's likely this will WP:BOOMERANG back at you, with your history of being involved in edit-warring on these topics as long ago as 2006. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter-claims

Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.

In the case of User:Msoamu:

Accused me of supporting Salafism and Wahhabism here.

Note that Msoamu was recently blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks (against me). This user has been blocked for vandalizing the same article in 2006.

In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:

Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Wikipedia into a "jihad ground" here.

Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Wikipedia here.

Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.

Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.

This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.

In the case of User:Shabiha:

Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.

Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.

This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.

Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I unintentionally deleted Your comments on a Talk page.I was para phrasing my own headings,in this process mistakenly done that.That was not motive which you understood.Next,the comment was not directed to you and was in good faith.Please avoid taking it personally. Shabiha (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• can I present here some earlier examples of Personal Attacks on me ? Shabiha (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, disclosure: Mezzomezzo asked me on my talk page about this complaint and whether or not he should post here, and I advised him to post a short summary with diffs as he has done above. Having said that, now that I see the diffs, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha need to stop the attacks immediately. I am willing to AGF that Shabiha's comment was not intended as an attack and the deletion was in error; but the other two are totally unacceptable. The are evidence of a battleground mentality at best, and outright offensive at worst. Were these western users casually dropping the term "jihad" it might be vaguely understandable, but these editors (based upon the topics they contribute in) must certainly know how strong and aggressive and, ultimately, rude such a label is. Just because someone nominates a lot of articles in a particular subject matter for deletion does not mean that they are attempting to wage a holy war of violence and eradication. Having seen some of the content Msoamu was defending, this is very disruptive. I'm interested in hearing what sort of defense these two have for their attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to counter claims asked by Qwyrxian:-

I am admitting that my wordings and behavior violated wiki policies and guidelines.For that I faced a blocked and I express my sincere apologies for the same.I am in discussion mode on Barelvi page.You can see my sincere discussions [365].But on the other hand would you like to examine these things.Sorry,If I wrote excessive points here but Don't this kind of behavior also needs some kind of action ?

• User:MezzoMezzo accused me of POV Pushing[366] while i was just restoring a consensus version unchanged since months.
• Trying to insult me and another editor Baboon43 [367]
• Accused me of having some hidden reasons [368]
• Claiming falsely that his edits have support of more than one editor which later on proved to be false [369]
• He used the words, intentional disruption for other editors[370]
• He was asked to refrain from making remarks about bias towards other editors[371]
• Personal Attacks on more than one editors-
• Accused Baboon of Racism [372]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [373]
• Seems to be engaged in edit warnings [374]
• Accused User:Sunnibarelvi to malign the Salafist movement by creating a Template on Salafism.[375].Msoamu (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There's some signs of tendentious editing on Mezzo's part but I'm not sure if it is intentional or unintentional as i have not really looked into it..based on my previous discussion with Mezzo on Talk:Barelvi he took the discussion to ani which leads me to believe he might have strong feelings about this barelvi article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• All 3 editors are definitely passionate about this topic area, however you look at it. Msoamu's edits have regularly been the more biased - some of Mezzo's are definitely a bit iffy, but it's rare that someone other than Msoamu or Shabiha has reverted them. Part of Msoamu's problem is with his grasp of the English language: due to him clearly not being fluent, he sees things as being insults when they're not - for example, the diffs about Mezzo insulting him and you are most definitely not insults, and the one saying he has the support of other editors is sort-of true, as GeorgeCustersSabre has reverted Msoamu's edits back to Mezzo's edits. Shabiha also may suffer from a similar issue, albeit to a lesser degree. Inadvertently, Msoamu has also pointed to an inappropriate comment by Baboon - "your either a wahabi or just lack knowledge of the subject", of which the first section is inappropriate - you should not be speculating about what religious beliefs an editor has if they haven't publicly stated them. (I can't comment on the last bit, I've used those sorts of comments myself) Mezzo's template comments start off a bit marginal, but then he does improve them with some relevant points. I would state that "Sunnibarelvi" would be advised to stay away from the groups that Barelvis are known for having disputes with, due to the COI problem (not just his own, which I believe he actually handles reasonably well, but that of other editors, which may provoke a battle). These are just my observations; I'm definitely not a Muslim (nor am I anti-Muslim), let alone a member of any of these groups, so I'm neutral :) Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the ANI thing with Baboon, I took it there mainly because, after 6+ years of seeing Barelvi editors create accounts solely for the purpose of rewriting that article to push their POV, I've come to expect that from any non-native English speakers adding overly-positive content or deleting any content which is remotely negative. In the case of Baboon, things were sorted out (and he's apparently not a Barelvi or even from South Asia to begin with). I don't have strong feelings about Barelvism and I've never met one; I freely admit, however, to having strong feelings about the article. For years, the fact that most English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia) don't know much about the movement has been capitalized upon by Barelvi editors (not all Barelvis, but all of these editors have been Barelvis) in order to push POV about which most English speakers are not aware. I was never even aware of it until I witnessed this editing behavior across 2006-2007; were it not for editing Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what Barelvis are.

As for the attacks, then Hassanfarooqi has a history of attacking anybody who disagrees with him even on articles relating to sports. Without even scrolling down, I checked his last 20 edits and found two personal attacks on other editors in addition to the three on myself. I don't think his issue is disruptive editing (I don't have the experience with him to say that) so much as it is habitually making personal attacks, despite having once been blocked for it. From what I can tell, nobody else ever seems to complain so it's hard to say how often this has happened in the years since his last block.

Msoamu has a combination of things. His editing has been described by disruptive by at least three or four editors other than Lukeno. He only seems to edit articles relating to Barelvism and the movement's opponents, and in all cases seems to present the beliefs of Barelvism as objective fact - Talk:Barelvi is testimony to that. He also has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him insulting names, usually relating to religious violence and extremism. I didn't know what a topic ban was before it was mentioned here but it seems to be the only way; as far as I know, he could still comment on talk pages but given his six years and going of POV-pushing followed by personal attacks and disruptive editing if he doesn't get his way, it seems to be the only solution. It seems that any article in which he takes interest never receives fair, productive attention or discussion.

About Shabiha, then again, after six years of interacting with this editor and having previously been involved with content and conduct disputes with him, my good faith has about run out. To be fair, though, Shabiha engages in discussion regarding content in addition to occasional personal remarks, whereas Msoamu generally engages in personal remarks in addition to occasional discussion of actual content, while Hassanfarooqi seems (on both religion and the soccer articles I saw) to just engage in personal attacks.

I would like to see some sort of repercussions at least for Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi. Not simply for attacking me personally, but also for the good of the articles on which they set their sights. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits of MezzoMezzo have been described by various editors as Non Neutral and it is not my view that his editing tendentious.Many Salafi editors also have tried in past to change the page according to their wishes.I have tried to maintain it neutral.I have supported in past criticism section and it is there.Msoamu's latest evidences are enough to prove that MezzoMezzo is not free from attacking editors Personally.No one is free from errors.We should try to be Neutral and objective as much as we can. Shabiha (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Shabiha, there have been very few that have had major concerns with Mezzo, apart from those mentioned here (namely yourself, Msoamu, Sunnibarelvi and, apparently, Hassanfarooqi, whom I haven't come across, and haven't seen mentioned before). Most people have had issues with Msoamu. As I've said several times, you've all made mistakes, but Msoamu is probably the more aggressive, and part of the issue is the fact that you and Msoamu have a weaker understanding of English, and are less able to communicate than Mezzo, whom seems fairly fluent. All 3 of you have made allegations of personal attacks that have been completely incorrect, however (simply as English isn't your first language). This is coming from a native British English speaker, so I'm in some position to judge. No offence is meant by this, it's merely my observations. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that both Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi have had a minimal amount of activity, so they have logged in. I'm concerned that they might just be trying to dodge the discussion so that it conveniently "goes away." Still, a discussion is not enough and the pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks - again, especially ones relating to violence and radicalism - are something I would like to see administrators address. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter counter claims

I do not know who Mosoamu is. Any accusation of collaberation between us is a fabrication by the person who goes by the fake name MezzoMezzo. All I know is that MezzoMezzo is a Salafi which can be seen on his page, and he is an anti-Sufi as evident from his edits against sufi bios. As for my getting banned, it is easy for a gang of editors (or one person with many fake names) to complain and ban temporarily. I have seen many crusades and jihads against sufi bios, and each time I expose their vandalism, they get me banned. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, are you kidding me? You log in for less than two hours and already launch on more personal attacks against me? In about an hour and forty minutes, you just:

Accused me of vandalism for nominating articles for AfD and made a clear threat of some unnamed retaliation,

Accused me of being on a "jihad" again in this edit

Implied that I'm a part of a terrorist organization here

Accused me of nominating articles for AfD based on my personal beliefs instead of the stated content issues here

Called me a bigot simply for nominating articles for AfD here

Accused me of nominating articles for AfD due to personal beliefs one more time

Did you even check what took place here? I brought you into this because Msoamu was clearly encouraging your behavior per the diff I showed above. Whether you know him in real life or not, you've clearly jumped onto this train.

Can administrators please do something about this? I haven't seen blatant personal attacks like this in a few years here on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any real accusations of a "collaboration", but bloody hell, that is a ridiculous comment to make, Hassan. I don't believe he is particularly anti-Sufi, or pro-Salafi, and certainly not to the degree you're accusing of him. Accusing him of being in a crusade, or a jihad, is a massive personal attack and this needs to be punished by a block, especially as you've made no attempt to provide evidence to back up your outlandish claims. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Propose some immediate action re Hassanfarooqi edits within last 2 hours as above. Among those edits "Why are you so afraid of revealing your name? Are you involved in a terror organization?" is not the only one totally unacceptable. Mezzo has already apologized for and withdrawn AfDs on the totally unsourced Sufi saints articles a week ago, it's evident that he didn't understand the AfD criteria (not alone there). In that week not a single source has been added, just more personal attacks on Mezzo. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, my feeling is that this is all way too complex and long standing for ANI to solve; some of these complaints go back years, and it would probably take RfC/U's on everyone to really see if there are long term problems. As an alternative to that, I propose that we give Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and MezzoMezzo final warnings: any more personal attacks, incivility, or blatant POV pushing will result in escalating blocks, to be issued by any uninvolved admin. If any of them are in fact "innocent" (and note that I believe that MezzoMezzo is much more the victim here, possibly blameless), and are editing in the best interests of Wikipedia, then they aren't at risk. In a sense, what I'm recommending is that we place these three users on discretionary sanctions. Yes, I know that there is no such thing, but I think you can get my idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully accept and even welcome being put on discretionary sanction. I fully accept and welcome administrator scrutiny of any and all edits I make on Wikipedia indefinitely, and given the overly long nature of this conflict, a final warning after which no warnings shall come (Lovecraftian, no?) should solve this. I am confident that my editing here is merely to improve the site and thus I have no issue if my account remains under such scrutiny forever. I only ask that administrators follow through should personal attacks come from any of those involved, including myself. One question, will Shabiha be exempt from this? I feel that he has been involved in the same issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I too feel that Shabiha should be placed on some kind of warning, although to my knowledge, he hasn't been involved in the dispute quite as long, so maybe it'll be a 3-strikes-rule or something for him. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha has also been at it on the Barelvi article. His block back in 2007 was for his personal attack on my talk page here due to the same POV/content disagrements. Similar comments about myself rather than relevant content can be found under his contributions during the past month or so. It's not limited to the original two examples I posted up there; while his comments are milder than those of the other two, the tendency for personal remarks is still there and has been for at least six years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Shabiha and Msoamu are back to refactoring comment to a pro Barelvi POV, see here.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 12:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not only that, it's my comments, not MezzoMezzo, so they've got no valid reasons for it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear all,I welcome any proposal given by Administrators.I am ready to cooperate with all respected editors of this nice site. Shabiha (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I came across a small part of this at AfD by accident. Both Msoamu and Mezzo requested I say something. But I'm not familiar enough with content aspect. All I can say is that first impression that Mezzo was the problem quickly (sorry Msoamu) were reversed to Qwryxian's view that Mezzo isn't the problem here. However if it is "too complex and too long" then pre-final not final warnings are called for. Also Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, you could avoid friction by reading WP:IRS and WP:PSTS and following it carefully with every byte added in article space. If content is sourced, even using Urdu Arabic or Farsi, then frictions and edit wars are much less likely. Also Msoamu, play the ball, not the man, okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments. I became aware of this discussion because of a message Mezzo left on my talk page. Some might consider it WP:CANVASSING, although I can see that Mezzo isn't the only editor asking for outside input. I was the admin who blocked Msoamu. I haven't read the long list of bullets Msoamu posted at the beginning, although I clicked on a few of the diffs. I belive Hassanfarooqi was added in the middle of all this by Mezzo. Hassan was properly notified by Mezzo of this discussion, but I note that they haven't edited since February 20, so they haven't had a chance to respond, even though they are included as part of Qwyrxian's proposal. Although Mezzo doesn't object to the imposition of "discretionary sanctions" (it's kind of an editing restriction with a discretionary sanction flavor), it's unclear to me why he's included except perhaps out of an abundance of caution to be "fair". I commend Luke for his tremendous efforts to mediate, and I commend Qwyrxian for his proposal to resolve the situation in a practical way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comments I was also asked to comment since I blocked Msoamu for six months in December 2006. Whilst that is old news, it appears from my review of some of the diffs and the comments above that there has been little improvement in his attitude to other users. I'm not sure why Mezzo merits a final warning, that appears to be intended to give an impression of even-handedness which is not justified. Msoamu clearly carries most of the responsibility here, and any sanctions should reflect that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "warning" of MezzoMezzo was primarily a move towards even-handedness. My worry was that the previous discussion had bogged down and was overflowing with so many diffs (some ridiculously old) that I felt it likely that it was just going to end up archived without any action taken. My thinking is that if MezzoMezzo is, in fact, editing entirely in good faith (something I think very likely, though the large number of single subject AfD's can be a matter of concern), then the warning ultimately has no effect, as I'm trusting that future admins are smart enough to tell the difference between a real infraction and something trumped up by an adversary. My other thinking is this: I'm of the opinion that, in a certain sense, once a user has been here long enough, they shouldn't need civility warnings; that is, we should all be editing as if we were on a final warning for civility. I really don't want Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi to just be able to walk away thinking "It's okay to call someone a jihadist, as long as I make sure to be the one to file the complaint with dozens of diffs from the past 5 years". I want them to understand that this behavior stops now, or they stop editing. It's a risky move, but given that MezzoMezzo has indicated a willingness to accept the "warning", I'm even more comfortable with it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins have worked hard to resolve this issue and I am really obliged to them all.I have always tried to improve the page with reliable sources and references.The continuous pushing of POV and nomination of one side's Articles for deletion,emphasizing on only negative/criticism proves that MezzoMezzo has really edited with a particular motives.He has been engaged in edit disputes with a number of editors.He has called them racist as in the case of 'Baboon and in case of other editors.It seems from his Canvassing and editing pattern on Sufi Articles that he don't want to allow other editors to edit these pages.You can find him on all Sufi Articles ,deleting genuine information while pushing negative/criticism.It is only he ,who has fight with so many editors.He will not allow any one to edit his favorite salafi Wahabi pages with neutral pint of view.see these pages how much POV has been supported and protected by him.I am not the only guilty here.ThanksMsoamu (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's a serious accusation, racism, especially when you haven't provided a single diff to prove it. I suggest you provide a diff immediately, or retract the allegation. Or do you mean that Mezzo was accusing Baboon of racism? I've never seen Mezzo be racist, you canvass as much as they do, and I think you are WP:IDHT with regards to your issues - it's very, very rare that anyone other than you, Shabiha, Sunnibarelvi or Hassanfarooqi, has ever reverted MezzoMezzo, or even had serious issues with Mezzo's edits (the marginal AfDs aside), whereas several editors, many very experienced, have reverted you. It's utter rubbish to speculate that he doesn't want to allow other editors to edit the articles, if your allegation was true, he'd have edited Sufism much more recently than the 9th of February, for example. Likewise, he hasn't edited Wahhabi since the 9th of February. The "Terrorism" section, which you edit warred over, for example, was a severe violation of WP:NPOV and Mezzo was right to remove it, pending a discussion. You fail to participate in many of the discussions, which only makes things worse. I feel that this discussion proves that, Msoamu at least, needs a topic ban. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu is referring to when I said that one of Baboon43's comments - not Baboon, but his comments - bordered on racism - not were actually racist, but bordered on racism. Anyway, I can see this ending easily with permanent surveillance of all edits by Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, Shabiha and myself with all four of us being on "final warnings," though a topic ban in the case of Msoamu would also help the state of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia, the personal attacks aside. Hassanfarooqi's accusations of jihadi are more problematic and I really don't feel he should walk away from that without some sort of repercussions. He did engage in edits even after Msoamu notified him of this discussion on his (Hassanfarooqi's) talk page, so he obviously knows that this discussion at least began. The question is now: what solution will be implemented and how will it be implemented? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo accused Baboon43 of Racism [376]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [377]

He seemed to be engaged in edit warnings [378].Baboon43 was editing various Articles and he was forced to say to MezzoMezzo this ,by the way it seems you like to confront editors by following them around..seeing i never seen you on this talk page until you started snooping around my contributions[379].There are more than other five editors with whom MezzoMezzo has history of engaging in edit disputes.The history of Mawlid Article tells that he is only interested in showing different movements in negative lights[380].This edit dispute lasted a long between him and other editors. Similarly he is always working on removing validity of different Islamic concept which Salafis don't like and is approved by Sufis see Tawassul he removed validity section [381] [382][383]Read this heading,it does not talk about validity but liked only criticism[384] supported by MezzoMezzo.He engaged in Sufi Wahabi disputes with various other editors here on Bidah Article [385].If he would have been so much neutral than multiple editors would not have accused him of pushing POV.He is also master in proposing Sufi related Articles for deletion.You will not find him doing same in the case of his favourite movement or supporting genuine criticism on wahabi/Salafi Articles.Even the scholars of Salafi movement will be untouched from criticism.What respected editors think ?Msoamu (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

His tendency of pushing his POV into various Articles and habit of engaging in edit disputes on Sufi related Articles [386]Added his POV [387],[388],[389][390].

He is only interested in inserting Criticism ,was accused of Cherry Picking material for this purpose see in Al-Ghazali [[391]].Msoamu (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your point has been made, Msoamu. This has been going on for what, a week and a half now? We've had trusted editors and several admins show support for Qwixrian's proposal and one editor suggest a topic ban. Just to keep things on point: what is the final decision, how will it be implemented, and who will do so? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We need an uninvolved editor (usually an admin) to decide if there is consensus for action of any type here. To be honest, the fact that Msoamu has gone back on the offensive rather than apologize for or even acknowledge the serious problems his/her editing has makes me think that we might even be warranted in skipping the warning. I'm of half a mind to do so myself, as I don't think I'm involved enough here to raise to the level of WP:INVOLVED...but I'd prefer another admin act, one way or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Respected administrators,I have already apologized here and I am in no mood of Offensive. MezzoMezzo's continuous offensive forced me to bring some proofs from his editing pattern.I respect your opinions and decisions.Msoamu (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Either you're refusing to get the points people are making, or your English isn't good enough for you to understand that it is your editing style that is much more problematic than Mezzo's. Mezzo has made some marginal decisions, but so have I, whereas you have made a number of very bad edits, and then warred to try and keep them there. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments I usually avoid commenting on cheap attacks, but was dragged on into this holy war after MezzoMezzo went after my bios trying to get them deleted, and then reacted on my defence them by posting all over my page. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really, so you avoid commenting on cheap attacks, and yet you make your own cheap attacks above? Hmm. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban

An interaction ban between Msoamu and MezzoMezzo is the only appropriate solution in this case.

Support. Zaminamina (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - with respect, I don't think you've quite understood the issue. This ban would be unhelpful as it doesn't address any issues with biased editing, and as they both contribute primarily to the same articles, it makes things even worse with that regard. It also ignores any issues from Shabitha and other editors involved. The proposal above this is far better. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Such a ban would be impossible, since the two editors already co-edit a large number of articles...and there are ongoing AfD's and content disputes in which neither of them should necessarily gain precedence. Furthermore, from my reading of the situation (which is somewhat limited), MezzoMezzo is attempting to conduct wide ranging cleanup in topics that have been created and/or protected by Msoamu, and the encyclopedia would be significantly worse off to lose his editing in those topics. Again, returning to the key point that lead for my call for the above proposal: calling someone a "jihadist", repeatedly, is something that needs to stop, period. I cannot believe that using such a strong invective is uniquely caused by the relationship between these two. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While my opposition to such an unworkable solution goes without saying, the fact that I'm one of the subjects here might disqualify that comment. But to support what Qwyrxian said above, a big concern of mine here is the personal attacks which have already occured, and the pattern of continuous personal attacks and disruptive editing which have gone on with Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi and Shabiha for the past six years. While an interaction ban won't solve things, we still need something, as leaving the situation as it is will effectively prevent a large number of religion and Islam related articles on Wikipedia from ever receiving fair, objective discussion. I think the comments from multiple users here have demonstrated these concerns. How can we resolve this issue and implement a workable solution? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban for both MezzoMezzo and Msoamu seems to me relevant solution of this long lasting problem.The love of MezzoMezzo for Salafism and then his interest in editing Sufism related topics thereby creating and causing many disputes on various pages similarly love of Msomau for Barelvi topic and his interest in editing Salafism or Wahabi topics is the only reason of dispute.They both can utilize their editing experience on other topics.This is most neutral workable and solution of this continuous problem. Shabiha (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And...that makes me think you need to be lumped into the "final warning" category above. Mezzomezzo's edits seem to be not only acceptable, but really necessary and important. Why would we topic ban him from an area that clearly needs a lot of clean up, and that he's willing to do? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to not directly defend myself until now, but perhaps it's in order. Shabiha, I am not a Salafi nor do I love Salafism any more than Sufism, or have any more interest in editing one article more than the other. And the thing is, I've told you that. I've told Msoamu that. I've made it clear more than once that I want nothing to do with ideologies or movements; I just want an objective presentation of information for readers of English Wikipedia, most of whom ostensibly have little experience with Muslim movements. You and Msoamu are both Barelvis and have made that clear on past versions of your respective user pages. And that's ok. Belonging to any movement, religion or ideology doesn't disqualify one's opinion; as Stephen Jay Gould said, objectivity is fairness in spite of bias, not denying one's own bias. The problem is that the two of you seem to have accounts solely for editing the pages on the Barelvi movement and its opponents, and promoting this world view - which would have been shown through reliable sources in my disputed edits - in which Barelvis believe that all of their opponents are part of a conspiracy against them, and anyone who criticizes Barelvism must be a Wahhabi. Six years is long enough for me to say confidently that I have seen this attitude demonstrated.

You want to make sure the movement isn't slandered, great. Wikipedia needs that. Shi'ite editors ensure that their sect isn't misrepresented. General Muslim editors ensure that anti-Muslim bigots can't misrepresent Islam, and objective non-Muslim editors ensure that Muslims can't paint an overly rosy picture of our religion. There are three areas which are lacking: people to keep Barelvism in check, Salafi editors to ensure they aren't defamed (most Salafi Wikipedians like Servant114 and DawudBeale left in 2009 when a major English-language Salafi website posted a polemical diatribe against Wikipedia), and Deobandi editors to ensure they aren't defamed (I have never, ever seen an open Deobandi on Wikipedia). There are some Ahl al-Hadith editors, but their English is awful and they aren't very active. So I positioned myself over both Barelvi and Salafi related topics simply because I saw a need for objective monitoring that wasn't being filled (in the case of Salafism articles for four years now, in the case of Barelvism articles, since I joined Wikipedia).

I am not a Salafi. I am not a Sufi. I do not have some sort of love for Salafism, nor for Sufism. I really don't care about these movements as they don't affect my personal life. I just want objectivity on this site. I am not always successful or correct and all good Wikipedians will freely admit that about themselves. But your constant accusations and, lately, subtle insinuations that I'm some Salafi in disguise are unwelcome and, given my frequent clarifications on my position from the movement, unneeded. So please, stop hinting or otherwise insinuating that I'm some secret Salafi editor out to defame your movement and let's all try to focus on the issue at hand: how will this content-conduct dispute be resolved? I swear to God - and even for Wikipedians who don't believe in one, the fact that I do should make the weight which this swear carries apparent - that I have zero problems at all with permanent, unending administrative monitoring of any and all edits I make. I say that because any inappropriate edits on my part are mistakes and I'm open to those mistakes being corrected, as was the case with In coctu ilis and GorgeCuster'sSabre. I have absolutely nothing to hide and such monitoring could even serve as a good form of evidence should I ever be accused of things like this again - I would always have someone who could vouch for that. There could be other solutions to, but at nearly two weeks I would just like someone with the necessary responsibility to carry out the decision.

I would prefer not to comment here again. I'm a long winded speaker and writer and however valid my comments might be, I know that merely reading them is a task. I just want this to be resolved soon so all concerned editors can move on and resume tending to Barelvi, Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Ahl al-Hadith, Sunni Tehreek etc. as normal. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits speaks themselves.I will not say any thing.You called me several times Barelvi I did not object,It is a terminology used by some to show entire South Asian Sunni Sufi movement in bad light.I respect your feelings but you should have avoided calling me names.I have always tried to contribute Wikipedia with positive intentions and objectives.I have always tried to contribute positively with an open mind.I am open to any corrections. Shabiha (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits speak for themselves...how? Are you claiming now that I'm lying when I tell you that I'm not Salafi (or part of any other movement for that matter)? And you're once again proving to me the lack of objectivity which brings me to these articles...Sunni Sufis in South Asia are composed of two groups: Deobandis and Barelvis. Once again, you seem unable to acknowledge what mainstream scholarship has accepted, and insist on claiming that Deobandism is excluded from Sufism and Sunni Islam...hence, the need for people like me who can ensure that Barelvi doctrine (or any other doctrine) is represented as subjective doctrine and not objective fact. In this case, yes, the edit does speak for itself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the value it might be, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism is fairly demonstrative of what ends up happening to what would otherwise be productive, objective discussions on improving Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I was not willing to jump into arguments with any one here.I am not a party to this dispute despite that I was dragged here by MezzoMezzo.To tell the facts to Administrators and editors I am very humbly submitting this- MezzoMezzo claimed to disassociate himself from any movement.But he created and introduced majority of Articles belonging to Salafism or of a movement which is very close to it [392] it is known as Zahiri and is based on literal thought which has influenced Salafism[393].

He edited following Articles[394] on wikipedia,which clearly established his area of interest.He has many times in sequence nominated Sufism related pages for deletion and has removed large stuff from only Sufism related pages.I may provide proofs from his edit history,also proved by other editors. Shabiha (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

<deindent>I rewrote most of the BTC Touring articles or wrote them from scratch: I have no connection with the BTCC. That's a ridiculous allegation to make, that MezzoMezzo must be connected with Salafism. Mezzo has every right to create whatever he wants, as long as it complies with the guidelines - which, 99% of the time, it does. Also, you're lying about not being a party to this dispute, as you've been involved in several disputes across several articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - they edit the same articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment A solution to intractable edit wars which I have very occasionally and reluctantly used (because it's hard and thankless work) is to warn everyone concerned that I will remove any edits that are not impeccably RS sourced or which do not accurately reflect the RS sources, and that I will block anyone who doesn't play nicely (not needed so far in practice). That works quite well with single articles where one "side" is clearly pushing pov more than the other, especially as I'm editing from a position of knowing nothing about the topic, so npov by definition. I'm not sure how it would play across a range of articles, but I can't see why we shouldn't warn all concerned that edits that aren't impeccably sourced and neutral will be reverted, and may be backed up by withdrawing editing rights. If we just pussyfoot around this, the problems will not go away Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm down with that too, as long as it's undertaken. I don't think it's far fetched to say that the time I put into neutralizing and sourcing Wikipedia entries on Islam-related articles has yielded good results for both the sites and the readers. Islamic legal terms like Qiyas and Ijma are good examples of my efforts bringing almost worthless, unclear stubs to the level of acceptable articles, while the biographies I created of Islamic studies academics such as Dawud al-Zahiri, Camilla Adang, Siddiq Hasan Khan and so forth have not only added to the encyclopedia in the way of info but also inter-Wiki links for cited persons/authors. That work has come to a standstill on anything which Msoamu and Shabiha (and to a lesser extent, Hassafarooqi) turn their eyes. The examples of this are numerous, but in this section at Talk:Barelvi, there is the most encompassing, telling example of what working with either of them on Sufism-related articles is like: Barelvis (90% of all Muslims, actually) believe that when people die, they will be raised again at judgment day and Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, will be able to intercede with God on the behalf of sinners. Msoamu doesn't seem to understand that stating "Muhammad intercedes" is presenting dogmatic religious belief as objective fact is wrong, and doesn't seem to get why I'm insisting on "Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercedes," because this intercession is Muslim religious belief and not an objective fact by the standards of Wikipedia. This is even more of a stumbling block when it comes to Barelvi beliefs about other groups, which neither of them will accept as a matter of opinion but rather as objective fact.

I'm using this as a telling example, not as some kind of slander; I'm trying to demonstrate that my efforts at neutralizing articles are simply not possible as it stands now, because I have other editors who seem to think that Wikipedia should represent their beliefs as objective facts. Running with what Jimbleak said above, this current situation is unworkable; the articles in which these editors have taken interest can not be improved, period, unless something is done. Maybe it needs a topic ban. Maybe it needs a final warning for all of us. Maybe it needs an admin to constantly monitor the pages in question and be ready to block any of us, them or me both, if we get out of line. I don't know, it's not up to me. But what I'm asking is for something to be done. Msoamu, for the past two weeks, has merely used this thread to make post after post about me, my beliefs (about which he knows almost nothing) and my edits; he has been entirely unrepentant and doesn't seem to possess any desire to move on. Now, given the comments above, Shabiha also seems content to simply sift through my old edits and created pages. Neither of them are looking for a solution, not here and not on the pages in question.

We've had a lot of good suggestions, but one of them, or several of them - again, the selection isn't up to me since I'm involved in this case - really should be implemented, and enforced, as all four of us (Msoamu, Shabiha, Hassanfarooqi and myself) have been warned. Given the recent escalation of personal attacks and the continued comments (none of them valid) about me personally, I don't see this issue going anywhere and I don't see Wikipedia's entries receiving needed improvements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

One block

Yesterday Hassanfrooqi made this edit, yet again attacking MezzoMezzo. I warned him. Since his response repeated the attack, I have blocked for 3 days. This behavior has to stop. If people are unable to comment on edits and are instead obsessed with attacking the editor, then they can't edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The response to your warning went beyond the original attack. A 3-day block was conservative. If the behavior repeats itself after the block expires, the editor should be indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think that blockage was of any benefit, I wanted to invite all of you to calm down, and ask Qwyrxian to concentrate on investigating the case rather than blocking. Obviously, editors from both sides are frustrated and may accuse each other, but blocking is more damaging than constructive. My first impression is that Msoamu had concerns that another editor is making too much unfavorable edits to Barelvism page. Lack of investigation and useless comments on this page will only cause more frustration. Have you investigated Msoamu's complaint? Zakwp (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can I ask if you've bothered to read any of this discussion, or any previous one? I investigated the situation before Msoamu's block (which is where 99% of the disputed things come from), and found it to be predominantly Msoamu who was POV pushing a biased view, whereas MezzoMezzo was generally neutral, bar a few AfD mistakes - that they apologized for. Also, I think Hassanfarooqi needs indeffing now, with talk page rights revoked - [395] they're basically asking to be indeffed, and they're continuing to slander MezzoMezzo and everyone involved. Msoamu's concerns are due to either marginal/poor English skills, a COI, or a difference of opinion about these articles than fits Wiki guidelines, if not a mixture of the above, and Shabiha suffers similar issues. This has been analysed to death, and action needs to be taken: indef for Hassanfarooqi, a short-term topic ban for Shabiha, a longer-term one for Msoamu, and a final warning for MezzoMezzo (as accepted by that user). Lukeno94 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

He created his account less than an hour before making that comment and according to his contribs, only spent an hour and four minutes of actual editing. So I would guess no, he hasn't quite read everything.

As for Lukeno's suggestion above, or any other suggestion, I'm down. Hell, as an olive branch, I'll submit to putting tougher sanctions on me. Put a big, unmovable template on my user page saying "this guy is under surveillance so take his comments with a grain of salt." Really, I have no problem with that because I know that my edits and comments are well-intentioned, even if sometimes mistaken, and I make them for the purposes of improving Wikipedia; thus I have no fear, and maybe the good will from suggesting even tougher repercussions for myself will get this sorted out sooner. That's my point: most of the suggestions here have been good. But until they're implemented, much needed improvements on multiple articles are on hold. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lukeno94,I accept your suggestion,can you throw some light on reasons of suggesting a Topic Ban for me and not putting me in warning list?What offense and violation I have done here and Also comment on [396] and [397],whether it amounts to Wikipedia:TROLLING or not ?. Shabiha (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• What are you actually trying to show there Shabiha? The first diff shows nothing majorly untoward, yes, it's a disputed point, but it's not massively biased, or even close to violating NPOV. As to the second, I see MezzoMezzo removing an empty section (valid), rewriting a section to make it far more neutral and improving its layout (valid), and tagging a section that has no references as being unreferenced (valid). The reason I've proposed you to get a topic ban is simple: you seem either unable or unwilling to understand when an edit is biased and when it is not, and you can be fairly aggressive at times. Whether this is due to a COI, your weaker English skills, or other reasons, I can't say, and don't really wish to - but at present, the diffs you've cited there only strengthen my point. I've said that you should get a shorter topic ban than Msoamu, for the reason that your English is a bit better, you're much more willing to discuss things, and you don't constantly escalate issues to the highest forum. Part of the issue here is yours, and Msoamu's, weaker grasps on English that really don't combine well with editors such as myself and MezzoMezzo, whom tend to explain things in a fairly in-depth manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Zakwp is obviously a sock puppet, either of one of the parties here or of someone who just likes to screw around with me/admins in general. I'll figure out what to do with that account in a minute. And regarding Shabiha, I agree with Luken on the edits, though I know if I agree on the need for a topic ban. And regarding Hassanfarooqi, Luken, that was really your fault—you went to his talk page when you didn't need to while he was blocked to take a snipe at him. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I know that if I were him, I'd feel like I was being baited. At this point, a topic ban on anyone seems impossible, since bans require broad community support, and for whatever reason, there simply hasn't been enough uninvolved comment here yet to endorse that. However, I am pretty close to simply clarifying on the people's talk pages that they are under final warnings—I believe that I am sufficiently uninvolved to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I stepped back from the dispute, if you actually look at the diff it came before I posted at Hassanfarooqi's talk page. I admit I got sucked in there by his comments, as his attitude annoyed me and I was tired, but that's not really an excuse, so I apologize for that. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: the point Lukeno mentioned is only disputed by Shabiha. Even before his comment above, I added like a buttload of scholarly sources supporting the edit. I wish Shabiha had mentioned that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit differences shown by me were to prove that MezzoMezzo is trolling on pages where I edited.He was not there since a long and he inserted his POV without even explanations by following my contributions.This tendency has harassed me and other editors.He is just not allowing me and other editors to edit pages.Moreover Can i be held guilty if my English is not good and I have not committed any offense in real terms? Shabiha (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you have got to be joking. Not only were the diffs above of me adding valid sources, but you then ran amock at the page in question. As seen on its history, I was adding sources, formatting the article, organizing it in a logical way and removing Youtube links. You then did one massive revert of all of the work regardless of whether or not it was even touching POV points, and you removed the heading for protecting the page which leads me to believe you literally blanked the page and copy pasted an old version, and inserted a Wikipedia fork as a source despite me having mentioned that earlier in one of my edit summaries. You then went on to the talk page and claimed that the sources in question supported your view, to which I had to spend time transcribing to prove that they don't. Now you're still claiming on that talk page that the sources support your view?

Can we look at a temporary ban for Shabiha as well until needed work is done on these articles? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You removed a lot of headings even with out following neccessary etiquette of discussing them then I added sources in in to various headings which were removed by you with a clear Bias towards Article.Now Again you removed them and brought incomplete picture here.Is this really in Good faith? You removed a large sourced chunk , and made a complaint here. Shabiha (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Shabiha, your inability to accept the input of neutral editors is precisely why I've called for a topic ban; you're only reinforcing my call, at present. The contributions to the article you directly informed me about were 100% correct and absolutely should've been done. The other one is an edit you two have disputed for a while, but no one else has really gotten involved. Neither diff showed any evidence of biased editing. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Qwyrxian's comments (way above). We do not have enough community consensus for topic bans. Also, there should be no indef of Hassanfarooqi at this point; it would be unfair based on the talk page issues. I'm ignoring the fact that he's practically asking to be indeffed. I'm willing to let Qwyrxian issue the warnings as sufficiently uninvolved. If he feels uncomfortable doing so, perhaps we could fashion the appropriate warning, and I'll do it. More than anything else, I'd like a little clarity going forward. (The new account is an obvious sock and/or troll.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I have been threatedned here [398] in these words,result won't be good for you. Yesterday MezzoMezzo had removed some sections due to lack of sources and that too with out a discussion. Can he do so with out reaching on a consensus when he has been accused of pushing his POV many times.My addition of sources was rejected [399] was on my way of restoring some removed heading with sources [400] [401] and added more sources to another heading here [402] [403] trying to add his stand on a concept [404] and added more sources [405]

Now I request you to see and read other side of this sad story where MezzoMezzo has canavassed,incited, tried to potray himself as Good faith editor but his continuous editing on Sufi pages without discussion and with out good faith has harassed me.His potraying himself as most civil editor while adressing/attacking many editors personally,attempting to incite them by his trollings and following them has proven beyond doubt how much honest he is?He today and yesterday edited this page just to prove a Point that Barelvi movement is new sect founded actually by Ahmed Raza Khan while ground researchers and PhD holders who have done their work on this movement through out his life have proven that Sufi Movement of India is known as Barelvis by Salafis etc.There are numerous sources which contradict his point but he is here to push his POV so he will not stop.He can mock and harass as many times as he may wish.The page had these words supported by valid sources since long and he changed it according to his wishes.He removed many headings yesterday to which I today tried to add with sources but he cares for none and reverted and complained here. Shabiha (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, most people appear to agree with the majority of MezzoMezzo's edits. Mezzo has made some errors, but he is certainly not the bad faith editor you're accusing him of being. The things you keep citing as being "POV-pushing" is no more biased than any of your edits, and probably less so. You also continuously make points about his personal beliefs that are COMPLETELY inappropriate to make. Fact is, you're now insulting MezzoMezzo by referring to them as a troll, and making comments about personal attacks without evidence, let alone the fact they're also incorrect. Maybe you should get a similar ban to Msoamu... Lukeno94 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the solution is, I think it might not be implemented until things calm down here. Judging by the talk page at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, Shabiha already seems close to falling back into edit warring in order to defend disruptive edits. Six years experience with him and I can sort of guestimate when short waves of such behavior are about to occur. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Warnings given

I've just formally warned MezzoMezzo, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha. The warnings were customized for each editor, but in summary each of them state that any future problems are incivility or edit warring is going to result in blocks. If someone wants to add something to my warnings, feel free to do so. I don't keep any of the relevant articles on my watchlist (I think), so I can't say that I'll be monitoring the situation, but any editor is welcome to bring violations to ANI. The involved editors, however, should note that bringing a frivolous complain to ANI will itself be considered a violation and could result in blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Imposter/sock needs a block

After reverting vandalism at Salvia officinalis by 24.54.160.97 (talk · contribs),[406] they commented on my talk page and then reappeared to vandalize the Salvia officinalis as the newly created FIRSTLIGHT1234 (talk · contribs). Blocks of the imposter account, and the IP, would be appreciated. First Light (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, First Light (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

 – Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics KillerChihuahua 06:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tea_Party_movement. RNealK (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they changed it. The sub-page here is still being edited, too. KillerChihuahua 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Gaba p playing the race card in content dicussions

[407] Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderland racist. Aside from the crude spelling, the accusation of racism is a clear attempt to chill the discussion. I've seen exactly the same tactic before, repeatedly accusing another editor of being racist, repeat often enough and mud sticks. He had a chance to apologise, [408] instead he simply repeated it. The only example of racism here is his presumption I'm white in making such an accusation. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like charges of near-racist comments (or charges of charging someone of near-racist comments) are the least of the problems going on at that talk page. Trench warfare appears to have broken out there, in fact, and the name-calling is just a symptom. Sounds like DRN didn't work for you guys - might I suggest mediation or an RfC to resolve the issue, rather than everyone continuing to throw grenades at each other? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No change is too trivial to [409] to revert war over [410] if I make it and he tries to start arguments over the most ridiculously trivial things [411], [412]. Yes I know its childish and no I don't intend to play his games but if you have someone going at you constantly it gets wearing and you snap. Why is no one prepared to do something about this guy hounding me constantly. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt at sidetracking the efforts at the talk page where we've been a month re-factoring a section after Wee deleted it with no consensus to do so. There are currently four editors over there agreeing to edit in a given version of the section and he just keeps introducing changes with neither source nor good reason[413][414] going directly against the wording present in the source used. I'll repeat what I said over there:

• I do believe referring to the official statements by the president of a Latin American nation as crass comments is borderline racist, as I believe referring to the actions of a female president as a "hissy fit" (as you did not long ago[415][416]) is borderline misogynistic (and I told you that much at the time). I'd suggest striking that part of your comment.

It would appear Wee has a distinctive contempt for presidents Chavez and Kirchner but it is definitely not ok for those feelings to permeate into his WP editing. Wee, your accusations of hounding and constant personal attacks ("disruptive", "childish", etc..) have gotten really old by now. It'd be nice if you could just drop them.

Please note I did not call him a "racist" but he did call me a "dick" earlier today (not the first time by a long shot). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a volunteer at WP:DRN, and I tried to assist with this content dispute. There are nationalistic (UK vs Argentina) undertones permeating the dispute. The DRN case failed to reach a resolution. There is quite a bit of edit-warring happening, although I don't think the 3RR limit has been reached. The big problem here is the tendentious editing ... some of the editors are filibustering and refusing to work towards a consensus. My advice is for an admin to protect the page for 2 weeks or so; and to initiate an RfC. I'm trying to think of how to frame the RfC question, but dont have a great idea yet. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) With regard to "reciprocating" vs. "in return for": The two are basically synonymous in this context, and it is not identified as a quote, so I don't believe "stick[ing] to the wording of the source" is required. However, making such an edit during the middle of a content dispute seems like a bad idea, particularly if the other party is inclined to pick at it. I'd stick to editing only what absolutely has to be done in such cases, and leave the language "polishing" for a later time and perhaps editors uninvolved in the current controversy. To pick a grammar (not style) point, I believe the comma preceding "in return for" doesn't belong, or "reciprocating" needs "for" after it (i.e. it should be either "...sovereignty claim in return for Argentina's..." or "...sovereignty claim, reciprocating for Argentina's...").

As far as calling a country's leader's comments "crass" (and without reference to or knowledge of the particular comments involved), I don't see anything inherently nationalistic or discriminatory about it – the leaders of many countries have made crass ("coarse, crude, not refined or sensible") comments at one time or another, and have likely had them described as such in mainstream reliable sources. "Hissy-fit" is more commonly gender-related and colloquial. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I also refererred to Cameron as pretentious prick and I'm also on record as describing Gordon Brown's resignation as a hissy fit. Most former soldiers regard politicians with a healthy degree of contempt. None of which actually feeds through into content I suggest thats a complete red herring. I'd also comment the nationalistic undertones are very one sided ie come from one party.

None of the above justify calling another editor a racist, this is purely about chilling discussion with unfounded and unsustainable allegations. I do however note the person making such an allegations is making presumptions that are of themselves racist in nature. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, everyone cool down. This seems all too familiar.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• As mentioned in the past few times there were here - interaction ban time - its clear they will never get along. Moxy (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Before this degenerates much further, may I ask the small question of "what is the admin action being requested?" Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you actually do something to stop Gaba P baiting me please.

I am tired of the frivolous complaints here, I am tired of him going around telling everyone I am blocking things or alleging I am engaged in misconduct, I am tired of having to defend myself against frivolous allegations of misconduct by this guy but most of all I'm tired of this guy's constant personal attacks.

This is entirely one sided and stems from the fact he was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Alex79818, for which he has conducted a vendetta against me ever since. As its one sided I would like a one way interaction ban please. Make it two way if I abuse it but you have my word that I won't. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I think this has gone far enough. Wee has been accusing me of being a sock puppet of user User:Alex79818 for over a year now. After Wee first accused me of this (Feb 2012) I was blocked by admin User:Nick-D. The block was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to an admin (Wee knows the RLI of this user so the admin, User:JamesBWatson, could compare and see I was not that person) Wee was not convinced and since then his accusations have not stopped. Actually they have gotten worse. He doesn't imply it anymore, he is here now directly stating I am that user. This needs to stop.

At every ANI we were involved in since early 2012 (~3-4) he repeated the same accusations and I repeated my good faith proposition to once again give away my right to anonymity to some willing admin so he/she could check that I was not that user. No admin (except from the first one who ended up lifting my block a year ago) ever took up on my offer; Wee's accusations were simply ignored and his vitriol eventually dissipated until a new event like this one emerged.

He now is asking that I be banned accused of being such a sock puppet so I think it would be better if the matter could be put to rest once and for all. This is my proposal: I will do absolutely anything it is required from me to prove I am not the user Wee accuses me of. I am prepared to give any admin here access to my FB and G+ accounts and will submit myself to any test that might be necessary to determine I am not that person. If I can't convince the admin I am not the person Wee accuses me of being, I will retire from WP myself. If on the other hand, the admin can check for him/herself I am not that person then I ask that Wee be banned from interacting with me. I believe this to be the only way his accusations and constant attacks will ever stop.

Finally: please stop by the talk page of the article to see where the personal attacks and disruptive editing were coming from. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Point of order: Wee did not say you are that user in his above statement, merely that you were blocked as a sock of that user.

That said, the current issue is your assertion that Wee's statement was "racist." That needs to be withdrawn, as it's well agreed his comment was not racist. Once that's out of the way, we can look into the rest, if necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Although I can not change what I believe I hereby withdraw my comment about Wee's Chavez remark being "borderline racist". I'll be more careful next time about commenting on what I could perceive as being "borderline racist".

Now regarding the issue of constant sock puppet accusations by Wee: here are the diffs where he accused me of being a sock puppet of said user since last year (there could be more lost in between): 22 Jun 2012, 21 Sep 2012, 23 Sep 2012, 17 Dec 2012, 16 Jan 2013, 16 Jan 2013, 29 Jan 2013, 30 Jan 2013. Not counting the times he casually brings it up like he did here today. So I repeat the proposal I made above. Wee can provide the RLI of that blocked user and I will submit myself to absolutely any test that a voluntary admin might believe to be necessary in order to confirm I am not that person. If I fail to convince him/her then I will voluntarily retire from WP. If it can be proven I am not that editor then I ask for Wee Curry Monster to be banned from interacting with me. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying you'll make that offer again then I'll make the same response as last time. Ignoring WP:OUTING concerns for a moment, it would be trivial for an editor minded to sockpuppetry to make up an identity and even if Curry Monster had got it wrong there is almost no chance that the name would be the same as that provided by a sockmaster.

Unless they were really quite stupid, a sockmaster would not give the same name as Curry Monster. A non-sockmaster also would not give the same name as Curry Monster. That your claimed RL identity does not match one provided by Curry Monster proves nothing because there are no circumstances in which you would ever have both given the same name.

Here's the facts. You were blocked as a sockpuppet of Alex79818. More than one admin at the time opined that the evidence that you were the same person was convincing. And we can drive a coach and horses through the logic that saw you unblocked.

Finally, the best way for you to avoid Curry Monster would be to avoid areas where he is likely to be around. That would be the Falklands for a start. And if, as you propose, an editor is to be sanctioned, it seems to me rather more logical that it should be for the editor who has already been warned and then blocked for personal attacks in the present discussion (then it was accusations of lying), and who has been brought here because of yet more personal attacks. Kahastok talk 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So your solution for having Wee stop attacking and accusing me of sock-puppetry is that I stop editing? And that sounds reasonable to you? Gaba p (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For editors here not aware: Kahastok and Wee were topic-banned not long ago from editing Gibraltar related articles. Their team behaviour over there (defending each other's edits and actions) is a clear reflection of what goes on at Falkland related articles (clearly seen in Kahastok's comment above). They have both quite a distinctive pro-British position which they attempt to enforce in articles covering Gibraltar and the Falklands, both former British colonies.

Kahastok: Wee Curry Monster knows the RLI of that user. It's not just a name, it's his true identity as a person. I am not offering to give just my name to any admin that volunteers, I am offering to submit myself to absolutely any test to assert my identity and confirm I am not that person. If, like Wee, you too believe I am that editor then I offer you the same deal: if I can prove I am not that editor by once again giving away my right to anonymity and submitting myself to any test considered necessary, then you get an interaction ban on me.

Just to be clear: I am not looking for sanctions on anybody here; unlike Wee and Kahastok who have been trying to have me banned for quite some time now. I just don't want to leave yet another ANI knowing that whenever Wee feels like throwing mud at me, the sock puppetry accusations will resurface again. If Wee makes here a pledge to not accuse me of being a sock puppet of that editor again then this can be dropped instantly. Otherwise I see no other way around this. An editor can't possibly be allowed to accuse another editor of being a sock puppet time and again with no consequences whatsoever.
If giving away my right to anonymity in WP and agreeing to submit myself to any test considered necessary are not enough to put an end to sock puppetry accusations then what is? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction, some time ago whilst in bad state mentally, as it happens I suffer from PTSD from my service in the British Army, I went through a period of being quite uncivil. It was uncharacteristic, I acknowledged my faults, accepted a topic ban and I've not repeated the same behaviour since. Constantly bringing up a case from the past, something that is painful for me to acknowledge but which is actually irrelevant is contrary to WP:CIVIL. Its trying to muddy the waters and its not the first time Gaba P has done it.

Sadly it seems on wikipedia that once sanctioned for any reason, it can be dragged up with impunity purely to cause personal anguish. Pointing fingers at the mentally ill seems to be a common bloodsport on here.

I just want to put Gaba P's comments into context his initial unblock request was refused, as the sock puppet case was compelling, he was later given the benefit of the doubt after assistance from me and later warned not to continue the personal attacks in the same vein. User:Alex79818 plagued me for years, despite that I gave Gaba P the benefit of the doubt and co-operated with having him unblocked, only for that to be repaid by Gaba P conducting a vendetta ever since trying to get me sanctioned. If he had left me alone, if he hadn't started the frivolous cases at ANI, then I would have felt no need to comment on the sock puppet case at all. As noted above he was recently blocked for personal attacks and has come back doing the same. That has to be the worst none apology I've seen here in a while. He managed to repeat the same allegation three times.

And no I'm not after him banned, I just want the constant personal attacks stopped. I don't seek interaction with him, he seeks me out wherever I edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of corrections are needed after Wee's comment above.

1. He never "cooperated" with my unblock. He didn't even bother stopping by my talk page after I was blocked following an accusation by him. This can easily be checked by going through my block archive. I searched and found by myself the information that he knew the RLI of this blocked user and Wee only provided it after I asked an admin to request it from him. Again, this can all be easily confirmed looking at my block archive.
2. I've started only 2 cases at ANI: the first after Wee refused to stop re-factoring my comments (which ended up with him agreeing no to do it again) and the second one after he and Kahastok completely deleted a section from an article with no consensus. The section in question could only be re-installed a couple of days ago after a month of work by at least 6 editors and both these editors attempted to remove it on sight once again: [417][418][419][420].
3. Wee is definitely after me being banned, at least from Falkland related articles. He even asked that much not long ago. When the admin suggested that he too be topic banned from Falkland related articles he said "fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here" (never really left)
4. "he seeks me out wherever I edit", he edits (almost?) exclusively in Falkland and Gibraltar articles. If I edit on any Falkland related article he will be there. I am a part of the Falkland Islands work group just like Wee but unlike him I have other interests too. I have so far edited in no more than 4-5 Falkland related articles of the several dozens around, yet Wee still accuses me of following him around.

Wee, I will not bother commenting on your accusations of "personal attacks" since they are simply a way to distract attention from the fact that you have still not agreed to stop accusing me of being a sock puppet. You either agree to stop your accusations or we look for admin to check whether I am or not the same person as that blocked user. If I have to once again give away my right to anonymity because of your constant accusations and once again an admin decides I am not that person then you get an interaction ban on me. You can't expect me to just sit down and take your "sock-puppet" accusations whenever you feel like throwing mud at me. One way or another this needs to stop. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, point of order re: your #1: If you had followed the diff, you'd have seen that the unblocking admin was convinced in part by an email from Wee. That he did not comment on your talk page is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I see diffs are being abused again to paint a misleading picture, see [421], [422], I self-reverted shortly after the diffs presented above. I realised two wrongs don't make a right and fixed it, including an apology to the originating editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: that email from Wee was only issued after I asked admin JamesBWatson to check into it after I serendipitously found out that Wee knew this user's RLI by myself. Wee absolutely never bothered to stop by my talk page to make any kind of comment after making the accusation and getting me blocked and most certainly did not send that email out of the kindness of his heart. He did so because an administrator asked him to and only after I had revealed my RLI as a last resort to get my account back.

Note that he still refuses to address the point of calling me a sock puppet which means he has no intention of dropping it. I can not accept that this editor has the privilege of accusing me of being a sock puppet every time he wishes to. How is that not a gross breach of WP:CIVIL? What else can I do to stop these accusations other than what I've already proposed? Gaba p (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As an outside comment with no interaction with any of the above, I can say that whenever I have seen Gaba p and WCM come up at noticeboards recently (this year) it ALWAYS ends up with WCM bringing up Gaba was blocked as a sockpuppet. (Erroneously as it turns out). Can an admin please tell WCM to stop doing this unless he actually thinks Gaba is a sockpuppet, and to take that accusation to SPI. Its getting very tiresome and serves no purpose other than to deliberately wind up Gaba as anyone can see above. And no hiding behind 'well I didnt say you WERE a sockpuppet'. Bringing it up at every opportunity is deliberately planting the idea. Its just as bad. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The block and unblock discussion is here User talk:Gaba p/Archive 1.

A condition of his unblock was to stop personal attacks [423] to edit constructively and collaboratively. He has continued to be confrontational and aggressive and has pursued a vendetta against me ever since.

The faux outrage about any mention of the sock puppet case is merely a distraction tactic from the issue of his battleground mentality. I bring it up because it is relevant, nothing more, nothing less. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting that:

1- this has been going for over a year now and Wee shows absolutely no intentions of dropping his constant accusations (even regarding my repeated requests that he stops doing so as "faux outrage") and

2- he comments on my "battleground mentality" when he can't even bring himself to agree to stop attacking me with false accusations of being a sock puppet,

I believe it is time to address this issue in an ANI report of its own. Unless an admin here proposes another solution I'll be opening a new ANI to deal specifically with this in the coming days. I refuse to accept that this user can simply decide not to stop calling me a sock puppet. Finally: please any editor reading this head on over to the talk page of the article where this started and see for yourselves who has the battleground mentality. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been warned before about threatening to take people to ANI as well. It very rarely helps.

I don't believe that Curry Monster is accusing you of sockpuppetry here. But it is not unreasonable of him to point out that since being unblocked with a stern warning to stop personally attacking people, remove the POV from your edits and remove the battleground mentality. You have continued to personally attack people and continued with the battleground mentality, and continued to edit from a POV - to the extent that not so long ago, in our current discussion, you were actually citing Argentina's foreign minister as a neutral and reliable source. And let's remember which editor has already been blocked at ANI - when discussing the same point - for repeatedly accusing other editors of lying. It wasn't Curry Monster. And it wasn't me.

Even when you were unblocked, your style was seen as "aggressive and confrontational", and it has not become significantly less so. The fact that it was a sockpuppetry block is irrelevant to this point - if it had been a 3RR block the point would be the same. You were told to change your style and you have not done so. Kahastok talk 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok's continued attacks on me teaming with Wee are not unusual since he behaves the same way everywhere (just ask User:Michael_Glass[424], or User:Martinvl[425], or User:Ecemaml[426] who dealt with them in Gibraltar articles). Talk about abusing diffs, I used the Buenos Aires Herald as a source which happened to be quoting said minister. When that source was questioned I immediately (exactly 20 minutes later) changed the proposed wording and source used. Incidentally, notice Kahastok's completely random mud throwing.

This is exactly why I'm proposing (notice the difference with "threatening" Kahastok?) to open a new ANI to deal specifically with this. Both Wee and Kahastok keep looking for ways to accuse me of anything instead of addressing the issue of repeated accusation of sock puppetry. I'll wait until tomorrow and, if nothing else is proposed, open a new report. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Stone me. If there is going to be another war... I think we know where it's gonna start _{What you mean, it already has?!?!?!} Basket _Feudalist 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaba p and Langus txt, Lord knows I did not want to comment or interact with you again, but Gaba, your tactics never change and editors and administrators need to know the truth. You keep trying to "change the subject of your abusive attacks and comments" hoping they forget the real problem here. Well, I will never forget. I tried to make some edits on the "article", and to defend an obvious untruths against another editor, and this is what I got. [427] It should be noted that it was on YOUR talkpage, even though it is signed by Langus txt, that is strange enough, but then you left it there until I found it and removed it myself. You should be blocked for that alone, along with your "alter-ego?" Langus txt. Mugginsx (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, whilst I saw how you were treated by both, it has to be noted that Langus-TxT has made an effort to edit in a more collegial manner of late. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it, perhaps he likes to play to both sides, I really do not know. One thing I do know, he is NOT sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mugginsx, not again. User Mugginsx appears out of the blue every time to defend Wee and viciously attack me (and sometimes editor Langus too). This user does not take part of the discussions in any way but nevertheless shows up whenever Wee is in trouble. This is the third ANI this user has showed up to do the exact same thing: [428][429] always asking that I be sanctioned in one way or another. Your comment on editor Langus is so amazingly random I am lost for words. You appeared in my talk page accusing me of stalking Wee (just like he does, nevermind it is completely untrue) and Langus responded to you. I don't even want to consider that you might be accusing me and Langus of what I think you are accusing me and Langus, so I'll just leave it at that.

Wee's replies just reinforce my idea to open a new ANI to deal with the constant accusations of sock puppetry. He's had the chance to either agree to not do it again or take me to SPI as Only in death does duty end suggested above but instead has chosen to continue attacking me aided by Kahastok and now apparently Mugginsx too. This needs to stop. Gaba p (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gaba for proving my point. For heavens sakes, did you not even read what you linked here? Here we go again back to "changing the subject" Your characterization of my remark on your page does not have any similarity to the truth. My relationship with any editor you mention is true ONLY IN YOUR MIND. On the other hand, you believe you can make the seamy attack aimed at me [430] in the "first person" on YOUR page look just "innocent and random". For once you have made me laugh. Mugginsx (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mugginsx please stop for a second and think what exactly you are talking about. I characterized your uncalled for attack on my talk page that I was "stalking Wee" as nonsense and I have absolutely no problem saying it here too. It was and still is utter nonsense. If you want to take that as a "seamy attack" there's really nothing I can do about it. The ones changing the topic here are Wee, Kahastok and now yourself and nothing changes the fact that you appear out of the blue whenever Wee needs a hand throwing mud at either me or editor Langus or both. Your behaviour has gotten really old by now.

Thank you for proving that attempting to discuss the matter of Wee's constant sock puppetry accusations at this ANI report will be near impossible. Unless an admin advises otherwise I'll open a new report tomorrow. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, I never mentioned any names in that link you gave here or anywhere else and you also know full well which remark I am talking about that I described as seamy. I have linked it here twice. Please do not try to act dumb with me. It does not become a physicist. Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So you were accusing me of "stalking" some other editor? Which editor was that? Considering that you had already accused me of stalking Wee previously (should I present links proving this?), I think we both now that is exactly what you were doing. The link you gave here twice is me calling your accusations of "stalking" in my talk page nonsense. Your accusation of "acting dumb" are just bizarre. Mugginsx I'll ask you to please stop disrupting the discussion. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall we put the full disgusting message left for me on your talk page here for all to see Gaba? As for My message to you on your talkpage, it was a sincere suggestion that you might benefit from mentoring and my offer to help find you someone qualified to help you. I see you conveniently left that off the link you provided which no matter how many times you say it, does NOT mention any names. Do you think everyone here is a fool? Is that it? Do you think you are so clever that you can say anything and editors will believe you? If so, that is dillusional thinking my fellow editor and I advise you to stop playing this little, and I do mean little mind game of yours. Mugginsx (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mugginsx mate, I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I have a discussion with you.

1- I know it is utterly disrupting the discussion at hand but for god's sake please put up the "full disgusting message" I left for you on my talk page because I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

2- The link I provided is exactly the same link you provided here twice (!!)

3- Finally: here's the proof that you had already falsely accused me of stalking Wee by the time you appeared on my talk page out of the blue three months later to accuse me of stalking "certain editors". If you are implying that in your accusation you meant some other editor then please say who because, once again, I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Gaba p (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I already did, more than once. Don't you pay attention? You seem to like to sound smug and superior Gaba but you come across as neither. If you do not think that message on your talk page was inappropriate and yes, disgusting, then there is something very wrong with your idea of propriety on Wikipedia. They were rude, insulting and sexist. Further, you seem to come to every discussion like it is a "game" to you and that you are the smartest player and everyone else just can't help but believe what you say. I agree with you that you must feel like you are in the Twilight Zone and I have no doubt you are confused when someone calls you to reality. You know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You seem to make a game out of this to amuse yourself - look at your edit count - under 20% of it is content editing - the rest is talk. It is almost as if you enjoy seeing yourself in print regardless of what you have to say to do it. I don't. I am through with you. Editors and Administrators can find the links and see the obvious if they want to. I am going back to content editing which is what I do. You can continue to attack, evade, change and widen the parameters of the discussion, and then to maintain ignorance and innocence when it suits you. You have already been blocked more than once. I fear if you do not change, you will be blocked again. Mugginsx (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please clearly link to the message you're referring to? So far the only message I've seen linked is [431]. While Gaba P's edit summary and subject title change was rude, as is the message by Langus-TxT, I don't see any anything sexist there and it definitely doesn't seem as bad as the message you seem to be referring to (I definetly wouldn't call it disgusting). I admit I may be missing some contex here as I have no idea who youknowho refers to. But if the message by Langus in my link is what you're referring to, then you may want to explain why it's so bad. All it seems to be is a rudely written accusation of possible meatpuppetry or inappropiate collobration combined with an accusation of stalking, hounding and fixation on certain editors, which is wrong particularly when nsupported. But unfortunately these sort of accusations and messages seem to be flying both ways here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging and found out you are female. I see historically Gaba P referred to you as 'he', while I understand this can be offensive, it is common. When it was pointed out to them you self identified as female they said something like 'they'd seen no evidence but would call you she', this could be seen as offensive if the meaning is they don't believe you are female but I think our only option here is to AGF they actually meant they'd never seen where you self identified as female. There was also some kerfuffle over a case where Gaba P said something along the lines of you being fond of Wee. This would be highly inappropriate if they were suggesting you had some sort of romantic feelings or 'crush' on Wee but they have said this was not their intention and I would agree with others who commented at the time that I'm just not seeing it. Note that I don't see how their could be anything sexist about it since from what I can tell Gaba P wasn't even aware you were female at the time so even if your intepretation was correct, it seems clear they could not be making the assumption that was the case because of your sex. I'm not sure if the same problem arises here. If youknowho refers to Wee I can see how the remarks by Langus could be intepreted as suggesting you had some sort of romantic feelings or crush on Wee. But while it's slightly more possible here then the Gaba P case, I'm just not seeing it particularly given the comment on whether you are related. In any case, since the comments weren't written by Gaba P, I don't think you can blame them for not seeing the same ting you're seeing which as I've said is far from clear in my eyes. Note that even if Langus had meant it in they way I brought up, while the comments would be highly inapproriate, they aren't necessarily sexist. Are you even sure Langus is aware you are female or do you have any reason to think their suggestions arose because of you sex (or for that matter that they're thinking of it in a romantic or sexual sort of way as opposed to a more 'stalker fan' sort of way)? If you really feel that strongly about it, I'd suggest you seek clarification from Langus, hopefully this could be sufficiently resolved in the manner of Gaba P's comments of you being fond of Wee. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mugginsx. Could you please tell me what comment of mine you are referring to as "nasty" and "vile"? This is seriously getting ridiculous.

Nil Einne: I referred to her as a he in the beginning just by default. I commented that I had no "evidence" but would call her a "she" because it was Wee who pointed out I should refer to her as a female, not her. She never once told me she found my referring to her as "he" offensive (did she?). I commented on her (at the time I didn't even know she was a woman) being "fond" of Wee because she would come out of the blue to defend him ferociously (like she's doing here) I absolutely did not meant it in a romantic way but in the "having a liking or affection" way. I checked with an admin if that message could be interpreted as sexist and he came to the same conclusion you did. In any case I'm not even sure anymore if that is what she's talking about or if it is the comment by editor Langus that she linked here twice. If the case is the latter then again, I have absolutely no idea what she's talking about and it wasn't even me who made that comment. If you could explain it to me (given that she seems not willing to do so) I'd appreciate it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

After the above comments, it is clear that both parties have engaged in very uncivil behavior. Wee frequently makes sockpuppet accusations, while Gaba has made claims of racism (albeit, borderline), a violation of WP: NPA. The atrocious amount of manure flinging, as well as innumerable attempts to get each other's WP: GOAT, as well as the odd comments strawman by Mugginsx clearly establish that there is a problem in dire need of a solution. Ergo, I believe that a topic ban on Falklands-related articles, IMHO, on both editors would be an appropriate course of action. However, I will support an interaction ban if the community finds that a better solution to the problem. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No that is not a fair or accurate appreciation of the situation. Point of fact at every WP:ANI discussion it has been remarked that I have remained civil despite some very strong provocation. I have been called a liar, a racist, a POV pusher, a British nationalist and a hardcore Falklander. He even called me a liar at ANI and was encouraged to do so.

Gaba P wants me to be topic banned that much is plain - you'll propose to give hime exactly what he wants. He creates the poisonous atmosphere, I don't.

Further I don't make sock puppet allegations,I refer to the original unblocking for a good reason. We see a huge faux over-reaction claiming I am doing so but its a distraction tactic to draw attention away from the warnings on his uncivil behaviour and his battleground mentality. As User:Basalisk noted at the 2nd ANI case it is a case of one editor paralysing an entire topic - and its instructive to note that within hrs of Gaba p being blocked for 31 hrs for incivility the editors remaining agreed on a consensus that proved elusive with his presence.

Gaba P constantly displays the kind of battleground mentality and uncivil demeanor that should have seen him blocked long ago. He covers it up very successfully by spraying around a lot of false accusations, throws in a couple of diffs (which don't support the accusation but they're not checked anyway) and he gets away with it time and agin. The message I'm getting quite loudly is that I am wasting my time expecting anyone at ANI to enforce civil and in reality I'm probably adding to my stress levels unnecessarily by remaining civil in the face of such provocation as I may as well vent back - it doesn't matter as I will be sanctioned for being the victim of his WP:HOUNDing. He has pursued a childish vendetta for a year to get revenge for being blocked and you're proposing to give him what he wants - to get someone with a great deal of knowledge about Falklands history topic banned. Absolutely brilliant.

You want this to stop, make this a one way interaction ban - stop him hounding me. I don't seek him out and if I were to abuse it I would expect you to block me indefinitely. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And another thing, though he was blocked, I was convinced to give him a chance and help with his unblocking. My reward for that was to be hounded by the guy for a year and no one has stopped him doing so. You propose to reward my WP:AGF by topic banning me from an area where I have made a huge contribution. Gee thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy to those who feel someone is a sockpuppet but for various reason it hasn't been firmly established e.g. a previous sockpuppetry case was inconclusive, ultimately there comes a point where you have to put up or shut up. Particularly when the aggrevied party is clearly annoyed by your accusations. In other words, if a user remains unblocked, either put together a successful SPI or stop making the accusations until such time you can. Except that unless I missed it, you have refused to undertake to stop making such accusations instead suggesting it's not an issue. In fact above you appear to be suggesting you do not make such allegations instead simply refer to original unblock. Except I've seen myself from links in this thread e.g. [432] [433] that you are or were very recently, so your comments in defence are actually reenforcing my view below. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, while I haven't looked that much at the articles and talk pages, I'm tempted to support based on the fact when doing some research I found most ANI discussions that I saw involving them seem to amount to large walls of text with those two and one or two other regular participants, and very little outside participation. If this sort of thing is going on at ANI, I can only imagine what's happening in he actual disputes and what I have seen and read seems to confirm it ain't pretty. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I deserve a topic ban, I remained civil throughout a discussion that came about after Wee edit-warred to remove a whole section form an article[434][435][436] not caring that the RfC that Wee himself opened in no way permitted him to do so. Just read the comments by the closing editor[437][438][439] on that RfC. Wee did not care and removed the section anyway. After this came a whole month of re-factoring the section where, contrary to what Wee says here, it was him and Kahastok who kept blocking the consensus. A simple look at the talk page con prove this, please go take a look. Wee even made an issue of a minor edit himself later called "too fucking trivial to argue about" but he made an issue out of it anyway[440]. That is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

Wee accuses me of hounding (one of many things he accuses me of), how about a single diff? How about when I edited an article Wee had not edited for a month and a half and he immediately started lobbying[441][442] accusing me of multiple things (much like he did in his comment above)? The answers he got[443][444] were not was he was expecting so he moved to attack me in the talk page of the article. My exchange in the talk page of that article with other editors had gone without a single issue, while Wee's first comment there was a direct attack on me accusing me of "soap-boxing".

Is calling me a "dick" repeatedly[445][446] being civil? Is calling me a "filibuster" a dozen times in a ten day time span[447][448][449][450][451][452][453][454][455][456][457][458] being civil? Is calling me a "sock puppet" for over a year (and dismissing my repeated requests that he drops it as "faux outrage") [459], [460], [461], [462], [463], [464], [465], [466] being civil? The talk page history proves I have remained civil, again please take a look.

A simple way for this to stop would be to block Wee from interacting with me. That takes care of the accusations (all of them) he has no intention of dropping, I'm spared having to give away my right to anonymity once again and we both can continue editing. I am not the first editor to have issues with Wee (and Kahastok) and his WP:OWN mentality, as can be easily proven[467][468][469]. He had an infinite amount of chances throughout the last year, and an enormous amount just here in this discussion, to agree to stop accusing me of being a sock puppet (or take me to SPI) and refused every time. Now it's being proposed that I be topic banned along with him. This is definitely not fair. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User: Der Kommisar, I think your characterization of my comments as "odd" is unfair. I think if you read the message that I linked which I had to remove from Gaba p's page, you would agree that it is not a message you would like your mother or sister to receive. I would ask that you strike-through your remark that characterizes my comments as "odd". They were a normal reaction to a very nasty message, especially to a woman. I could have requested to have him blocked but chose to give him a chance to apologize, which, of course, he never did. I did begin to edit on that article but chose to back away after seeing the hositility between editors and then vile comments made to me personally. Mugginsx (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Nil Einne. Yes I do still entertain a suspicion of sock puppetry. I deliberately did not bring it up here as its not the place. I agree I shouldn't have mentioned it previously; mea culpa. I am minded to go to SPI with the behavioural evidence but a two way interaction ban would be chilling in that respect.

The reason I did mention the previous block was simply because it marks nearly a year of near constant personal attacks, confrontation and aggression from Gaba p, when a year ago he was warned to stop it. He never has, in fact as he has escaped two previous ANI episodes without sanction, he has merely got bolder and bolder in the way he does it.

I see Gaba is making a great deal of me referring to WP:DICK as in to stop behaving like one. I am not calling him a DICK. Leave me alone Gaba, stop the constant personal attacks and guess what I'll not mention it again.

Filibustering, yes he does that. I've provided evidence previously that demonstrates it completely. A common feature is to demand evidence in the form of sourcing, you do so, he then demands it again claiming it was never supplied. Repeat ad nauseum and you get the reason for those long tracts of text going back and forth.

One of the more bizarre aspects of wikipedia is you expect me to discuss matters to achieve a consensu with a guy like Gaba P. In a parallel with Randy from Idaho and the skeleton theory, you expect editors used to neutral writing to discuss matters with extreme nationalists to find the neutral ground.

I do that, then when it gets to ANI, those long tracts of text are evidence of me being a problem. I don't do it and I'll no doubt be accused of not co-operating to find a consensus.

Either way you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't.

Really even for wikipedia this is bizarre. Acting in good faith, I help an editor looking at whether there is room for reasonable doubt in a sock puppet case. Per WP:OUT I should not have revealed RLI of even a sock puppet. I took a risk, JamesBWatson took a risk, my reward for doing so has been for Gaba P to pursue a vendetta for vengeance for the original block ever since.

Really I have reached the point where I am just about done with wikipedia.

A topic ban in my case is purely punitive for being the brunt of Gaba P's obsessive behaviour that is really online stalking. The fact that as the victim of his aggression I now face being topic banned from an area where I have made a huge contribution is not only a huge slap in the face but also a monumental injustice.

Gaba P has set out to get me sanctioned for over a year, even if it takes himself down. All I've asked is that he leaves me alone to get on with the editing I used to enjoy. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to double-guess people's political opinions as such, I have little doubt that I would (probably strongly) disagree with WCM's on these matters; however I think a TB would be an outrageous affront to a current editor, and a deterent to future editors. No topic ban please, in the name of sanity. Basket _Feudalist 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1- Wee still keeps accusing me of being a sock puppet even after I gave away my right to anonymity and after I have proposed here to do just about anything it takes to have him stop accusing me of such. This has been going one for a year now.

2- You didn't call me a "dick"? "stop being a complete and utter WP:DICK"[470], "it really is about time you grew up and stop being a WP:DICK"[471]. People can follow and read diffs Wee.

3- Filibustering is but one of the things Wee has accused me in the last year. "POV pusher", "disruptive editor", "sock puppet", "stalker", etc are among the other things he has accused me of. It only takes a brief look through the talk pages of the handful of articles I've tried to contribute and Wee has tried to run me off: Falkland Islands, Self-determination and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

4- Wee's bias when editing earned him a topic ban not long ago and as I've said, I am not nearly the only editor with whom he has had trouble in WP[472][473][474].

5- He keeps telling how he "helped" with my unblock when he did not bother showing up once by my talk page after accusing me of being a sock puppet and getting my account blocked. He only presented evidence for the RLI of that other editor after I found that he knew who he was and after I asked an admin to please check it out as a last resort to have my account un-blocked. That Wee thinks he can claim here that he "helped" me in any way is laughable.

6- He just keeps on accusing me of "hounding" him but has yet to present a single diff of me doing so. This is just another one of his non-stop unfounded personal attacks and, as I've proven above, he did follow me over to an article to attack me not two months ago.

7- Again he accuses me of trying to "get him banned" (without a single diff to prove that much) when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. He has asked that I be banned/blocked in one form or another since last September.

Please stop by the talk page and see for yourselves how the interaction between me, Wee and other editors over there went about and decide which editor was being abrasive. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic banned. Lets make way (some breathing room) for other less confrontational editors to work on theses articles. These two have dominated the talk pages on this topic drowning out others with there walls of text ABOUT each other (as above). In the name of sanity - time for others to get a word in.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Mugginsx (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

RE Muggins, I characterized your comment as "odd" as a courtesy. I won't argue that the comment was not a nice thing to say, but you deliberately turned it into a strawman, misinterpreting Langus' comment as Gaba's, which is another accusation of sockpuppetry (another factor to be considered, along with the unsupported !vote). However, if you wish me to strike out my comments, I shall. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure whether to support this topic ban or not, what I do think is that Gaba p should be indeffed. This user has been blocked before for personal attacks, and in fact the whole sock-unblock saga is very, very questionable to me - Gaba p was still being fairly uncivil straight after his unblock, even to the administrator who literally bent over backwards to try and help them! The "I'm not a sock" argument doesn't really hold water with me, behavioural evidence got them blocked and they're STILL following the same pattern of editing. Plenty of users have warned them about their incivility, so I'm fairly sure it's time for a lengthy block, and probably the indef I've called for. Technically, Gaba p was never cleared of being a sockpuppet, he was given the benefit of the doubt, so although WCM's constant citing of it may well be tiring, WCM is actually correct to stick to their belief. And the fact other editors hold that belief as well is also telling. WCM possibly should be given a "cool-down" block of a few days or so, to allow them to have a break, calm down, and resume editing in a less marginal manner. Just my tuppence ha'penny worth. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno94: did you miss my constant offerings to once again reveal my real life identity as a sign of good faith and so another admin can check I am not that blocked user? How would you have behaved if your account was indefinitely blocked after doing absolutely nothing wrong and just because of a false accusation that you are somebody else (like mine was)? Of course I was agitated at the time (a year ago) and of course I get agitated when the editor responsible for me being forced to give away my right to anonymity keeps repeating the same accusations for over a year. If agreeing to reveal your RLI (to compare with another user's RLI) is not enough to be cleared of sock puppetry accusations then what is?

The only real block I had was one for 31 hours after an editor said I shouldn't be characterizing Wee's repeated misinterpretations of facts/comments as lies and I have not since. Your comment is quite unfair. I've stated here repeatedly that I'm prepared to do absolutely anything it takes to prove I am not the person Wee accuses me of being and yet you still jumped on Wee's wagon of wanting to have me blocked accused of "not being cleared of being a sock puppet". If it was you who were accused and blocked for being a sock puppet, that block lifted after you gave away your RLI but the accusations sustained for a year by a single editor: what would you have done differently? Gaba p (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• My calls for an indef are more based on behaviour than socking. As I said on my talk page (don't see why you felt the need to try and discuss this in two places), it's the fact you've been behaving poorly towards other editors, and this situation extends to the admin who bent over backwards to help you, since you were unblocked. Looking at the edit history of that article, it's apparent that there's been a multi-way revert war over pretty much everything there, large or small. Frankly, I'd say the lot of you should be topic banned at least - Gaba p, WCM, Langus-TxT, Kahastok... you've all been involved in revert wars one way or another (REGARDLESS of if you've broken 3RR or not), ironically, some of you have even warred themselves in the absolute mess that process has become. Some of the topic bans should be shorter than others - Langus-TxT doesn't seem to be a major problem, although they have edit-warred to some degree. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone cares about Wee sticking to their belief. However there's no need for Wee to constantly bringing it up. You can hold a belief without having to bring it in to the discussion. As I said, ultimately if they haven't been able to establish it sufficiently to result in Gaba P being blocked, constantly bringing it up does nothing but inflame the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to be very cautious about a knee-jerk reaction of, let's just ban everyone and all the arguments will go away. As we found when such a reaction was applied in the Gibraltar case, it does indeed remove all the arguments - along with all the drive, interest and experience that we need to make the articles better. Getting rid of the people reverting vandalism and objecting to obvious POV, the people who know and understand the topic and the likely issues, will only damage Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.

With respect to the above proposal, Curry Monster has a very strong record of editing on this topic, and is very knowledgeable. He is of significant net benefit to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. If it is true that both he and I have been arguing for greater mention of the British POV in discussion with Gaba, it is only because Gaba's editing comes so strongly from an Argentine POV that some balance is needed. If you have someone arguing who continually argues from a particular POV, and nobody even tries to make the case for a fair presentation of the other side, the article will reflect that editor's POV.

Fact is, most of the shrillest comments on the talk page come from Gaba. Most of the personal attacks come from Gaba. Most of the threats come from Gaba. Most of the aggression comes from Gaba. Most of the most egregious POV editing - such as I noted before - comes from Gaba. Most of the filibustering - particularly of the form where an editor refuses to acknowledge that any objection or point has even been raised - comes from Gaba. Compromise and consensus are far more easily attained when Gaba is not around - the same could not be said of any other editor (regardless of nationality or POV) currently or recently involved in the article. As an involved admin pointed out in a previous ANI (as cited by Curry Monster earlier), when it comes down to it the issue here is a single editor filibustering to get the article to reflect his POV. To suggest that this is the fault of the rest of the editors does not address the root of the problem and legitimises Gaba's poor behaviour. Kahastok talk 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The above is basically why I'm saying Gaba p should be indeffed. As to why I'm stating there should be topic bans, be it temporary or more permanent, is because you've all revert-warred each other as well as Gaba p on and off. I'm in no way attempting to legitimize Gaba p's behaviour. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe I addressed this point in my first paragraph. Topic-ban everyone and we end up with no improvement and ultimately damage to the encyclopædia.

I do not agree with your assessment: I do not believe that edit warring has been a particularly significant feature of these discussions. Where edit wars have broken out they have mostly been resolved as we returned to the talk page within a day or two without further need for admin intervention. And if we're looking at edit wars (beyond simple application of WP:BRD) that have not intimately involved Gaba, frankly, I'm struggling to find any in the recent history of the article concerned. Kahastok talk 16:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Kahastok: what about a single diff to prove all those accusations? To anyone reading this, please go to the talk page of the article and see if you can spot any of the things Kahastok is accusing me of. Lukeno94, are you aware that Kahastok has been topic banned along with Wee not long ago? The behaviour that earned them a topic ban is exactly the same one they display in Falkland related articles: they team to enforce a POV and bully out other editors.

Read the comment by an editor in the talk page who said verbatim "it is your [WCM's] "return" from brief absence that has ratcheted up the personal rhetoric, if anything". Can you see any comment similar to that from outside editors regarding my editing? When Wee stopped editing for a few days a consensus rapidly emerged which was immediately contested upon his return.

Regarding my "behaving poorly towards other editors", could I ask you what/who are you referring to? I have edited in many places and WCM is about the only editor I've had this kind of problems with (and I'm not nearly the only one that can say so: [475][476][477][478][479][480][481][482]) To the admin who unblocked me (JamesBWatson): I have nothing but gratitude towards him, as I told him about a year ago.

Really, your call for an indeff block on me and a slap on the wrist for WCM has me baffled. Please read the diffs I've presented and tell me if they don't point to a continued behavior problem with Wee. Please go through the talk page and tell me if you can find examples to back Kahastok's accusations which you seem to have taken at face value. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to sort through this mess, but I can offer a piece of advice, Gaba - stop using bold in your comments. If you need emphasis, you should use italics; using bold can, speaking frankly, create the impression of shouting to cover up the weakness of a case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that only caps meant shouting but if that's the impression given then I won't use bold anymore. I use bold because I use italics when quoting, I'll try switching to underline. Also perhaps I'm emphasising too often and should reduce the number. Thanks for the advice. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only echo Kahastok's comments. There is only one disruptive editor here, where as User:Basalisk noted has paralysed an entire topic area. How many examples do you need of disruptive editing:

• Filibustering. I repeatedly explained an approach to judge weight [483],[484],[485],[486],[487],[488],[489],[490],[491], User:Gaba p repeatedly claimed I hadn't [492],[493],[494],User:Hohum provided the same explanation [495], User:Gaba p thanks him claiming I hadn't [496]. I did ask Hohum for a sanity check, as he provided an identical explanation. The same explanations were provided by User:Irondome, User:Kahastok, User:Apcbg etc. I could pick anyone of a number of examples, another being his frequent claim that I stated newspapers were not a reliable source. I made no such statement - I and others pointed out that newspapers were not a reliable means of judging WP:WEIGHT.
• Abuse of Diffs. User:Gaba p alleges I was removing or preventing installation of content presenting these diffs (also to support his claim of edit warring) [497],[498]. Both were self-reverted [499],[500] almost immediately. Sadly as I've noted, few people bother to check whether the diff evidence supports the claim made. Its a damn effective tactic for distracting from his editing.
• Abuse of Process. User:Gaba p started a DRN [501], claiming I opposed mention of a topic. This was completely untrue. I never once made any statement whatsover either way.

As regards the comment on edit warring justifying a topic ban for other editors. First of all, when you have one disruptive editor deliberately edit warring to introduce contentious material it does place a good content editor in a difficult position. You try and follow BRD but every discussion you try to initiate becomes an exercise in being abused. You do nothing and you see article quality and POV suffer and if you do something you run the risk of a block. I adopted the policy of tagging disruptive edits in the hope another content editor would fix it. What I observed was that few decent content editors would risk getting involved with dealing with Gaba p. Those that did got the same abuse - Mugginsx being a case in point.

At every previous ANI I have requested an interaction ban. I just want to edit without the constant personal abuse. I am not interested in arguing for arguing's sake with an editor obsessed with having me sanctioned. Make it mutual if you must, though I can assure you a one way ban on Gaba p would be enough. I don't seek him out, he seeks to attack me.

I would however suggest that a formal SPI be conducted to examine the evidence. The unblock was informal and out of normal practise. He was not exonerated by any means but given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to edit constructively. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What about your issues with several other editors throughout WP Wee? [502][503][504][505][506][507][508][509] I'm sure you have explanations for all those cases too and I'm pretty sure it's never you who is being "disruptive", "edit warring", "pushing POV", "abusing", etc, right? Still claiming I seek to attack you with not a single diff when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. Still claiming I seek to have you sanctioned with not a single diff when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. I can assure anybody here that if Wee gets an interaction ban on me all these issues go away immediately. I'd have absolutely no problems with a mutual interaction ban the same way I had no problems when a few months ago an admin suggested that we both be topic-banned (Wee, on the other hand, most certainly did) What I do have a problem with is with Wee's (and Kahastok's of course) constant proposals that I alone be topic/interaction banned when his behavioral issues with many other editors can be clearly seen as I pointed above. Regarding the SPI I'd urge you to open one as soon as possible Wee. As I've said I'm prepared to do absolutely anything it takes to have your constant sock puppet accusations cease once and for all. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)