Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826

Duck Dynasty

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.

---

Duck Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am concerned that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire, user Belchfire is again using another account to edit. I don't know the right steps to take but the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire investigation has sat for a few weeks with no action. It's fairly obvious that both LyricalCat, and Roccodrift, are acting in concert. I'm not sure what can be done, but it is odd the LyricalCat is now doing the edit that Perusteltu has been lobbying for. I'll notify these users now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried appending LyricalCat to the Belchfire SPI which had already been checkusered. Make a new one -- but posting here and at SPI etc. looks like forumshopping, alas. Accusations of socks belong at SPI and not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that LyricalCat is Belchfire. You should pursue the disagreement at Duck Dynasty based on policy arguments. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - while it has appeared to many that Roccodrift is an obvious Belchfire sock, there's not enough to go on with LyricalCat, however suspicious they look. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000, can you explain more specifically what you think the suspicious behavior is? I didn't start following the page until my first edit on it on January 7, so I'm not familiar with the history of Roccodrift's opinions on the article. I'm also wondering why you have twice reverted my edits, which I think are clearly in good faith, and are almost entirely grammatical improvements (for example here). Is it just because you incorrectly suspect me to be Roccodrift? LyricalCat (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want an administrator to attend to SPI, post on WP:AN or the SPI talk page. CU at the SPI have said they are unable to compare accounts because they no longer have information about the older accounts. In those cases, behavioral evidence may be used. However, that is often hard to prove. Suggest you close this thread, as wrong forum. TFD (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Sportfan5000 should be careful about throwing stones in glass houses. His earliest contributions show him to be anything but a new user. In fact he pulled some chicanery via page moves in a possible attempt to evade scrutniy of his talk page. While we don't know who is is (possibly User:Lionhead99 or even more likely User:Benjiboi), one thing we can be sure of is his report here is certainly ironic.2401:1800:7800:101:8517:1279:FF1C:50E (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) You know what else is ironic? The fact that this is your very first edit yet you seem very well-versed about sockpuppetry and even noticeboards. I don't have an opinion on this thread in itself, but, well, this is something for you to think about before you call someone a hypocrite. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:46, 9 January 2014 (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.

Repeated spamming of utterly non-notable awards on porn star biographies

A large number of porn-star BLPs have lately been spammed by a number of IPs who have repeatedly added utterly non-notable purely promotional "awards", named for porn video producers and distributors (Juliland Award, AEBN VOD Award, TLA Raw Award, with the recipients being selected by those companies) and intended as promotion for the sponsors of the awards. All of the edits sourced only to the porn business magazine AVN Magazine, a trade journal that covers the adult film industry. As a result of the repeated spamming multiple IPs were warned, at least one IP was blocked and several porn star bios were semi-protected. Today a recently created now auto-confirmed single-purpose account, Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), resumed the spamming, with even more intensity than before, and refuses to stop in spite of being pointed to WP:Notability and WP:Notability (awards), instead edit-warring over the material. So since I have no desire to break the 3RR-barrier on any of the articles I would appreciate if one or more admins would look into the matter, and do whatever they feel is needed... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for edit warring across articles. I'll talk to the user about appropriate means of dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User indicates a willingness to stop edit warring and engage in discussion. I've unblocked him so he can get on with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: The core of the problem isn't the edit-warring as such but the user's total unwillingness to accept that the promotional "awards" that were spammed aren't notable, and thus shouldn't be added to the articles. But I see no acceptance by the user of being guilty of spamming (see ES&L's message on the users talk page, just above the block message, which clearly states that the awards aren't notable; which is also my opinion). What we will probably see now is repeated attempts to establish the notability of the "awards", possibly through sock/meat puppets achieving "consensus" on each article separately for adding the awards. Something that would be easy to achieve since the only ones who ever edit the articles are SPAs with obvious strong connections to the adult video industry. So IMHO the best way out of it would have been to give Hanswar32 a much longer block than the few hours they got. Also please note that Hanswar32 seems to be very familiar with how Wikipedia works, how to make edits/reverts, WP guidelines etc, which contradicts his/her claims of being a totally new user. So what we're seeing is most probably an experienced user who out of necessity, i.e. because of semi-protection of several articles, created a throw-away account for the spamming, instead of continuing to use IPs for it like before... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W, I understand your frustration. If you believe he is a sock, you can report him at WP:SPI. However, in the absence of evidence of that, giving him an opportunity to prove good faith is the proper thing to do. If he attempts dispute resolution and fails to gain consensus for any changes, future repeats of this behavior will be a clear signal that working in good faith isn't what he intends. What's important is that he has now agreed to stop warring in the articles, and we will see what he does towards resolving the issue properly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I've just become aware of this ANI and I would like to offer my observations and comments. First, there appears to be several issues at stake here. One is the inclusion of sourced content in articles for porn actors for awards they've received, and second, is the Notability of the awards. The title of this ANI is IMO an indication of the biased opinion that some Users have in this matter

With regard to the first issue, several times I have observed User Thomas and another User consistently removing sourced content for awards that have been won either without any Edit Summary or one that includes something to the extent that their opinion of the award that it's "spam" or "marketing" or that the award is such that its mere mention should not be allowed. This brings me to the next issue, the Notability of the awards themselves. I have seen several sourced "wins" deleted such as the AEBN VOD Award and Raw Award. In the former's case, its been around since 2006 and regardless of who its sponsored by, its still factual information thats its been won by one or more actors. With regard to the latter, its brand new and started in 2013. Unless the Users making the complaint can predict the future, no one knows if the award will become Notable by WP standards, but the fact remains, a win is a win and if there's a source for it it should be allowed in the article. Other Adult awards have come and gone, such as the Venus Award, and those wins are allowed to remain in articles.

Lastly, unless the complaining Users are somehow experts in the Adult industry or actually working in it (and have sources to cite), I fail to see how they can make these accusations about the intention of the respective award programs, or, expect anyone to respect their edits when they refuse to substantiate the claims they are making about the award programs they are trying to systematically delete from the site. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I am not guilty of spamming and it’s painfully obvious that I’m not the only editor who views these awards as notable (both Scalhotrod and Rebecca1990 agree with me). I’ve replied to both you and ES&L's message on my talk page and neither of you have been able to successfully defend your “opinion” on the matter. I never claimed to be a “totally new” user but clearly stated to be “relatively new”. Yes, I have some experience on Wikipedia as an IP user but I’m still learning about the policies and compared to the rest of you, have considerably less experience. Why would I continue as an IP user when Wikipedia offers several benefits to encourage a user to create an account? Again, I’m not spamming and at least 2 other editors agree with me. It’s sad seeing you try to distort reality over a dispute instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion in order to resolve it. What’s sadder is your repeated assumption of bad faith, clearly against Wikipedia guidelines. Thankfully, we have level-minded and reasonable administrators that make just decisions and prevent biased editors from silencing those who disagree with them. Hanswar32 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been back to your talkpage since I fully, completely, and successfully defended my position - I was very polite, non-threatening (if I remember correctly), and a sincere attempt to be helpful towards someone who I believe is also sincerely trying to be helpful. There most certainly was no attempt to "silence", and I'm certainly not "biased" - indeed, I don't believe I've ever edited nor read an article in the porn world (unless it's something that came up here at ANI as urgent). The overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS (one of the pillars of this project) appears to be that non-notable awards do not belong on anybody's page - whether it's porn awards, minor book awards for an author, local gallery awards for an artist of photography, etc. Yes, it's nice to win an award of some variety - I once won a really nice award about an article I contributed to in Afghanistan, but it's not a notable enough award to include someday on a biography both on-Wikipedia or anywhere else but my résumé and on the wall in my den. ES&L 10:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• First, I can't condone edit warring for any reason. Second, if an award ceremony is truly "notable", then it would have its own Wikipedia article about it. However, I don't know what citing something like Wikipedia:Notability (awards) does for anyone's argument, since it appears to have been labelled as irrelevant to the entire Wikipedia project as of around 2007. If the concern on the part of some in this dispute is that certain pornography-related articles will be "kept" at AfD because of someone winning a non-notable award...well, I've yet to see that actually happen at AfD (maybe someone else has though). Lastly, I don't personally have a problem with award content being added to any Wikipedia article...as long as it has a reliable citation attached to it. Guy1890 (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• GUY, please do not fall victim to the kind of WP bias that you just exhibited. Any subject's significance or importance in the real world is not determined by the presence of a Wikipedia article. That logic is flawed and backwards. I like and appreciate WP just as much as anyone here, but I have never based my impression of a subject on whether or not it has an article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Any subject's significance or importance in the real world is not determined by the presence of a Wikipedia article." No kidding, but, here on Wikipedia, we have this thing called notablility, and things that are truly notable (for whatever reason) will eventually end up with their own Wikipedia article at some point. Does that mean that subjects that don't have their own Wikipedia article aren't important in the real world? No, it just means that, for the purposes of Wikipedia only, that they aren't notable. Again, I'm not opposed to including non-notable infomation in Wikipedia articles, as long as a reliable citation exists for that same information. For instance, being married doesn't make one notable, but including the reliably-sourced information that someone is, in fact, maried in a Wikipedia article isn't a problem with me.

I'd personally like to see where the "overwhelming consensus" exists "that non-notable awards do not belong on anybody's page" on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that that consensus doesn't exist, but I haven't come across it yet. Was this decided somewhere else at another time? Guy1890 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We tend to put things differently, but I agree on both counts and would like to see evidence of the "overwhelming consensus" as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that any award an individual has won should be allowed to remain on their page. I definitely wouldn't use an award that isn't notable enough for a WP article to try to establish an individual's notability and keep their article at AfD, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I don't see whats promotional about the awards. Do you really think that someone who's reading a porn stars WP article is suddenly going to go out to purchase their films just because they looked at their awards section and saw these awards? Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@ES&L: I recognize your sincerity and for the record I wasn’t referring to you at all with regards to “silencing” other editors or being “biased”. Congratulations on your award and I fully understand the viewpoint on the inappropriateness of including non-notable awards on a person’s biography. The dispute here however differs due to the nature of these awards and the issue is summarized quite nicely by Scalhotrod.

I agree with everything Guy1890 said except I’d like to point to his attention that on my talk page I mentioned 3 types of awards and know of at least 2 others that don’t have Wikipedia articles of their own, yet are allowed to be included on all Wikipedia articles for which there is a recipient. To touch on what Guy1890 said about reliably-sourced information, I’d like to reinforce that all of the awards being disputed have reliable citations.

I’m also joining Scalhotrod and Guy1890 in their request to see evidence of this so-called “overwhelming consensus” which has so far proven to be a myth. The only thing I’ve seen thus far is consensus shifting towards the side of including these awards as I agree with both editors, along with Rebecca1990. The only talkpage that I know of which exists about this issue Talk:Tanya Tate shows consensus of including the award.

@Moonriddengirl: This issue affects over 40 articles that I’m aware of, am I supposed to open the same discussion on every one of their talk pages? Or is it sufficient in light of the above support, to go ahead and return the removed content in the absence of any consensus against such a move? Hanswar32 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hanswar32. I wouldn't actually recommend opening the discussion on every talk page, but instead finding some central and appropriate point to resolve the discussion. This is not the place to establish that consensus, though, as WP:ANI is not intended for ironing out content questions. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography might be a good place to start a discussion, perhaps an WP:RFC if the scope is wide enough, since that may attract more contributors to the discussion. Personally, this is the approach I would take before adding or removing any content related to this award from any articles, so that consensus is clear. Once edit warring has started, things can blow up rather quickly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest opening this up at an appropriate policy noticeboard, most likely BLPN. The pornography project is pretty much moribund. This wasn't a controversial matter until very recently, when a few accounts that do little or nothing beyon adding borderline-promotional and promotional content to porn-related bios began bulking out bios with well-below notability-threshold awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF - WP:NPA

Ronreisman

Huldra has been attacked by User:Ronreisman (with some clues about a potential export or tag team) on his talk page: after she warned him to take care with WP:1RR. Ronreisman :

• "given the infamous reputation y'all have on the internet."
• "I'll take this as confirmation that y'all do, in fact, work together to suppress and distort facts in the service of propagandistic POV."
• "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap. Thanks for the invitation."

I add he had already been informed very kindly about WP:1RR : here and that I was myself attacked the same way by him 4 weeks ago:

• [1] "@Pluto2012 : You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals."

I complained of this to him (next edit :) "And you insulted me strongly, violating WP:AGF." but he considered himself as acting right:

• (edit summary) : "Dishonorable and dishonest action breeds disrespect.")

He went on (with Ykantor [2]) so I just left it and removed the article from my Watchlist.

There are other examples of misconduct in his edit summaries (in interactions with Hudra, Nishidani and I):

• [3] Please stop POV-pushing, OR, propaganda on Wikipedia,
• [4] Nish is also misrepresenting the refs;
• [5] so that he is not misrepresented by misleading wording by a Wikipedia editor;
• [6] Untrue info was introduced;
• [7] Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article;
• [8] Request to Pluto2012 to stop violating WP:AGF and WP:RS, and to cease pov-Pushing that is detrimental to the articles veracity and quality.;
• [9] (...) propaganda when it actually praised the book's veracity;
• [10] Reply to Huldra's misrepresentation of a referenced source (...) and discusses politically-motivated *untrue* accusations against this source;
• ...

Ronreisman doens't seem to understand that his behaviour is not acceptable and he doesn't mind about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and if he is not strongly warned to stop, there is no reason why he would do so as proven in his recent interaction with Huldra.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification to Ronreisman. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

While [11] is somewhat confrontational, I don't see problems in all those diffs you provide alleging misconduct in edit summaries. I suggest you try WP:AGF yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean he is "Good Faith" when he performs these "Personal Attacks" and you claim that "Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article" or "you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia" or "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap" to someone after he made WP:1RR is in compliance with the 4st pillar of wikipedia.

Could you argue how I should "try WP:AGF myself" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I read through a bunch of the cited edits, and Ron's edits look reasonable to me. Greg (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In general the controversy seems to be about one side that wants information deleted, and another side that wants information added. Since the added information is reliably sourced, and nobody has demonstrated that it is a tiny minority's viewpoint by citing a plethora of other sources, there seems to be no good reason to delete it or to threaten to delete it.

I have read all of the edits listed above. The article edits themselves look fine to me.

I did not understand why User:Pluto2012 and User:Huldra claim that User:Ronreisman has to follow WP:1RR. WP:3RR is the default rule throughout Wikipedia. WP:1RR only applies in particular circumstances that seem to be absent here. They offer no justification, neither here, nor on Ronreisman's talk page, of why Ronreisman should have to follow WP:1RR. However, it turns out that WP:1RR DOES apply to all pages concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is not obvious from the simple link to WP:1RR posted on Ronreisman's talk page. Instead you have to follow that link, then click on the fourth link in that paragraph (to Wikipedia:General sanctions) and then search that long, long page. You won't find anything about Fawzi al-Qawuqji or Haj Amin al-Husseini there, but if you search there for "Arab", "Palestine" or "Israel" you will eventually find a summary (that does NOT mention 1RR). But! If you then click on the "full text" link there, it leads you to a paragraph of text in strikeout font, which seems to be some 2008 sanctions that are no longer in effect. That text is followed by a link to alternate sanctions that still doesn't mention any 1RR rule for pages like this. But if one scrolls down three more sections in that page, finally, under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies "Further remedies / General 1RR restriction" there is, finally, a mention of a 1RR rule:

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

It is not clear that that rule is actually in effect, because that paragraph ends with "Suppressed on 18:44, March 10 2012 (UTC)". It appears that the suppression only refers to PART of the 1RR rules, but even that is not clear. I hope that some editor or administrator who knows how to clean up that page can revise it to make it 100% clear what the current rules are.

Given all of the above, it can hardly be said that User:Ronreisman was warned of the WP:1RR rule about these two pages. It took me most of an hour of research to even believe that 1RR applied! To clarify for him and others, I have today added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template to the talk pages of both of the relevant articles. This template directly states that 1RR applies, and links to the policy discussion in which that policy was decided upon.

There also seems to be a "sudden death" rule in effect throughout Arab-Israeli articles. It allows any "uninvolved" administrator to sanction any editor who violates any rule of Wikipedia, or even the purpose of Wikipedia, after the editor has been warned and counseled. This applies to the editors on both sides of this issue:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Regarding WP:NPA, I do see that in some of the listed edit summaries, Ronreisman wrote about people rather than content or actions. For example [12] Request to Pluto2012 to stop violating WP:AGF and WP:RS, and to cease pov-Pushing that is detrimental to the articles veracity and quality. But in other summaries, he correctly referred to content or actions, such as [13] Untrue info was introduced or [14] Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article. Saying that an edit is "POV-pushing" criticizes the action, not the person, and is not WP:NPA. However, it would be kinder if Ronreisman had said, for example, Improve misleading wording about XXX or Try for NPOV on topic YYY by including material about side ZZZ.

In summary, the listed edits by User:Ronreisman in Haj Amin al-Husseini and Fawzi al-Qawuqji are largely reasonable and well-sourced contributions to controversial topics. He tended to provide new information on the topic in talk page discussions. Ronreisman should pay careful attention to describe his edits in a constructive way, even when frustrated.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If 1RR was the issue, he would have been reported at WP:AE and not here. Zero^talk 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012

User:Pluto2012, on the other hand, wrote things in talk pages like [15] Until we can find confirmation that what L&C states, I will remove this from the article, and either deleted well-sourced statements, or threatened to delete them. It is not appropriate to delete someone else's contributed text from an article "until we can find confirmation", unless it is negative material in a biography of a living person. The people that these pages describe died in the 1970s.

Pluto2012 also claimed that

This is primary source and it cannot be used if not supported by a secondary reliable source. That's well known and basic rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: This is misleading. wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.". Ykantor (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I will delete this if I don't find any secondary source or if none is provided. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012 is wrong and Ykantor is right. Pluto2012 should not be deleting, or threatening to delete, other editors' contributions that come from primary sources "if I don't find a secondary source or if none is provided". What WP:RS actually says is:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Pluto2012 also claimed that another policy applied when it clearly did not: this claim that when inserted information doesn't describe every point of view on a topic, the right answer is to delete it under WP:UNDUE rather than to insert additional well-sourced information to put the original information into better context: [16]:

Another point is that dropping a quote without contextualizing this is not acceptable because it doesn't comply with the first pillar : we write an encyclopaedia. Pure quotes are for "wikiquote". In an encyclopaedia, the context is what is around this quote and why historians think it's worth mentionning it. And of course, the contributor who would add this has to add all the points of views from all wp:rs here regarding this context

It is completely legitimate to add a single quote to an article, if that is all that one has at hand or all that one has time to add today. Others who have other quotes with other points of view should add those too, rather than deleting the first quote. Wikipedia is not written by historians or encyclopedists; it is written by ordinary people who are individual editors in a collaborative process. Pluto2012 also made several false and tendentious statements about Ronreisman. For example, immediately above this edit, cited above by Pluto2012 as the sixth "other examples of misconduct", Pluto2012 said

You put back the "Nazi allegence" tag whereas you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so.

Ronreisman had never promised to do so, nor was he required to do so. The whole issue was made-up by Pluto2012 inventing another illegitimate rule claiming that an infobox can't include a flag indicating military service under a country unless the proponent can state what battles the subject fought in. Many people who served in the military never fought in any battles; battles are irrelevant to military service. Ronreisman's alleged misconduct in this citation was that he defended himself in the talk page against Pluto2012's false statements about nonexistent rules.

User:Pluto2012 should pay careful attention to the purpose of Wikipedia, seeking to add article text to describe areas of conflicts more fully, rather than inventing fanciful rules and applying them to other editors. Pluto2012 should not delete article text that he sees as one-sided or primary source material.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to expect good sources for contentious claims. In an area like I/P not doing so would be disastrous. You also missed the point. It was never about whether he fought in any battles but whether he served in the military at all. He didn't. (And congratulations for finding a way to shout in 24pt type.) - Zero^talk 11:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC

Zero0000 : This is not a reference to our recent discussion about Haj Amin al-Husseini's WWII military affiliation with the Waffen SS. Gnuish is referring to Pluto2012's claim that "you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so." This refers to Fawzi al-Qawuqji's military service, including his commission as a colonel in the Wehrmacht (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service ). Pluto2012 and Huldra repeatedly objected to mentioning Qawuqji's allegiance to Nazi Germany in the article. They objected to a series of high quality RS, apparently in an continuing attempt to keep relevant information out of the article. The nit that attracted gnuish's attention was Pluto2012's contention that the definition of 'military allegiance' required a list of battles cited from certain secondary sources (and *not* in memoirs, nor in US Government Historical Documents, etc.). Gnuish (and I) take objection to Pluto2012 falsely claiming I agreed with his contention, despite several responses that made it clear that 'battles' were not a requirement for honorable military service. Pluto rejected a series of RS that substantiated Qawuqji's services to Germany, in some cases using false claims that these RS had been castigated by other RS. In each case these claims turned out to be either untrue or Original Research (eg an Israeli historian told Pluto2012 that a well-regarded volume was unreliable; Pluto then used this hearsay as justification for rejecting all references to the volume). At one point Pluto2012 added a good scholarly reference (one of the few constructive edits he's contributed to this article) that was thoughtfully sympathetic to Qawuqji. The author explicitly stated that she would not comment on Qawuqji's WWII record, and cited a Journal article by German historian Gerhard Höpp as a good source on this subject. Pluto2012, however, argued that even Dr. Höpp's peer-reviewed article was not acceptable RS, since he characterized it as a 'primary source.' When the weight of multiple RS made it clear that Qawuqji's German military affiliations were undeniable, Pluto2012 made impolite statements and then tarred the entire article with a drive-by 'Disputed' banner, apparently in an effort to cast doubt on the the well-documented facts in the article.Ronreisman (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that I misread Gnuish's words; apologies for that. I won't comment on the content since I didn't examine the sources and anyway content disputes are not supposed to be discussed on this page. Zero^talk 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources "sympathic" and "unsympathic" to anybody.

Each topic has a list of WP:RS sources and wikipedia editors have to report all of them fairly in providing the due weight to each of them.

Ronreisman and Ykantor just decided to report only some of them and that's the only problem.

Now, as proven by the intervention of Gnuish who had not edited wikipedia for 1 month there is a collaboration to act as a team and they just insult and attack those who disagree.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Zero: yours:"It is perfectly reasonable to expect good sources for contentious claims. In an area like I/P not doing so would be disastrous.". Do you mean that Wikipedia rules should be ignored? the wp:rs states: wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." . So is Pluto right to ignore this rule? Ykantor (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said and have no idea why you think you have replied to it. Zero^talk 08:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it sustainable to ignore Wikipedia rules and to adapt other other unwritten (to my knowledge) rules? Is it acceptable that editors are required to behave according to unpublished rules? Ykantor (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Defame. Defame. There will always remain something."

When you write "behave according to unpublished rules?", you mean that you disagree that each of us has to report all (reliable) points of view on a matter but instead you claim that you can just chose those you want to report. Well, no Ykantor, to comply with WP:NPoV, you have to report all of these, even those you disagree with: both those who are pro- and contra- any thesis or analysis. On Adolf Hitler, on the 1948 War, on Amin al-Husseini, on all articles. But this is particularly true in articles that are controversial and delicate. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Huldra

User:Huldra also cites a Wikipedia rule that does not apply, [17]

In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? ... There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic).

In order to insert a quote from a reputable source, an editor does not need to justify why they did not insert every other possible quote from that source, under penalty of having the quote deleted. If there are a majority of reputable sources that disagree with a quote, then someone who thinks it is "cherry-picked" like Huldra should insert balancing material (from the same or additional cited sources), rather than arguing for the deletion of material inserted by others.

Huldra also deleted 1800 bytes of relevant, reliably sourced material in this edit, with the summary saying only "undo propaganda; see talk". Calling someone else's edits "propaganda" is not showing WP:AGF, nor is reverting them appropriate. Even if someone, somewhere called a cited source "propaganda", and even if you personally think it is propaganda, it does not mean that it IS propaganda. And even if it was "propaganda", edits that cite that source are not a category of information that is subject to immediate deletion from Wikipedia. Propaganda reveals one side of an issue; instead of deleting, add other sides to the discussion. In addition, it came out later in the discussion in the talk page that the single blog source that referred to the Mallman book as being called propaganda went on to defend it against that charge, arguing that it only seemed that way because the publisher had changed the title to make the book more provocative-looking. Ronreisman dug up the context and posted the whole paragraph. It turned out that Huldra herself had "cherry-picked" the propaganda accusation out of context and in a way that tended to mislead any reader who didn't follow the link to the actual source.

User:Huldra should pay careful attention to the purpose of Wikipedia, seeking to add article text to describe areas of conflict more fully, rather than deleting text that she sees as one-sided.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice how you elided the part of Huldra's comment where she explained it in detail. Zero^talk 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor

This description:"You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals" is accurate but, in my opinion it is too mild. As presented in a previous wp:ae, user:Pluto2012 is cheating and lying too, in order to delete other editors contributions and to force his view. Ykantor (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If again no action is taken against Ykantor for this provocation and attack, he will feel free to go on again and again. So what ?

Anyway, the case of Ykantor is different. He is a particularly problematic contributor who refuses to make his behaviour evoluate and who has no collaborative spirit. He is just "right" and the remaining of the world is "wrong":

• see the "famous" WP:A/E that he launched and where it would be presented that "I am cheating and lying" too.
• his behaviour at the end of a km-long discussion he launched at the article Adolf Hitler. And still today he refuses the consensus (he is alone against the 5 contributors who have been editing this article for years) and despite this go on to edit the talk-page again and again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what is a personal attack. Saying e.g. "Pluto is a lair" is a personal attack, but stating that you are cheating and lying is a fact, backed by a list of such events.

* You mention the Hitler talk page. Looking at the opposing parties there , you may learn how to behave yourself. None of them is lying or cheating or attack personally.

*Concerning Arab Israeli conflict articles, you repeatedly delete a well supported text and images, because it is not to your anti Israeli taste, although the NPOV rule states that you should not delete it but rather add a supported opposing view (provided there is one) Ykantor (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See also this Dilbert cartoon, which expands on the importance of criticising the behaviour, not the person (comment on content, not on contributors). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge: there is of course a difference between criticising the behaviour and the person but in the current case, these are the persons who are criticized and not (alleged) behaviours.

When Huldra warns Ronreisman of 1RR and when you see what Ronreisman answers, there is a problem. When you see that a Ykantor dares to writes "you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles". If this is not personal attacks then there is no more personnal attacks.

A personal attack is not just a childish insult.

@Ykantor: you go on with personal attacks. That is not acceptable. And yourself should see that all contributors critisized your behaviour, asked you to stop and some even invited you to read some of my comments.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish I would be able to write such a nice and accurate English:"you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia articles", but unfortunately it is a quote only. I wonder if you can guess who is the source? Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dilbert is great, as always. However there is a difference. The chief there says:"You are terrific, but..." while I am not saying that. Moreover thanks God, I am not his chief.

* In your user page, you refer to the "Pcount" excellent tool . How does it count? are minor or major edits considered the same? Is there a tool that count article text deletions only ? (i.e. negative contribution? I would like to use such a tool to check Pluto's contributions. He is unique since it seems that his main article space activity is deleting other editors contributions.

Your user page states: " ...occasionally venture into more contentious areas.". I will appreciate it if you have a look at 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I have listed some problems here- Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#the article has POV and .22dubious.22 problems, and the major problems cannot be dealt with, because of Pluto's repeated deletions of a well supported text. Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If your accusations were true, your proposals about the article about the '48 war would have received positive answers from other contributors. On the contrary, you received negative answers and more on your side, you didn't consider worth participating to any of these discussions.

The problem is that you are WP:NOTHERE to contribute in respect of wikipedia rules as proven by the fact you just refuse to agree complying to WP:NPoV in reporting all Pov's on the difficult issues of the I-P conflict : [18].

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto's incivility (again, sigh). Why must you show your incivility by dragging my reply to another location?

I followed the rule: If you are responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs and placed my reply to Demiurge1000 in the proper place. I will appreciate it if you drag it back to the initial and right location. Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto re-use his smoke screen tactics, writing all sort of vague accusations, in order to cover his proven and repeated cheating, lying , deleting of a well sourced text because it is not to his anti Israeli taste. Ykantor (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of Pluto2012 refusing to engage in discussion and that he instead attempts to exploit rules and force his view on others without debate can be found on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dieudonn%C3%A9_M%27bala_M%27bala#Sketch_of_2003_which_launched_much_of_the_controversy

Note his incredibly patronizing demands of me which he uses to revert all of my corrections and additions without discussion. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor who writes : "Pluto re-use his smoke screen tactics, writing all sort of vague accusations, in order to cover his proven and repeated cheating, lying , deleting of a well sourced text because it is not to his anti Israeli taste. Ykantor"

What smoke ? What cover ?

You complained this article was pov-ed. And you simply didn't participate to the talk page but anyway: your (numerous) comments were rejected by user:Zero0000, user:Nishidani, User:ZScarpia or I. Nobody supported you except me once. 1 constructive comment out of 20...

This was the case on 1948 Arab-Israeli War (on which I am very active) because I know the topic (File:1948 Library.jpg) and on Adolf Hitler (on which I am not really active and on which you was asked by all (5) contributors (who know the topic) to WP:DROPTHESTICK... But just reject the idea.)

This discussion is useless. Admnistrators decided not to intervene, which I deeply regret.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Russavia threatening to block evade

Following on from last week's discussion of whether Russavia's talk page access should be revoked, he's now threatening to evade his block to do something about some copyright issue. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it's now time to shut off his talk page access. I would do it myself, but I have a history of disagreements with him that I'm pretty sure would rate as involvement, so I'm requesting any other admin to. — Scott • talk 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the comment you left there, he is indefinitely blocked, not banned, so you may wish to make a correction. — Scott • talk 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He is de facto banned, not welcome to participate. If he wants to use his talk page to appeal his block I will be happy to restore access. He can email me. If he wants to use the page to stir up disruption, as he was doing, he does not need access. Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect NE Ent 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does suggesting he would sock to fix issues that need fixing warrant removal of talk page access? Jehochman's revocation seems based off him asking others to handle issues on his talk page, which has repeatedly failed to gain approval as a basis for removing talk page access. For what it is worth, I just dealt with the copyright issues Russavia noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of the prior ANI discussion was that Russavia could maintain talk page access. Unless there's evidence the requests he's made on his talk page are specious, the facts that he has a) made the request b) waited a week for someone to take care of them indicate a willingness to abide by the block. It's most illogical in this context to remove talk page access and the most likely result is not that he won't ip edit, but rather that he'll ip edit sooner. NE Ent 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This must be some kind of a joke, all he was suggesting to edit as IP to fix copyvio stuff nobody seemed interested to fix. This could be hardly seen as block evasion, especially if the report is made by a user having a dispute history with Russavia. --Denniss (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that would most certainly be block evasion. We don't just pretend it isn't because one thinks the potential edit might be useful any more than we permit edit warring because one thinks they are right. Resolute 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Russavia showed any concern over copyright issues prior to being blocked? Frankly, this sudden interest in the topic, combined with threats to evade the block to fix these issues looks very much like attention-seeking to me. And we all know how Russavia craves attention... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He is an admin on Commons so it makes sense for him to have such concerns and I don't believe such concern over copyright issues is something that merely arose following his block here. Presumably, he would have just dealt with them himself with little fanfare prior to being blocked.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation of talk page privilege for indef-blocked editor abusing it. As discussed previously, R. was on the knife's edge, and threatening to sock for whatever reason is sufficient to cut him off. No amount of Wikilawyering will change that. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is a classic example of us cutting off our nose to spite our face. If there's genuinely a problem (and reporting copyright issues sure as hell ain't it) then short temporary page protection until the issue resolves itself is the way to go, rather than permanent talk page and e-mail disabling. Hell, it's an ineffective and stupid thing anyway, given all Russavia needs to do is ping, say, me or another editor via Commons, but at least this gets more eyes and is more transparent. Nick (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  I suspect Russavia's desire for attention is a more likely motivator than transparency. Resolute 01:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  I couldn't care less why he's doing it, but if he's reporting copyvios that's a good thing. Legoktm (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Wait, why is he even blocked if what he's doing is good? Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – if Russavia's talk page privs are kept, then we may be able to be informed of some potential copyvios, as he is still a net good to the project (however small), even when blocked. If his privileges are revoked, we will receive nothing of benefit. Epicgenius (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we should have in between statuses. If he can do beneficial work, he should be unblocked. If he's going to be disruptive, then he should not participate at all. When blocked the talk page is used to request unblocking, to discuss the reason for the block and that sort of thing. It is not used to edit by proxy, to grandstand, to bait other editors (such as by threatening sock puppetry), or to incited repeated ANI threads. I am not opposed to discussing conditions for Russavia to be unblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have WP:TBANs then? Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. They tend to be humiliating. The same objective can be achieved by directing an editor to avoid a conflict and let them know they will be blocked if they cause further trouble there. If RussAvia wants to be unblocked and restricted to working on copybook issues only, I wouldn't object, but he has to indicate a willingness to follow the rules, and avoid past trouble. He can also use his Commons talk page and any editors who want to help can go there and read that page. We have no power to restrict his activity there. Jehochman ^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, maybe find a go-between email just for copyvio issues on a trial basis? It's such a hassle to work on an article and then realize some or all of it is a copyvio and can't be used. Or find a subpage just for copyvio issues for a few months to see if these concerns can be posted, and transferred to those who specialize in copyvio issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Per DD2K's comment below, this does smack of putting the cart before the horse. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, in this particular case agree with comment by Nick, above, the rationale is logical and sound when applied in this instance. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The indef knife has already been stuck in to the hilt, no need to twist it. Pointing out copyvios is a positive action that helps the project. Why make it harder or more complicated to do so? There are plenty of people watching his talk, so anything like disruption would be quickly caught, and all other posts will be closely monitored too. He should have talk priviledges. INeverCry 04:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Pushing at the edge of his block is a drama inducing tactic and blocked users shouldn't be encouraging anyone to proxy of them. If they are worried about copyvios they can sort out the cesspit that is commons without worrying about our problems. Russavia is no longer a member of the en community and should butt out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLOCKBANDIFF clearly states indefinitely blocked users are "Still a member of the community" NE Ent 12:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose revocation We are shooting ourselves in the foot here. Finding and reporting copyvios is always good for the encyclopedia, whether coming from a blocked editor or not. KonveyorBelt 06:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• This isn't a vote. Russavia is indeff blocked. Which was reaffirmed twice(ANI/AN). It's absurd to claim he needs Talk page access to rescue Wikipedia from Copy right violations. Come on now. There are several venues to report such violations, and Russavia is not the only person in the fricken world that can do it. So Support revocation, or whatever. If Russavia wants to appeal his block, there are ways to do that. This vote here is a waste of time. Dave Dial (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  And yet....no one else reported those copyvios until Russavia did. I don't think you're aware of how bad of a copyvio problem we have. Maybe you should take a look (and hopefully start helping ;)) Legoktm (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation. Russavia's playing games with the limits on the very limited set of things indeffed users may do here, and announcing the intent to sock/IP edit unless his requests are promptly complied with crosses the line. There's also rather curious off-wiki incident where someone who has been alleged to edit as Russavia made comments to a publication not quite admitting the allegation to be accurate in a way which seems to me designed to increase the chances of another WP:OUTING dramafest. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation. OTRS is a perfectly acceptable alternative for addressing for copyvios if Russavia cannot be bothered to address the reasons surrounding their block. As such, Russavia is in no position to request improvements to the project, even those as serious as copyvios, until the reasons for their block are acknowledged and an explanation is provided on how the problematic behavior will be avoided in the future. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  No it's not. OTRS is already backlogged, and on-wiki communication is always preferred to off-wiki ones if possible.Legoktm (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The number of requests we get and the ability of OTRS agents to address those requests are not really relevant here. What is relevant is an editor who is making demands on other editors when their rights to edit have been revoked, and evidence that the editor has threatened to skirt around their indefinite block. I don't really care how high-and-mighty the cause is; the editor has an obligation to address the terms of their block before they continue to contribute as an editor. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The copyvio queue doesn't generally have much in the way of backlog issues.©Geni (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation Deny attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• This is stupid. Revoking a user's talk page when they're pointing out copyvios is a terrible idea, and is just going to make our backlog of unaddressed copyvios even worse. Legoktm (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Russavia has several other methods available to report copyvios. Let him use them. People's concerns about his record of disruptive behavior is not "stupid". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Like what? That's not what I was calling stupid, I was saying that restricting a user's ability to report copyvios is stupid. We need all the help we can get in resolving copyvios. Legoktm (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • OTRS. His Commons talk page. Emailing his friends. Starting a blog called "Wikipedia Copyright Violations Report". Paper, a pen, a stamp and an envelope. A Western Union telegram. Fax. Telex. Sadly, the Pony Express has gone out of business. Anything but English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation Anybody interested can watch his COM talk page. No need to encourage this funny game. (There was a user User:Pieter Kuiper who was very expert in reporting copyvios but blocked for other reasons. But I didn't see Commons allow to use his skills for that particular matter under the block. The same should be applicable here. If one person is blocked; he is blocked. Period. It pains, but slowly, someone will fill the gap.) Jee 08:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation, essentially per Cullen. From his behaviour, Russavia clearly has difficulty letting the project(s) go - this is a pretty big blocker on getting perspective on the problems that led to his block. Deny attention, give him some space, and if he wants to solve for copyvios he can work out why his behaviour was a problem and mature so that an actual unblock is possible. Ironholds (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation The good nature of those wanting open season at the talk page is noted, but the user went to a lot of trouble to produce an article that trolls his adversary Jimbo, and is now going to a lot of trouble to find something to post guaranteed to raise more trouble. There are other ways to assist the project which avoid WP:DENY violations. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation per Cullen, et al. - although, as Dave Dial correctly points out, this isn't a vote - admin action was requested, admin action was provided. Not sure why we're still here, given that... close this and just WP:DENY seems more sensible - maybe that doesn't have enough dramaz though....Begoon ^talk 10:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In his comment linked above, Russavia admits to already having block evaded is block, "as an "IP editor" as I did on the LAN Colombia article many months ago". IMO this needs to be dealt with first, and secondly blocks and bans are meant to protect wikipedia, removing his tp access isnt going to protect while letting copyvios go. Its a balancing act, his tp access is meant only to appeal his sanctions. Murry1975 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I've been far too involved in things in the past regarding this user, so a vote would be a bit unseemly. There are things for both sides of the battleground here to consider, though. On one hand, if the project is hosting copyvios, then it is in the best interests of all that they are corrected, regardless of the how's & why's of how it is done. On the other, the project is not dependent on one person to correct problems, and these will be found and corrected eventually without this user's input. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Heh - the last part of your comment makes sense. Of course the project is hosting copyvios - thousands of them. The other part implies we should allow unrestricted TP access for <<insert your least favourite blocked user here>> when they want to post about them, regardless of other considerations. Complete the sentence yourself. Maybe it's right. I don't think it is though. It would certainly make for some interesting appeals, and some award-winning gamesmanship. Fascinating thoughts though, and drama potential unlimited. :) Cullen gave a comprehensive list of communication channels if the need is there. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Access should be removed for:

• abuse of {{Unblock}}
• abuse of notifications
• personal attacks on other editors

• Editors who don't find blocked users comments of benefit can simply unwatch the page. Russavia's comments about copyvios were so "disruptive" that no one noticed for a week, it seems. NE Ent 15:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't say they were disruptive. This section might say that, though. Lots of ways of looking at it. Mine is it's deliberate gaming for attention from an indef blocked user and undesirable for that reason. You obviously disagree. Happens. Succesful though, I'll give him that - got himself another 5 minutes of "fame". I'm done here now - per DENY. Begoon ^talk 15:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that Russavia is a vandal. People generally tend to spit in the faces of indef blocked users. Maybe it's not "five minutes of 'fame'", but rather, legitimate concerns. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. In that case all I can recommend is some research. The search function should be enough - failing that Google. Sorry if I can't be any more help than that. Begoon ^talk 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Talkpage access should be removed for abuse of talkpage privileges, not constructive use of them. Do we really want to be accused of closing our ears to someone for reporting copyvio? ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Dose of reality here people, revoking his talk page access is not only going to fail at addressing his threat to sock, it is actually going to encourage him to sock and it is unlikely that there would be much of a way to stop him from socking successfully given past experiences. The most practical option is to just let him use his talk page to point out issues. At least then it is one of us non-ebil editors doing the work and not an ebil sock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Let's revoke access if and when he does sock – this may be an empty threat. As WereSpielChequers says, talk page access should be removed for the abuse of the talk page, and Russavia is not abusing his talk page access, at least not yet. There's no reason to revoke that access unless abuse actually does happen. Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • He already has socked. He admitted this in the very comment which triggered this ANI report. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

break

In the above section it is incorrectly asserted that I disagree with the assessment that "it's deliberate gaming for attention from an indef blocked user." In fact, I neither agree nor disagree with that assessment; I actually just don't care. All that really matters is mainspace. All this "stuff" behind the Wikipedia:: prefix is supposed to be about keeping that going smoothly. Editors who chose to focus their time here -- especially folks with sysop bits -- really ought to have some idea of the lay of the land before taking action.
More than being a single collective community, Wikipedia is a collection of overlapping communities. One subcommunity cares more that disruptive editors be prevented from continuing to disrupt; another cares more about mainspace quality issues, specifically copyright. Both bring value to Wikipedia and should be respected. So the question becomes: when an indef blocked editor flags a copyvio, what's the best way to deal with it?
From the motivation of the blocked editor standpoint, the likely possibilities are:

• legitimate concern over copyright violation
• attention seeking behavior.

The best course action is one that doesn't require speculation to what the motivation is; there are actually two good choices. One is to fix the copyright with a neutral message: i.e. "rm copyvio" not "remove copyright violation that indef blocked editor flagged..." The second is to ignore it. The former is win-win in that the content is improved and the flagging editor gets minimal attention. The second doesn't benefit mainspace but provides total denial.
Staring another ANI thread when it was already hashed through five months ago is not the way to "deny" attention; it's more like, as David Bowie sang years ago, "putting out a fire with gas-o-line".
There's a non-archived discussion at blocking policy on this very issue; three months old and not many comments. We're much better at participating when we have a specific individual to attack/defend than an abstract principle. In WIkipedia-as-it-should-be, we'd all comment on the blocking policy talk page and come to a consensus on talk page unblock only yes or talk page unblock only no. In Wikipedia-as-it-is, I honestly and regretfully expect that that discussion will end in the usual "no-consensus" muddle and we'll just keep doing this again and again ... NE Ent 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a lovely, long answer, and much of what you say is true. Read my answer above to Tarc though - if you don't want ongoing drama, which you say you don't, this is a hell of an odd path to choose. Begoon ^talk 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He's not blocked exclusively for reporting copyvios. The deciding factor is that he's grandstanding and baiting by saying that he's going to evade the block if people don't hop to it and do what he wants them to do. This is manipulative, and it's an abuse of the talk page. Removing talk page access prevents the grandstanding, baiting and manipulation. It also shows Russavia that he has to grow up and act responsibly if he wants to get unblocked. If he doesn't want to be unblocked, he should completely leave the project. If he wants to report copyvios, he can do so via alternative channels that have already been enumerated. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I concur with all of that. And in case anyone missed any of the channels Cullen enumerated, here they are:

OTRS. His Commons talk page. Emailing his friends. Starting a blog called "Wikipedia Copyright Violations Report". Paper, a pen, a stamp and an envelope. A Western Union telegram. Fax. Telex. Sadly, the Pony Express has gone out of business. Anything but English Wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

But yet en-wiki is where these copyvio problems exist, and where they should be handled. Not a whole lot of people will take notice if he starts broadcasting copyvios on an external site, especially if he can't tell us on en-wiki about it now that his talk is removed. People will take notice if he posts them on en-wiki precisely because the issues are on en-wiki. KonveyorBelt 18:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The stupidity of this is painful. Removing copy-vios from Wikipedia is a good thing. Full stop. I'm glad to see some reasonable editors amongst the usual torches-and-pitchforks. The fact that some editors view a removal of copy-vios by a blocked editor no differently that a blocked editor adding copy-vios is simply mind-numbing. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Socking or threatening to sock is a very bad thing. Full stop. Fixing copyvios without socking or threatening to sock? Priceless. And if R. and just continued to do that, he'd still have talk page access. Instead.... BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Evading a block to vandalize is socking. Evading a block to continue an argument is socking. Fixing copy-vios is not socking. Vowing to fix copy-vios on one's talk-page is not "threatening to sock". Wikilaywering with the argument: "well it's technically still socking" is far more disruptive than anything with which Russ has "threatened" us. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How about an indef blocked user grandstanding and baiting on his talk page? Do you think that's good? If Russ were to quietly sock and do good edits I would 100 percent ignore him. It's the grandstanding and baiting that's the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @Jfr&b: Wikilawyering? The only "wikilawyering" going on is from an editor trying to carve out a loophole that exists neither in policy nor practice. Editing with an IP while blocked is evading a block, period, full stop. (No "nudge nudge, wink wink", just "say no more".) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Joefromrandb, for the benefit of everyone reading this, could you please quote those parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which support your claim that evading a block to fix a copyvio is permitted? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support restoration I am not aware of any disruptive edits that this user may have made on his talk page while blocked. Notifying the project about copyright violations certainly isn't disruptive, but is something which is very much needed. Also, some of the comments above do not make sense. Some users seem to have the opinion that he is free to report copyright violations and that people are free to act when the copyright violations have been discovered, but the user should not report the violations to his talk page but somewhere else. What would this achieve? What is the difference between reporting copyright violations on a talk page on this project or on a page on Commons, if the outcome still is that the content will be deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Do you think his threat to sock unless somebody did his bidding were appropriate, collegial, and helpful to Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation. Russavia's use of his talk page to report copyright violations was both useful and tolerable, up to the point where he started issuing threats. Now that he's making a nuisance of himself by openly flouting community decisions, the benefits of talk page access no longer outweigh the drawbacks. Identifying copyright violations isn't so specialized a skill that we can't do without the trickle of reports he provides; anyone active at Wikipedia:Copyright problems can see that spotting copyvios on Wikipedia is like shooting fish in a barrel. More help there from editors in good standing is always welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It often seems that certain Wikipedians have an unhealthy obsession with Russavia. He may have some faults (who doesn't?), but he also has a lot of good points, and from what I can see, he's quite often been wronged against - that's not to say he's a living saint either. If people don't like his talk page, then they have the option of taking it off their watch list and ignoring it. Regarding socking/block evasion, I wonder if that's really a wise path to tread for him and for those who are so concerned about it. When there is a will and an inclination it's just as easy to check user, as it is to sock - so I fail to see why some here are becoming quite so hysterical on the subject.  Giano  09:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored talk page access on condition that he won't use the page to rile other editors. For instance, he shouldn't announce plans to sock, nor insult people nor anything else that would annoy. If he wants to politely list copyright violations, that's acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Jehochman, that's the most sensible solution.  Giano  11:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, a sensible step to take at this time, as long as we all remember the attached conditions if anything happens in the future. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Without going into this convoluted case itself, may I suggest to the (talk page) unblocking admin that a brief notice be placed on the now-unblocked talk page summing up the situation, so that the user in question and others posting there are under no illusions as to consequences. Jusdafax 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• He did [19] NE Ent 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed: one redirect, one move request

I reverted the db-g6 on this page, because it seems to be a controversial, non-admin closure on a move request.[20] (I didn't participate in that move discussion, and am not sure what happens in cases of controversial, non-admin closures.)

Separately, related to several AFDs involving off-Wiki recruiting (see for example AN discussion), this seems like an unhelpful, even pointy redirect; "not getting any" was referenced in one of the AFDs.

I don't really know what to do with either of these, but they were raised on my talk.[21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

This one has been all over the place: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And now this; anybody home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the link from the template per WP:BLP. I'm not going to go as far as to say that any mention of the blog is a BLP violation, but I do think putting it at the top of a controversial AFD is a bad idea and brings unneeded attention to the blogger.--v/r - TP 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TParis, thanks for the help on both of these messy messes. Because I (unwisely) posted a two-fer, the main issue may have been missed: is this a reasonable redirect (part of that messy AFD situation)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see you got that too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Re: the Cannabis (drug) → Marijuana WP:Requested move debate, you cited "non-admin close, best have that reviewed" in your edit summary reverting Red Slash's edit. As I suggested on your talk page, since you appear to be the one who's not satisfied with the WP:RM discussion outcome and thinks a review should be done, it makes sense that you should initiate the process by requesting a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you had mentioned WP:Move review on my talk, I would have gone there. But since I've never heard of the place, and you didn't mention it, here we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are here now but this is the wrong place. There's no help for you here except just the advice that if you want your concern heard, you should request a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I closed the move request. Most of those who opposed the move stated their opposition in terms of it being less common or an Americanism, both of which are demonstrably untrue (as far as the sources show). Unless I am badly misreading WP:NATURAL, we choose even less ideal titles if they disambiguate naturally from other possible topics. Unless I am badly misreading WP:COMMONNAME, we choose the demonstrably more common title over, as one editor later commented, a title asserted by some editors to be preferred in certain technical fields. There is no policy or guideline to suggest keeping the article at Cannabis (drug) and two very good ones to move it. Regardless, we don't re-fight move requests at this venue in most cases, and only the most flagrantly misguided closes would be outright reverted. Red Slash 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash: and you don't consider it fragrantly misguided to close a move discussion when you can't perform the move yourself? You're a non-admin, which means you can't move it, it's discouraged that you close the discussion at all if the result is to move (or where any administrative action is needed), and any administrator is free to revert your closure. Considering there was actually more opposition to a move than support at the time, your close certainly is misguided. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"fragrantly misguided" ← you mean something smelled fishy about it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I don't, Moe Epsilon. Happens all the time at WP:RM. (See the backlog at the bottom of the page? Imagine what it'd be like if we left all of the requests to the administrators! Often, the regulars can't close them anyway because they're involved.) As the closing instructions for RMs state, at Wikipedia, we judge consensus by weighing the strength of the arguments--in other words, it's WP:NOTAVOTE. I don't get the idea that there was "more opposition than support"--how is the number of !votes relevant? There were two policies in favor and a bunch of "it's an Americanism" arguments against, which were untrue (demonstrably so) as well as irrelevant (WP:ARTCON). Second, I've never witnessed any admin reverting a closure by a non-admin closer. (Is that different at WP:AFD?) I've closed probably thirty or so move requests and had two taken to move review (one stood, and I self-reverted my close on the other) but never had one reverted. I've been at Wikipedia for nine years and have in fact never even heard of a move closure being summarily reverted by an admin, ever. Red Slash 05:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

...and you'll notice that no one has reversed you here :) My comment below reflects the fact that articles are to be considered on their own merits, including titles, in move discussions. I disagree with your assessment that the weight of COMMONNAME outdoes user reservations, but disagreement is a fact of life. I don't think you did anything wrong, I just disagree with the reading. Keegan (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Keegan. I appreciate that. I filed a move review at WP:MRV (and also slightly rewrote my comment here) and will probably take a bit of a wikibreak--man, this was exhausting. Red Slash 06:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been recently, but I've closed my share of controversial requested moves over the years. Thanks for filing the MRV, take some time gnoming, but really it's all water under a very large bridge. Keegan (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon, may I request that if you wish to question the close, that you do so by requesting a WP:Move review, stating your guidelines-based reasons (which, so far, you have failed to provide). That is the process we have for registering an objection and it allows a full debate. This is not the appropriate forum. We cannot suspend the rules because you're an admin and Red Slash is not. Admins are not God. They are expected to follow the guidelines, the same as the rest of us. Msnicki (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, it's not so cut-and-dry as policy, guidelines, and process. The article has not been moved, so is move review the appropriate forum? It seems to me that it's more reasonable that an admin review a closure that, since it involves admin buttons to make happen, should have been closed by an admin.

A further thought on the closure: Guidelines are guidelines, they are not binding and when there is clear and equal division on a discussion over such a guideline the guideline does not trump how the community feels about a particular article. Please don't let bureaucracy interfere with community consensus or lack thereof.

That being said, I recommend rebooting the move discussion if the proponents feel that they have compelling evidence and can provide consensus. Short of that, I decline the move. Keegan (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Slate should have participated and not deemed him or herself as closer as they clearly support the move request. More people opposed than support this move but Red Slate has taken it on him or herself to discount the arguments of long term editors who have been editing the cannabis articles for years for reasons that arent clear or affirmed in any policies or guidelines. This is a completely unsatisfactory close, I do fully agree that the RM should be re-opened for at least 1 more week and a serious effort made to involve more people in the naming process as this is one of wikipedia's most popular articles and we havent even had 20 ppl participating. Given that the Americanization of this article is a core argument against the RM (and one unbelievably discounted by the closer) that all US editors should recuse themselves from closing. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Telling every American editor (including myself) to recuse is silly, SqueakBox. That is assuming that every American editor is unable to read and evaluate consensus or give an opinion that is not international (and it's pretty insulting at that). All that would be left is anti-American editors left shouting "Americanism!" and shutting the discussion down, which is no better. I also find it funny no other countries get called out on Wikipedia, never a cry of "Britishism!" or "Canadianism!" is uttered, it's the dirty Americans, apparently.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not because it's "funny"; it's because Wikipedia doesn't have the problems with Britishism or Canadianism that it does with Americanism. That said, the call for all American editors to recuse is too foolish to rate a comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I base my request on Red Slate's behaviour and the behaviour of the original RM requester, by asking others to recuse I am not saying every American editor is the same. But more to the point you are totally wrong that I wouldnt say exactly the same if somebody was trying to impose a British name on an internationally themed article as I would without hesitation. The reason I called out "Americanism" is absolutely not because I am anti America but simply because in this case editors are trying to Americanize an international article and your claim that because of this people are picking on Americans is pathetic and not requiring of a serious response♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

editors are trying to Americanize an international article -- excellent job of assuming good faith. Keep calm and get back to work.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox: I hope you know I came to this discussion because I firmly against the way the move discussion was closed (by an American) and !voted to re-open to the discussion at the move review. By seriously suggesting that all Americans recuse is painting us all with the same brush that Americans couldn't close the RM. I know you don't intend to do that; I know you have the best of intentions when you suggested it though. I think you should probably give us benefit of the doubt that most editors who contribute here are going to write their variation of English based on whichever country they live in, and that is how things get Americanized (or -ized by whichever country visits a particular article the most), not because we are trying to force it on other variations. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings?

Looking at the removals and additions of "Zionist terrorism" and "Palestinian terrorism" categories by 85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs), if this were an account I'd probably warn them, not sure what to do as it's an IP. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning an IP seems reasonable to me, assuming that the IP isn't very dynamic: Can we be confident that the intended person will read the warning? Looking at the edit history, it seems to be the same person for the last couple of weeks. bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered normal admin action? The existence of DS doesn't preclude normal admin actions. It just would not enjoy the special protections afforded by DS. If you don't need to use it, you can ignore those rules. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP's edits popped up on my watchlist and I discovered they had a thread here. I agree that the user has been making a lot of questionable category edits to various articles. And I do mean "questionable" in a very literal sense—I question whether the categories they are adding or removing are appropriate, but lack the subject-matter expertise to know for sure. For example, they are adding the category Category:Persecution of Muslims to articles about certain acts of violence against ethnic groups which are Muslim-majority, though the articles don't single out religious intolerance as the motive for the violence. Perhaps the categorization is inappropriate and should be reverted, or perhaps the categorization is appropriate and the articles need expansion. It would be great if some editors more familiar with conflicts involving Muslims, or ethnic groups which are Muslim-majority, to double-check the edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues and subject editing own article

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

---

In the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spitzer_%28political_scientist%29&diff=590581011&oldid=590579055 --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue with the edit that you are concerned about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, am actually a fan of the gentleman. I thought it was a COI violation to edit one's own article. If I am mistaken about this, please close the discussion. I just didn't want to revert the guy, because I think what he wrote was helpful to be honest. I thought an admin should look at it to make sure it's kosher. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see much of a problem with that edit. I think the article as a whole is too resume-y, but this particular edit doesn't make it any worse. Perhaps Professor Spitzer can shine his light on Talk:Gun control? :) (Where, no doubt, he'd find his "point of view" cast in a dungeon, even with a world of scholarship to support it.) Drmies (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I proposed that his edits be kept, because I think he made them in good faith. I just wanted an admin to look at it. I don't see any problems at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As an active editor on the page in question, I have no problem with it. WP:BLPEDIT is easy enough to follow. (And I only wish we could get his insight on our Gun control and Gun politics dispute, but that seems like asking for the moon and the stars.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2014 (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.

Death 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.

---

This edit contains a threat to murder. I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours, and my feeling is that the whole thing is just some silly ranting, and that there is no need to take it any more seriously. However, I am mentioning it here in case anyone thinks any other steps should be taken. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's this again (still bad mind you). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had never come across it before. Well, that makes it even more clear that this is just childish trolling. If anyone is interested, this relates to trolling at Talk:Oy vey by an editor using the IP addresses 174.20.87.111 and 71.220.13.23. The page Talk:Oy vey has been semiprotected by Mark_Arsten, who managed to beat me to doing the protection by about half a minute. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (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.

Editor using epithets such as "Antisemitic traitorous racists" - topic ban proposal

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

---

This is Bloomingdedalus (talk · contribs). After I warned him for edit-warring, his response to me included "Parasitic terrorist apologists you scum - you should be hunted and thrown in Gitmo." His talk page if full of attacks on Islam and Muslims as is at least one other talk page.[22]. User: Georgewilliamherbert placed him on notice of the decided Arbitration Committee case on Palestine-Israeli issues and then warned him about the talk page edit above, which resulted in "Please stop your insane bigotry against the Jews you parasite. Antisemitic traitorous racists such as yourself should not be editing Wikipedia. Anyone who equates criticism of a religious ideology with racism ought not be permitted to administrate anything."

There are two issues here. One is the continued insults, but the more serious one is his apparent incompetence to edit articles dealing with Jewish-Muslim issues with anything resembling NPOV, and I am calling for a topic ban in this area. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban relating to Jewish-Muslim issues

I propose that User:Bloomingdedalus be banned from any edits related to Jewish-Muslim issues in all areas of Wikipedia. This should also deal with these personal attacks.Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. He's NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopedia and indeff'ed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2014 (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.

The editor Ryulong is causing trouble again

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.

---

Ladies and gentlemen, Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is not only edit warring AGAIN but is resorting to verbal attacks (as seen when he reverted here). take a good look at his recent edits and kno that this is true. 166.205.55.48 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The individual behind this IP has been trolling me since November and he's complaining that I'm reverting his edits to attack me across the project on multiple IP addresses and now registered accounts which are being investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at the very least this is a WP:BOOMERANG situation here, as the IP's recent 3 edits contain "asshole" and "maniac" in the edit summaries. Pretty clear "verbal attacks" on their own part. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2014 (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.

Problem with User:Incnis_Mrsi

Collapsing as per desire of OP ES&L 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Formally requesting censor of User:Incnis_Mrsi privileges to revert pages. I am notifying User:Incnis_Mrsi and the wikiproject page of this request. With respect to me, I contend that this person is stalking me. He has no other goal with respect to my work on wikipedia than to find fault and threaten me and be abusive. I also contend that he has a history of this with others which can be seen in his User_talk:Incnis_Mrsi and in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Incnis_Mrsi. I fully realize that my request will probably not be granted, but I believe that this person's past and present actions of abuse towards me and other fellow wikipedians will continue into the future and so I have decided that to make this request a part of the permanent wikipedian record. I will not go further with this action than this formal complaint/request. My name is Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska. I work extensively and without compensation in providing FOSS online mathematics education resources particularly in mathematics engineering education. I a professor of mathematics and informatics in FYR Macedonia (35 years). I have a Ph.D. in theoretical mathematics (1989), but concentrate on improving engineering mathematics. I run several wikis in english and macedonian. I have youtube channels in english and macedonian,... I am active in mathforums across the globe. History of problem with Incnis Mrsi In May-June 2013, when I saw that the Macedonian mk.wikipedia has started to actively function, I re-registered to help with the "translation project". (I was registered in 2008 under LFS, but only contributed a single article since I saw that the site was not active, forgot that email,...) At this time I had absolutely no plans of working on the en.wikipedia. I assumed it had many, many competent volunteers doing this job. So I picked a subject and went to get the en.wikipedia article to translate it into Macedonian. The subject I picked was: Linear functions. The article I found on the en.wikipedia page had absolutely nothing to do with the standard definition of a Linear function. (It was entirely focused on the 3rd year university mathematics abstract algebra concept of Linear mappings.) I searched all over en.wikipedia for a page on linear functions. There was nothing and this is an absolutely standard topic in algebra. (a) I did NOT touch or change any page and I mention that I have NEVER deleted or changed anyone else's material EVER. (b) I simply created a new page called: Linear function (mathematics). It was immediately marked for Speedy Deletion and only the intervention of several members of the math community saved it by mentioning that this material was useful and not covered elsewhere. Result 1: User:Incnis_Mrsi deleted the new page I created. He then created a new page himself called Linear function (calculus) and copied my material into it (images and all) and this article is still online. I mention here - as I mentioned then to this person - that Linear functions have nothing to do with calculus, but to absolutely no avail. He knew, I did not. No discussion was permitted. I was going to stop working on en wikipedia, but (a) several persons encouraged me not to give up and (b) this is important work to me. Result 2: I continued to work on mk.wikipedia articles (and have made over 100 contributions in the last 6-8 months). I made every effort to improve my "wikipedian" skills particularly with respect to consulting with fellow wikipedians and to creating articles with the structure, content, citations, references, sharing, linking, images, ... wikipedia requires. I totally believe in the value of this OER as a incredible asset to free global education. Result 3: In addition to working on mk.wikipedia articles, I believe I have also positively influenced en.wikipedia articles working together in the community on e.g. Congruence (geometry) and Slope and having my images and examples included on several other pages all in an incredible spirit of goodwill and cooperation. 1. In August 2013, I noted on the talk:Constant function page that as with Linear function page, the content had absolutely nothing to do with the standard definition of a constant function in the literature and suggested that someone add this definition. ABSOLUTELY no one responded to this talk. However, now knowing the process a bit better, I carefully researched and found material from both textbook and online materials in order to be able to include 7 wikipedia standard citations for correcting this omission. 2. Last month, I noticed that on the Linear equation page, a notice was posted that the page contained no inline citations. Having created a page for linear equations on the mk.wikipedia, I wrote in the talk page that I had three valid english citations for this material. Again, I changed NOTHING. Here is that talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linear_equation#no_citations. Please notice that User:Incnis_Mrsi responded by attacking my mk page, writing insults and abuse. He was not concerned with citations - simply with attacking me. I did not respond to this abuse, but simply requested that the citations be checked for quality. 3. Meanwhile I had been revising my earliest mk.wikipedia pages (in consultation with the mk.wikipedia board - it's a small country and we are working hard on this project), including the page on constant function. Four days ago I edited the en.wikipedia constant function adding the definition in the introduction and all of section 1 and my own image. This is the ABSOLUTELY standard definition of a constant function in all the literature. Period. I included the material that was already in the article, even though it had no citations. At the same time in the talk page of this article, I restated what I did and why and again specifically asked for help in making this article more complete. I did add 3 specific generalized examples and images (consistent with the main article page function (mathematics)) hoping to head off complaints that the "standard" definition was too restrictive. Please recall that I waited over six months after my request on the talk page for editors to do this and absolutely nothing happened. I ask you to examine the content of this page and the talk page before this edit and originally after my edit. 4. Immediately User:Incnis_Mrsi edited my edit and I contend that THE ENTIRE PURPOSE WAS TO FIND MISTAKES. This is my complaint. He was abusive and threatened me with instant reversion should I possibly attempt another edit in which he found the slightest еrror. I do not think this attitude acceptable in a wikipedian editor. I certainly may have made some minor wikipedian editing errors. But (a) they certainly were not intentional and (b) I deliberately deleted nothing that was in the article since in good faith I assumed it all to be valid (with or without citations or references). This person searched for errors. He added templates not present before, he deleted links, he searched for cyrillic glyphs (characters) since he knows how difficult they are to see. (I have deliberately left one in the paragraph above. See if you can find it.) The search for errors was deliberate, intensive, abusive and done in spite. Further I contend that this person himself makes wikipedian errors and the bots visit his talk page and leave him messages about such errors. He simply deletes these messages off his page - multiple times. I did not want to go as far as a formal complaint, but I did not know what to do. So I mentioned the problem on the wikiproject page (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Problems_with_user:_Incnis_Mrsi). I was told about this resource and that this is the proper place for a formal complaint. So here I am. P.S. I have absolutely no idea what User:Incnis_Mrsi is referring to in his response in this discussion. Again I reiterate that I have NEVER deleted or revised anyone's work or been cynical or abusive (or indeed copied someone's work and passed it off as my own). As I said at the beginning of this seemingly interminable discourse, I am interested only in having my complaint as part of the record on the person User:Incnis_Mrsi. Lfahlberg (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Regarding this: "User:Incnis_Mrsi deleted the new page I created. He then created a new page himself called Linear function (calculus) and copied my material into it (images and all) and this article is still online." That is incorrect. In June 2013 Incnis Mrsi moved the page Linear function (mathematics) to Linear function (calculus), although he did not leave a redirect from the old title. The page history still indicates you as its original author. There was a discussion at the WikiProject (now archived) regarding the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2013/Jun#Linear function. I make no other comment on any of your other comments. — Scott • talk 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Re this: (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Problems_with_user:_Incnis_Mrsi). I "saw", and what I saw worries me, especially the advice: "Oh, and if Incnis is a little bit rude on occasion - just be a little bit rude yourself in return". Can some admin give a gentle advice there? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) User:Lfahlberg, if you had to sum up your request in just a few sentences, what would that be? What specific result are you looking for here? I plan to review your material later, but know that someone will ask for a tl;dr version. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) My request (as I stated in the wikipedia project page and where I was reprimanded for making such a request) is simply that User:Incnis_Mrsi be asked to work with me as if I am a colleague with some credentials and that when I edit a page, he (and others) assume good faith. I am absolutely willing to discuss and compromise. He threatened me on my talk page when I edited constant function). This is not acceptable. His attitude of "simply delete" was then adopted by others without discussion because I complained. This is not right. I KNOW that his patrolling services are incredibly useful and I KNOW what it is like to work in a foreign language and how easy it is to say the wrong thing unintentionally so I put up with it (and tried really hard to avoid him), but this was crazy and I felt boxed in by all. I REALLY enjoy working on wikipedia and think I can make valuable contributions. I hereby formally withdraw my request that User:Incnis_Mrsi editor privileges be revoked. However, again I repeat my request that when I am following wiki protocol by discussing possible changes in the talk page, waiting, working with the community that a degree of respect be granted me. Thank-you. Lfahlberg (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC) As someone who has worked with Lfahlberg and Incnis Mrsi (for a few months at least), a comment may be in order. I don't want to get too tied up in this for lack of time, but as far as I can make out there is nothing really "disastrous". Normally, when Incnis says something which appears to "disparage" or "dismiss" the efforts of others in an "incivil" way, usually he just means "this is wrong: it needs to be fixed." Not always in the right wording, but that's my experience. So Lfahlberg, please refrain from being so sensitive. Incnis doesn't "stalk" editors, and is not "out to threaten" them, or what else. And of course, being rude back (no matter how much) is not really helpful either. That's all I want to say. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I agree with this assessment and if others agree, I allow this section to be blanked (or scratched or whatever one does to minimize collateral damage). Lfahlberg (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

76.120.175.135 "fixing" links to redirects that are not broken

76.120.175.135 has been making a large number of edits[23][24][25] that "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. User has been warned but ignored the warning.[26] (I doubt that he reads his talk page) So, what to do? Post three or four more warnings and see if he responds? Request a short block to get his attention? Please advise. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, not all his edits are bad. E.g. I would have done the same if I knew what was that. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Why bother the IP? It's not doing any harm, and as Staszek says, not all the edits are useless. This one was fine, although I wouldn't have bothered. I cleaned up a little after this one, but not to change what the IP did, only to fix something that the edit made me notice. It seems harmless.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And WP:NOTBROKEN is just a guideline, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't notify the IP. I'll do it now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations - User:Purrum

Hi. I am hoping someone with knowledge in the area can assist me in dealing with User:Purrum and what I understand to be copyright/plagiarism issues. Since December I have had to remove material added by this user to three articles, which were copy and pasted from other websites.[27][28][29] I recently posted a message on Purrum's talkpage, after the third removal, informing them that you can't cut and paste material from other sites if they don't display the appropriate license, a message that had also been conveyed by another user back in 2012. The only response has been reverting my edit to Kevin Heath, with no edit summary.

On a review of this user's contributions from this January 2014 alone, there appear to be further issues.

14 January: The history section in AFL Mackay, minus the bullet points, has been taken word for word from here.

9 January: "which was being carved into lucrative real estate by Mirvac. Under the terms of the deal, the oval and immediate surrounds were to remain for sporting purposes. Mirvac needed a club to occupy the oval" is a word for word copy from this article from The Age newspaper. Other parts are very similar.

Jevansen (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in terms of the Kevin Heath addition the licensing of the source is fine - GFDL is also a valid licence for Wikipedia reuse. Haven't checked the others yet. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Is there a reason you think the text at the source is released under a free license? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that these are copyright violations. It's especially troubling that he reverted the removal of copyrighted material from the article. I added a {{uw-copyright}} to his talk page, but stronger action may be needed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jevansen, for being conscious of the issue. :) I know the edit summary says "undo", but he didn't actually undo the edit to Kevin Heath - he rewrote the content. If you compare, the text is different. So he listened. I hope this is a sign of good faith desire to comply with policy. Yunshui, I don't see that license, but it wouldn't matter - GFDL by itself is not an acceptable license for importing material to Wikipedia, and even if it were proper attribution must be given to comply with the license in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. But see WP:COMPLIC. GFDL is only acceptable if it is also offered alongside a Creative Commons compatible license. Unfortunately, GFDL alone is the same as no license at all for our purposes since our license migration.

The "further issues" are a serious concern. I agree with Quadell's thoughts here. I just found and removed a blatant copy-paste from October, to a 1993 article that clearly predates. This looks like a situation where a WP:CCI is necessary to ensure that prior content is not problematic and that any issues that have not yet been cleaned up will be. I'll go ahead and open that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realise that GFDL also required CC. Thanks, MRG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Purrum is now open. We have such a huge backlog at CCI; please help. :) Jevansen, if this is an area in which you happen to work, your assistance there could be invaluable to keep copyrighted content from hanging around for longer than necessary. If you or anyone else wants to assist and isn't sure how, please feel free to stop by my talk page with questions. I'm off to speak to Purrum to explain the CCI and just see if there's any more coaching necessary regarding copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Levdr1lostpassword

I'd like to request a block for User:Levdr1lostpassword, he is in violation of WP:Harrassment (particularly wikihounding). He is making it a habit of accusing me of baseless Wikipedia violations, and also has a habit of wanting to pick fights with me over very minor issues. He's almost taking it upon himself to be the end-all, be all of Wikipedia. and quite frankly, it's getting out of hand. Thanks. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I recently suggested Vjmlhds create some articles, which he did. I've been generally complimentary of his work. However, I felt than one of his newly created articles fails to meet WP:GNG. As a courtesy, and because we sometimes get into heated debates (mostly on our respective talk pages), I tagged the article w/ {{Notability}}. I wanted to nominate the article at AFD, but I told Vjmlhds I'd wait a week and simply tag the article instead. He repeatedly removed the template, and then came here. There's definitely a history here, but I don't think it's anything a third party can't settle. I don't think it would be fair to accuse me of harassment. Levdr1lp / talk 20:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You know what, let's pretend this didn't happen...block request withdrawn. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Damiens.rf, incivility and Wikihounding

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.

---

Hello, I find myself here after stumbling with this little jewel and examining the root of the problem with more depth. The conflict, as usual began as a simple matter of perspective between him and the creator of Tony Santiago, Mercy11. Apparently, Mercy closed their discussion despite being involved, something that was very sorely received by damiens.rf. The violation of WP:CIVIL is very straight forward, Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back. However, there seems to be more than meets the eye here. For those unfamiliar with Tony's work, he is known as long-standing sysop Marine 69-71 in this project. He is the "Marine" referenced in the diatribe (notice how he directly links Tony's user page, despite the fact that he was uninvolved in this particular argument). I am not sure from where all of this sudden aggressiveness is coming, but it appears to be unilaterally coming from damien.rf's side, since Tony was quite cordial during their last talk page interaction. When damiens.rf talks about "Marine-fan boys", he seems to be referring to the majority of WP:PUR, WP:MILHIST and several other users throughout Wikipedia. This is a rather thinly veiled attack, nothing compared to the one below it, but one that exposes the fact that his edits to this article may have a more personal motivation to them. To understand that, we need to go to the very genesis of their relationship.

I believe that the first encounter between damiens.rf and Tony was one of his infamous "deletion streaks", where he would frequently overwhelm users/WikiProjects by nominating several dozen images at once. That was actually the first time that I remember seeing his name, since he quickly became the topic among members of WP:PUR due to the fact that nominations were being done too quickly to really be attended or discussed. This notably exhausted Tony, who had uploaded images since the early 2000s, when the protocol to upload fair use images was more lax (not requiring detailed rationales, for example) and tried to talk one-on-one to solve the issue. I actually encountered him as well, since damiens'rf's super-strict definition of "copyright enforcement" could apparently overcome the consensus to keep a single image. Shortly afterwards, he was edit warring with the entirety of WP:PUR, which I noted. It was eventually moved to AN/I where I noted the issue, the speed and volume of nomination. WP:PUR was not alone, notice the other topic discussing exactly the same pattern above that one. Eventually, this lead to the creation of a subpage, where damiens.rf continued to nominate more of Tony's images. From the look of it, both of them were cooperating and reaching agreements without trouble. However, from his subsequent edits it is somewhat obvious that damiens.rf had taken an interest to anything related to the Marine. I was inactive during most of the following years, but a quick browsing tells me that at least one user felt that damiens.rf has some sort of ongoing "beef" with the Marine, desfite the fact that he was actively trying to cooperate. As a matter of fact, after an article was created for Tony, damiens.rf made emphasizing how "non-notable" he considers him a very recurring point. Which is also the reason that damiens.rf felt the need to weight in during the AfD despite his history of conflict with its subject (COI).

He very frequently edited the articles authored by Tony, to the point of even being suspected of anon sockpuppetry at least once. His frequent "concurrence" with Tony can be easily seen here, but there are several examples. (here are a few diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Apparently, damiens.rf just followed Tony around tagging or frequently modifying his edits. And from the looks of it, damiens.rf also felt a need to question what Tony did within his own userspace in a rather confrontational tone, once even claiming that keeping the "hard copy" of a deleted Wikipedia article constitutes copyright violation (???). Damiens.rf went as far as claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket, despite the fact the he personally knew the incumbent Secretary of State of Puerto Rico (i.e. The "man" when it come to copyright enforcement in PR). Even when the excuse were not copyrights, he removed a public domain image because Tony was in it, possibly because he considers that it had something to do with vanity (note that at the moment that this list was moved, Tony was featured in it). The fact that he has continued to "oversee" the Marine for several years, even when Tony has avoided direct contact with damien.rf is concerning. This is WP:HOUNDING and it is completely unwarranted. Furthermore, I am concerned that damiens.rf tried to pressure Tony into giving up his admin tools and even "warned" him despite the fact that he was nowhere near a "neutral" party. This seems like thinly veiled extortion to me. Also of note is that his animosity extended to other members of WP:PUR, there are quite a few examples of him discussing with Cerejota and this one where he completely fails to assume good faith and accuses another member of possessing double standards. An examination of his edits indicates that he also had a subsequent encounter, not with Tony, but rather with his son Antonio.

With matters becoming increasingly personal, I think that we should make sure that both stop encountering each other. The diffs above clearly show that despite the best efforts of Tony, Cerejota and Mercy, damiens.fr is not interested in dialogue when it comes to the Marine. Since Tony almost exclusively edits Puerto Rico-related articles, a topic ban for those seems appropiate to make sure that damiens.rf stops hounding him. That would do it for this particular case. However, I believe that a more profound analysis of damien.rf's edit history taking his block log under consideration should take place as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Support topic ban for Puerto Rico-related articles and images. This has been going on and off for years. Wikihounding and uncivility should not be allowed to fester as the offender will simply keep pushing the limits as it is ahappening here. Before this was posted (on 13:47, 3 January 2014), I had responded to Damiens HERE (on 22:40, 2 January 2014‎) and clearly he does not want to follow policy. Mercy11 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but since the case dates back five years, this is as short as I could post it while keeping it concise. Telling people to browse his edit history would take them a while, since he nominates at least 25+ items for deletion at once with regularity. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In a very abbreviated summary, the text above describes how a user that has been blocked for Wikihounding in the past is back on the prowl. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. My "something isn't quite right here" detector is going off. Apart from the first diff presented above (which is between damiens.rf and Mercy11), every other one is more than a year old. What issue is happening now between Tony and damiens.rf that requires a topic ban? Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding your "detector", I'm afraid you're behind the times. According to this thread the intuitions of veteran editors that "Something is rotten in Denmark" are of no value. Apparently, only evidence suitable for a court of law is now considered worthy of consideration by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The first diff shows him taking a potshot personal attack at Tony, besides the fact that the conflict is taking place in the talk page of Tony Santiago. The other diffs are there to prove that this has been happening for a while. That when combined with their history, makes it hard to dismiss it. Not only that, but he was tailing Tony just last week, coincidentally, a few hours before posting that. To what purpouse? Why has he been doing it for years? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite. Old diffs. The complaint at the beginning of this section, about hatting of a conversation, seems well-warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The other diffs are there to display damiens'rf's personal "interest" in the subject, not as complaints. I can't say that someone is Wikihouning a user without going back and showing that he has been tailing him for a while. What about the fact that he was tailing Tony just last week? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What was tendentious about those edits? Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he has been selectively following him around since they had their first conflict, apparently for the single purpose of annoying him (or at least that is what it looks like based on his attitude towards Tony and the constant dismissal of his work). Of course, if that is not damiens.rf's intention, then he can easily delegate the monitorization to someone uninvolved. Right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If damiens.rf is simply overseeing these articles (without personal interest) and encountering Tony "coincidentally" after the Marine edits them, then he can surely let someone else do it. That way no one can misinterpret that he is tailing another user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's not a peep out of the editor who was "tailed." I don't think it's right in something like this that a group of editors functions as a kind of "attorney" for another editor, speaking on his behalf, when he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself and hasn't. I don't think that's fair to Damiens. If he feels "hounded" then he should say so himself. If he doesn't then this is a waste of time and should be closed. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions for Damiens.rf, cleaning up fair-use violations is frequently a thankless task with fightback from the uploader & his friends/wikiproject buddies. It appears that they have not forgiven Damiens.rf for his part in the deletion of the first incarnation of Tony Santiago's hagiography, and are resisting further cleanup/verification work on the recreated version 194.150.177.10 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know Tony, but I never edited his biography or was involved in either AfD (the first took place before my arrival and the third during a period of inactivity) I only knew damiens.rf from the one time that he flooded the project with IfDs and just learned that he opposed the third AfD after he was already tailing Tony. This has little to do with the biography. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • With that said, I don't think that anyone in WP:PUR (including Tony himself), would oppose the cleanup of the article by a neutral party. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(←)"The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

If we ask Tony, do you think that he will say how "joyful" being tailed makes him feel? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should ask him. I have notified him of this discussion, since you didn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I notified damiens.rf out of etiquette since he is the one being discussed. The notification system should have notified Tony when his username was linked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, or at least until we hear from Damiens.rf. I think highly of Tony so I'm likely if anything to be biased in his favor. But I'm concerned we're not hearing the full story here. You present a lot of evidence here, so I picked one of the more serious sounding charges, that Daminens was "claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket". But when I went to look at the linked discussion, I saw no accusation of forgery, but instead a reasonable-sounding question regarding the status of the ticket and the appropriateness of the PD label for these images. So I wonder what else in this complaint is not represented accurately. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Point granted. Perhaps it is difficult to asume that the 'question' was done in good faith knowing his stance regarding the contributions of Tony. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• • User:Gamaliel, I don't believe Damiens has any interest in presenting his side of this. It's been 5 days since he was notified of this discussion and he has been actively editing, yet has failed to comment here. Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Since he's had ample opportunity to respond, I see no problem proceeding without him. But I have to reiterate my oppose due to my concerns about the misrepresentation of evidence here. Misrepresenting a serious allegation is not an absence of good faith, it's something else entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with Gamaliel. My oppose also stands. Damiens seems to have dug a hole for himself by incivility that he has not retracted. He also seems to be following around another editor, though I don't see any actual tendentiousness. I sometimes watch what other editors do too, not to annoy them but because I'm interested to see what they're doing. But I am uneasy. The supposed victim of wikistalking has not uttered a word, which I think cancels out somewhat Damiens' nonappearance. The overriding issue here seems to be that this article is kind of a COI-squared situation. A Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia editor, written by his friends and, according to one edit summary on the talk page, with involvement by a relative. The problem is that this has festered in one article with no utilization of dispute resolution except for this seemingly overblown complaint. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Is this about the fair-use violations or Damiens.rf's wikihounding of Tony? Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Its about the fact that he continues to tail him even after the fair use issues were taken care of. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Plus, as the title states, it is also about Damiens's lack of civility via the profanity he spitted out and found in the "little jewel" link the submitter provided above. I don't know what low-life corner of the world some of the editors participating in this thread come from that they have grown so used to uncivil behavior, but where I come from to tell someone else to "go fuck yourself with a chainsaw" is not considered civil - particularly if Mercy11 had not been abusive to Damiens first. Mercy11 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I went to the "little jewel" cited at the very top of this section, and what I found was a sliver of this conversation in which Damiens.rf was upset about a user closing a discussion he was a part of. Carribean H.Q. says "Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back." But that is not an especially full or complete recounting of the conversation. If you look at the conversation in full, you can see that Damiens was initially quite civil and received a less than satisfactory response. While there was subsequent incivility, the concern itself seems well warranted and I have an uneasy feeling about this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So your Opposition is based on the fact that "Damiens was initially quite civil". However, being initially civil is no grounds to be uncivil later when, and if, someone continues to disagree with an outcome. Wikipedia has a well-defined appeal escalation process to deal with dissatisfaction - and it does not involve incivility by any of the parties as you are suggesting. Mercy11 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Backtracking we find this from Mercy11. That an insult is couched in snark, attacking another contributor's intelligence and/or education ("dark ages") and motivation, instead of sexually referenced profanity doesn't make it less of an insult, and Mercy11 should not have closed a discussion she was a participant in. (I'd revert the close right now if it wasn't 5 days stale.) I urge both Mercy11 & Damiens.rf to refrain from commenting about the other. NE Ent 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Receiving a snarky, "less than satisfactory" response is now enough to randomly tell someone to "go fuck [himself] with a chainsaw"? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No, and I admit that I haven't gone through all your diffs. However, if anyone had hatted a discussion in, say Talk:BP or any actively edited article there would be an unholy row. Are you sure there aren't WP:OWN issues here as well as COI concerns? Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • There are likely COI concerns regarding the fact that users that know the subject are editing the article. At the very least, I don't edit it based on that. But that goes for both sides, I doubt that damiens.rf would even be interested in this particular biography if Tony was not a Wikipedia user (i.e. if they never encountered each other). - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(I am interjecting this comment here to address CHQ's statement above.) User:Caribbean H.Q.: It depends on what you mean by "know the subject". From my Talk Page, see that Tony happened to be the admin that welcomed me when I started editing in Aug 2009. So, if you consider someone I met at Wikipedia to be equivalent to "knowing the subject", then -yes- I know him. But then you also have to say Damiens, who also edited the article, has a COI (as I admit you state above) because Damiens has also "known" Tony (that Damiens -unlike me- chose to interact whith Tony with anomosity, that was his prerogative). IAE, Wikipedia's COI doesn't go by such "know the subject" terminology; as such, "know the subject" is poor metric here. The policy states that COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.[1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: 'when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest'" None of that applies to me. Specifically, I don't always "Amen" Tony, simply because it's Tony, and he knows that. I've got my own brain and I use it at Wikipedia as my record shows. This is something that the editor making the ignorant "wikibuddy" comment here is clearly unaware of. The comment is an offense to my intelligence and that of anyone that respects Tony's work, as it implies blind approval for Tony's work - which is not the case. Mercy11 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would there be an article on this person if he was not a Wikipedia editor? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is that really relevant? The article had several incarnations, yet damiens.rf only became interested in the subject after locking horns with its subject. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's the elephant in the room, right up there with the supposed victim not saying that he is in fact a victim. I think it's time to wrap this up and call it a day. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I edit A LOT of biographies. It's my favorite subject, indeed. --damiens.rf 14:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mercy11 is not under scrutiny here - Damiens is. If you think Mercy11 has violated a behavioral rule you can go ahead and start a new thread. Equally important, using Mercy11's comments as a reason for a Support/Oppose determination is, IMO, poor use of judgement. Mercy11 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note that I have taken WP:BLP enforcement action on the article Tony Santiago, removing the poorly-sourced BLP statement against whose sourcing Damiens.rf was rightly objecting. The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst clearly shows that some people, including Mercy11, were evidently not understanding what "reliable sources" and "self-published sources" mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Good. This thread is about the user's conduct, not his enforcement of policy or perpetuating a particular revision of the article. - Caribbean~H.Q.

• Good for you, Future Perfect, to have taken enforcement action on something involving an ongoing discussion and then justifying it on WP:BLP. When the dust settled your rationale makes sense based on the lesser of two conflicting policies. However, your judgment there is overshadowed by your use in this same thread about Damiens' behavior by your use of phrases like "Damiens.rf was rightly objecting". In particular, your use of phrases such "The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst" can be interpreted as justifying his behavior. May I suggest, next time stay neutral and don't mix the two as it could be read as support for Damiens uncivility. Mercy11 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. It doesn't matter if he is "right", his way of going about things is wrong. Contribution history shows Damiens.rf targets Puerto Rico articles in order to troll Tony. Furthermore, Damiens.rf is not here to build an encyclopedia. He is only here to rules-lawyer over the existence of articles and images and to upset content editors until they leave the site in frustration. Not only do I support the proposed topic ban, I also recommend that the community take a longer look at editors like Damiens.rf who seem to focus only on deleting the work of other editors, not in contributing work of their own to this project. Some might argue that contributing content and deleting are two equally valid aspects of the project, but I do not agree with that assessment. It takes far more energy and work to research, create, and contribute than to tear down and destroy. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment The removal/deletion of copyright/fair-use violating and/or non-notable content is an essential component of improving the wiki. 194.150.177.9 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah? At any cost - including uncivility? Look, I don't know if you are new in these circles or what, but we have been down this -entire- road before, and to be part of this community we have to abide by All the 5 Pillars - not just 4. We don't justify uncivil behavior on the basis of protecting anything - we have other volunteers who protect Fair Use, BLP, et. al., and do so while abiding by All the 5 Pillars. Mercy11 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How 'new' I am as an editor is irrelevant. As FPaS notes above, your understanding of wikipolicies is incorrect..or perhaps you are willing to disregard policies when they get in the way of writing hagiographies for your wikibuddy. In any case, the proposal to sanction Damiens.rf is clearly failing (only attracting support from previous opponents & Santiago's wikibuddies).194.150.177.9 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant if you are making statements that are (no pun intended) irrelevant to the case. At best, two wrongs don't make a right. No one if saying your copyvio/FU statement above was false; it was more a "preaching to the choir". As for the "As FPaS notes above", please note that's included in WP:PERNOM. As for the "the proposal to sanction Damiens.rf is clearly failing", please note that's included in WP:MAJORITY. Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, cleaning images is important (the manner in which it was done is debatable, but that is not the actual topic here). The problem is that damiens.rf is tailing Tony everywhere. Nowadays he is following his edits in biographies that are not remotely controversial. Why the persistent interest if not to troll him? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment When an editor has a history of poor editing practices, it is absolutely fine to examine his edits on other articles. To do so cannot be remotely called harassment or trolling. BTW Mercy11, you are demonstrating a shaky understanding of policies/guideline by invoking wp:pernom as this is not a deletion discussion and FPaS (who's he?) is not the nominator. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: New anonynympus IP account that --from his summary comments-- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support the topic ban, I have seen it before with him. He did not even take a break from requesting deletion of Puerto Rico related article while this discussion is going on, in my humble opinion that should have been the prudent thing for him to do. El Johnson (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be of interest to contributors here to know that, in what appears to be retaliation for Caribbean HQ reporting him here, yesterday Damiens started Targeting Puerto Rico-related articles, particularly Biographies about Puerto Ricans. Note that he had never been to the bulk of the articles in question before. Mercy11 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• oppose. I do see some snark & incivility from damien.rf but it is in the face of obstruction from editors keen to be cheerleaders for a favoured colleague. BTW I find that invoking civility violations as a basis to ban an editor doing otherwise good work leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially when the most vocal proponents are clearly aligned against him for personal reasons. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A New anonynympus IP account that --from his summary comments-- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "some people ask me to tag insted of removing. some people ask me to find-the-sources-myself instea of tagging. I say Fuck you all." Unless you are non-people, that was meant for you too. Then check out the community's definition of Fuck and argue if it ain't a profanity. ...Or perhaps you disagree with the WP:Civility policy in that, "Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor," Mercy11 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Perceived WP:OWN issue

I would appreciate third part opinion here. I'm having a hard time in trying to cooperate. Again. It may be my fault. I'm open to directions. --damiens.rf 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interestingly, in Damiens' 5-year history with Wikipedia he has created ONE (1) article, just ONE, and only ONE [SEE HERE] (Assuming I am using the Wiki tool correctly). His love and joy appears to be his goal of interfering with other editors' enjoyment of the encyclopedia by disrupting their work, and do so under the disguise of improving things (such as tagging articles left and right). While I admire some of his work, there is a serious problem with someone who behaves as disruptively as he does. Mercy11 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• As was explained to you by several other editors in the other and more recent section that you created toward the bottom of this page[30], "wikignomes" like Damiens do not create articles, but contribute to the project in numerous other ways that are essential to the project. If you think that such people are worthless, that says more about you than it does about Damiens. It is unfortunate that Damiens was incivil to you, and I agree that he should apologize, but the "wikihounding" charge is belied by the silence of the supposed victim, and does not seem to be supportable anyway. The most serious problem that I see here is not that anyone is "tailing" anybody, but that there is an article that is a veritable wasp's nest of COI, which quite frankly appears owned, lock, stock and barrel, by friends of the subject of the article. At a time when Wikipedia is under a microscope for paid editing, sometimes involving Foundation employees, it's really questionable that such an article exists. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The "As was explained to you by several other editors" leaves much to be desired. The several other editors = exactly 2. So please let's not exaggerate. And the the alleged "explanation" that you happened to read, did not yet have my response. (which is, in part, a weakness of Wikipedia forums). It is not generally good judgment to make up your mind until you have had a chance to see both sides. No offense; I am using "you" in a generic, not personal, form.

No one is saying Damines work is worthless, and in fact, as for me, I can give you proof I have applauded his work more than once before. It is not just "unfortunate" that Damines was uncivil, it was a violation of policy that doesn't seem to get thru to some editors here, and that you now appear to be perpetuating. Nothing personal. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's now up to several. No offense, nothing personal, but I think it's time to move on. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Mercy11's original point, I want to point out that many editors in the guild of copy editors, of which I am a member of, may take umbrage at your statement. Many editors in that group create no articles but dedicate their time to improving existing articles and as a result of their efforts many articles are promoted to the next class of articles. As an example, several articles I have copy edited have seen pass GAN and another I finished working on last year encouraged the requester to seek FA status for it, which it passed. I suggest you think before you speak. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Blackmane's message, none of that there has anything to do with the accusation of incivility and wikihounding. Everything there is WP:OTHERSTUFF. But it is good to know that WP:GOCE has other editors who can pick up any slack for improving Puerto Rico related articles becuase the proposal is not to ban all of of these 1,039 GOCE editors from Puerto Rico related articles. The proposal is to ban just the 1. Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was probably not clear in that I was actually referencing the point you made above regarding damien having only created 1 article. If you, or any one who seeks to, raises a request for a GOCE member to improve an article then there will be certainly be someone who will be happy to take it up. The rest of your reply is largely irrelevant to my comment. Blackmane (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I, too, reject that editors who primarily remove text are somehow unworthy Wikipedians. That's like saying Michelangelo wasn't very much of an artist because all he did was remove some rock from David. The internet has an estimated 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of data [31]; readers value Wikipedia because they have come to expect concise, balanced coverage of a topic. In the human body there's a name for unregulated growth: cancer. Please see fancruft and be concise. NE Ent 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

What a shock to find the usual hypocritical process wonkery here. If someone provides diffs going back awhile they get slammed for providing old diffs. If all they present are current diffs then they get a bunch of people saying "Well, this is just so current let's wait awhile and see what happens and then call these diffs old". Diffs are provided to show history and on-going patterns of behaviour, they're extremely relevant to actually solving issues, assuming one wants to do that.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not that the diffs were old, but that they were a trumped up case against an editor who, while in one instance incivil, was making perfectly proper edits. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Trumped up implies that it's false. Were the older diffs provided somehow false? Did another user write them? The point of the old diffs was to show that this was not "one instance" which is of course how some would try and pass it off, but an issue that's been going on with an editor for years. It's showing that the behaviour existed in the past, it exists now, and so long as there are people sitting around willing to excuse it, it will exist in the future as well.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how a diff can be "false." But if by "false" you mean "not substantiating your case," then yes I guess the diffs are false. Coretheapple (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• What is telling here is not the user's behavior but the inability of this board of engaging and getting rid of troll behavior. As you guys have this conversation the user has kept his deletion/tag spree with a vengeance [32]. You can argue if his actions are in line with policy but the problem here is his trolling behavior; millions of pages and he/she is only tagging a small batch of Puerto Rican related articles plus engaging in uncivil [33] behavior without responding to the community concerns of this board and most of the editors active in the Puerto Rican project. What is going to take to somebody to ask Damiens to stop his actions and respond to the community's concerns? --Jmundo (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say your two diffs blatantly say nothing. Your first diff links to his contribs list, what's the point of that? As for your second diff, it is precisely what you are talking about with regards to his "respond(ing) to the community's concerns". Two editors raised concerns about his commentary and he responded civilly with an acknowledgement of their concerns and that he will be careful in future. What extra did you want? Prostration in front of an altar begging forgiveness? This is ridiculous. What is telling is that you are unable to produce evidence to back up your claim. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me everyone here knows that the a users's contributions list isn't static - specially if Damiens is going out "with a vengance". Just use your imagination a bit and click on the "Older 100/250/500" link. Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (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.

"Latvian mythology" vs. Latvian folklore and Baltic mythology

This article could really use some more eyes and hands, especially from administrators that have the appropriate background. Attempts I've tried to make in improving the article have met with reversion and system-gaming, apparently motivated by either explicit or latent nationalism. The following is my take on the situation.

Some time ago this article was supposedly rewritten to solve its then-numerous issues. Now that I've had a little time to sit down and take a look at where this article is again, I'm afraid that I don't see any improvement, even after the rewrite and attempt at referencing everything out. For example, I’ve just gone through and removed a bunch of unrelated, deleted, and/or nonacademic links in the external links section. Referenced throughout was a website that has been dead for over a year, a website that shouldn’t have been cited in the first place. Xil (talk · contribs), however, has blanket-reverted these changes, only stopping when he reached his third revert. This user seems rather dead-set on presenting an article with the appearance of being fully referenced, regardless of the quality of the references at hand (in other words, websites like “latvianstuff.com” are being linked to).

On top of this, it’s very poorly constructed. Preferred theories are presented as fact, then slight criticism is applied when necessary. Weasel words are peppered throughout. Neutrality is totally thrown to the wind.

However, the main issue is the topic of the article itself: Reading this article, one would think that there was some definitive text about the beliefs and values of the pre-Christianized descendants of the modern Latvian-speaking peoples, or that some body of text describing it in any depth survives. Unfortunately this isn’t the case; it’s all reconstructed either by way of linguistics, the archaeological record, ancient sources, or by way of more modern folklore. Sources are not treated for what they are or outlined in an objective sense—frequently they’re not even mentioned. Instead we get a narrative stitched together from disparate secondary sources on Latvian folklore, and somehow called Latvian mythology is derived from it. This is misleading: Academia, fortunately, no longer entertains extra-scientific racial ideas of people as ethnic products of modern nation-state borders; this material is handled by, for example, Indo-Europeanists as part of a larger cultural continuum, which also includes modern Lithuanian-speakers and once included the now-extinct Prussian-speakers.

What seems to be going on here is a form of nationalism, latent or not; the idea of a modern nation-state of Latvia is obscuring the broader picture of the pre-Christian beliefs of the Baltic peoples (no matter how many isoglosses we’re talking among them). As a result, this article really needs to be rewritten, logically—as elsewhere—with the result of the following:

• A separate article called Latvian folklore that covers the folklore of modern Latvian speakers
• A section covering what can be reconstructed from Latvian sources regarding an earlier sphere of belief at Baltic mythology

In the mean time, this article only promotes the idea of a ‘’Latvian mythology’’; basically the same idea as promoting a Swedish mythology or Dutch mythology instead having an article presenting the pre-Christian history of the land where these modern nation-states exist as a part of the broader picture of North Germanic mythology and West Germanic mythology, respectively. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Few years ago I came across this article Latvian mythology, which was merged from several articles and not in the best shape. I tagged it as needing expert attention. Last summer another user decided this needed fixing and got several users involved. As there were now more resources I rewrote the article. User:Bloodofox mainly participated in discussion arguing that such article should not exist, refusing to accept that this might be a topic researched independently of Baltic mythology and in the end promised to return and rewrite article. I invited him to study the subject matter closer before doing so, because his comparisons to Scandinavian mythology make me believe he is biased towards situation with that subject matter as he appears to be expert in it and it didn't really appear he is listening although his concerns about this being folklore or belonging directly under Baltic mythology were discussed ad nauseum. Instead he returned today tagged the article as POV and needing a rewrite without much explanation, removed references to a site which is currently off-line and which in the past he has been claiming as unreliable source due to it being online publication, all external links (mostly working) and announced that whole topic has been invented by me (presumably this is were he sees POV). In my opinion Bloodofox is being disruptive and assuming bad faith on my part, I believe the notability of subject is sufficiently proven, if it is not he should take this to AfD instead of trying to destroy the article this way. I did revert him (but he reverted me too), but I tried to initiate discussion on talk page, however he still has not explained why he tagged the article, just that he dislikes those references and want them removed. Also I believe this noticeboard is not appropriate place for content discussion? ~~Xil (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I saw this article yesterday, and some of the exchanges. It's primarily a content matter, of course, but the problem with such articles is often the lack of participation on talk pages from other editors outside of the main interested parties. I agree with bloodofox that the sourcing is very, very problematic: if I remember correctly Xil claims there's academic material to be found on that now-dead website, but that begs the question of what that material was if it's not published elsewhere (if it's not a copyvio)--primary research? non-peer reviewed material? I hope this thread will make some more editors with knowledge of the subject matter look at it but, bloodofox, there's not much for admins to do, at least not that I can see. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think bloodofox also has a good point about the nationalist problem - trying to reshape history (and prehistory) so that it fits national boundaries and national identities which were made very recently. But that's a content problem, of course. bobrayner (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's the thing. Content disputes can turn into "behavioral" problems. I'm not sure if we reached that stage yet, and it's hard to judge given the paucity of English-language literature on the issues--paucity as far as I can judge, of course (the article doesn't offer much). Drmies (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• At the root of every conduct dispute is a content dispute. And at the root of every content dispute is a conduct dispute. Wait, what? bobrayner (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being put down and called nationalist just because I am Latvian, when all I did was fix an article with long standing issues by reflecting what was said in sources best I could. Baltic nations are friendly to each other and usually seek to reinforce notion of common past, rather than to destroy it. What bloodofox fails to realize is that in fact what is reported as common Baltic mythology is often a nationalist construct - there is extremely scant evidence on it and while there are things in common there are also many different issues and attempts to reconstruct common Baltic mythology have mostly failed. Latvian ethnicity existed long before Latvia became an independent country. The Baltic lands were the last in Europe to convert to Christianity and unofficially paganism continued exist long after when original tribes had already started to merge into the modern peoples of the region. This is not true for many of cultures bloodofox is comparing this to, which both adopted Christianity earlier and have more evidence on mythology prior to them emerging as the modern ethnicity. The validity of the topic was already discussed last year when there were several users taking part in discussion, most eventually accepted the current article. Meanwhile bloodofox waits when everyone else has long left discussion (to be fair he did indeed said he would return, but he said that would be to rewrite the article to GA standards) and then tags the article claiming the whole subject matter has been invented by me and deletes every external link in the article, including references. Even assuming it was unreliable source (he has not even asked what it is and apparently believes it is self published because it is an online source) deleting references makes origin untraceable and is advised against in the guidelines (which also do not say that online sources should not be used). The dead site, which was not the main source for the article BTW, is a project of Latvian ministry of education, which published study materials for schools and was supposedly closed down due to lack of funds, but it has tendency to come back online from time to time. The particular materials all were referenced and quoted books of well known scientists, which are not available online. Also it currently appears bloodofox is not willing to talk to me or prove that subject matter is bogus (probably because we went trough his concerns several times last summer),apparently happy with state of matters as long as his edits remain in place. I find his actions disruptive - the issues have already been discussed, he has not brought up any new issues and just seems to aim to delete more content. ~~Xil (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Xil is getting at here. Academic sources that handle the material that this article does (or at least attempts to), such as Jaan Puhvel's Comparative Mythology and the iconic Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture know better than to toy with nation-state terms such as Latvian mythology, and we should too. When the term is used, it's in connection with Latvian national romanticism, or, it would seem, refers to a paradigm of motifs found in Latvian folklore (all the more reason to build a Latvian folklore article—as in folklore recorded in Latvian).

For what it's worth, there's no tinge of nationalism/modern nation-state borders to Baltic mythology; this refers to the linguistic group, a grouping that is not only objective but also verifiable by just about any scholarly work on Proto-Indo-European religion (Mallory's famous In Search of the Indo-Europeans comes to mind).

The discussion that occurred on the Latvian mythology talk page, if one wishes to read it, includes a lot of doubt about the article, which led to the rewrite (or source-tacking, I can't quite recall). The result is what one sees now; a non-objective narrative that skirts around discussing sources in favor of 'possibilities'. Conversation basically ended with the poor rewrite and my requirements elsewhere.

Xil complains that I am not responding quickly enough. There's not much I can do about that. However, this is why I brought this topic to the board; it needs more able eyes and hands. Sure, if needed, in time I'll sit down and put together a GA-worthy article on the topic that will replace the mess that is here now, but I can't say exactly when that will be. Meanwhile, it does no one a service to let this article remain covered in dead links and unrelated external links to websites like latvianstuff.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand. Latvian folklore covers broad range of subjects, such as traditions, song, dance, fairy tales etc. The article is not sourced by one dead website, there are other sources - don't cherry pick sources that supposedly support your opinion. Also it appears that currently it is thought that Baltoslavic languages split directly into West Baltic (Prussian), East Baltic (Latvian, Lithuanian) and Slavic, plus as far as I remember East Baltic stared splitting sometime around 7th century, so your claim that linguistics support such grouping is not really valid. Of course attempts to reconstruct a common mythology are scientifically valid, but this does not mean later mythologies could not have evolved (just as research on common Indoeuropean mythology does not suggest that groups that developed later had no beliefs of their own) The article was an absolute unsourced mess that had taken entirely different shape from what it is now, mixing modern paganism, fairytales and even some literary characters in one long bullet list. It currently does not "skirt around discussing sources in favor of 'possibilities'" there is an entire section discussing history of research and its sources and every fact in entire article is referenced. Claim that "article remain covered in dead links and unrelated external links" is over exaggerated - there were four dead links and all to one site and a few very much alive external links on related subjects (external links are not references as you previously claimed). You may claim that article does not satisfy your scrutiny, however you have not invested any work in it or in the articles you claim would be better for covering the topic, which makes me think you in fact haven't really researched the topic and seem so biased to see nationalist sentiments everywhere (except apparently where they actually are present) that you refuse to accept any argument or source that tells you that the stuff is actual subject of scientific research ~~Xil (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also it is worth to note that what little research you did to confirm with your preferred sources that the topic is not valid, actually confirmed that the topic was not invented by me, despite you claiming that your sources somehow invalidated the topic by discussing "Latvian national romanticism" and "paradigm of motifs found in Latvian folklore" (mythology is body of myths (or study of myths) and as such can be considered part of folklore). Further more I must note that you still are not talking - a content dispute is not really a matter to discuss on ANI, yet you haven't taken this back to talk page. It appears that you have taken this here first because you were trying to provoke me into breaking 3RR (which I didn't) and secondly because you are hoping to involve more editors in the debate, which is Wikipedia:Canvassing ~~Xil (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing worth to note - I received invitation to work on article on July 17 2012. Back then the article looked like so. If you look into talk page's history there were nine editors involved in discussions that summer and likely were well aware of the issue, nobody else has kept insisting that topic is not valid after article was rewritten and sources were added (in fact there was a separate section precisely on the matter [34], note how no other editor, but Bloodofox continued that conversation after I provided sources supporting my claims). In my opinion Bloodofox simply doesn't know how to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and at current point I am at loss how to solve this, because he has not brought up new issues and the previous arguments have been addressed - it just seems that there is no number of sources that would be enough for him to prove this is valid topic ~~Xil (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not good at proxies and such

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.

---

…but I think 95.141.27.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is most likely an open proxy or something else disagreeable. The comments about Nigerian scammers and "an attempt to maliciously gain access to our website" caught my eye. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC).

I blocked the IP for six months. I'm not able to determine whether they are using an open proxy server, although the server clearly is suspicious. I looked back at the IP's history here, and I was hard-pressed to find one constructive edit. Generally, they receive warnings, and then they leave for a while before coming back. They have been busy on other wikis as well, at least in some cases vandalizing them (I can't tell on the ones where I know nothing about the language). In at least one case, they repeated the same vandalism there they did here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

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

Requesting another year's block for this vandal.

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

---

This IP has been blocked previously for a year. Disruptive editing has broken out again. See User_talk:131.109.147.105 I believe it is a shared IP address from Rhode Island tech. The same article has been attacked multiple times in 30 days from this same IP; so it is worth blocking this address for another year, or more. I have left an ANI-notice on the talk page, Others have given warnings over the past 3 months, so all prior warning policies have been kept. Please help. Thanks ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no productive editing from that address, just a long list of vandalism edits and subsequent blocks. Blocked again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2014 (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:Huey2323 and bad faith accusations.

A week ago, I nominated StableCoin for deletion (along with many other altcoins, as you can see from my edits) and quickly declared neutrality in it due to Stablecoin having a massive following on 4chan's /g/, and me being a /g/ regular. The article creator, which I'm assuming is either another /g/ regular or a Reddit user, has been throwing constant accusations towards established editors like Benboy00 and Lagrange613. I didn't want to go this far, but Huey2323 has given me no other option but to intervene more deeply. Citation Needed | Talk 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So his actions are going to lead to the deletion of an article, which I assume is the opposite of their intent. I see no violations of WP:NPA, just someone spouting off. Their comments show more about them than anyone else ES&L 23:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of cryptocurrencies have been proposed for deletion lately, and both Reddit and 4chan have been on both sides of the deletion discussions. Dogecoin was nominated for deletion and that was riddled with socks, but the person who nominated it had ties to an anti-cryptocurrency group on Reddit. This disagreement has been going on for months and only recently spilled over into Wikipedia. The subject field ought to have a dedicated Wikiproject or some other way to keep track on all these articles. KonveyorBelt 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I take responsibility for nominating most of the coins (and a couple subjects related to it), but those nominations were based on violation of article standards, not for my own personal or financial gain (how could you really with a a dog coin and a now defunct coin based on a rapper?). As with Huey, he has been accusing me as well, but of being a paid editor (fundraising, idk) in addition to "already violating my neutrality". I've ingored his rants for the most part until he started making accusations towards other editors. Citation Needed | Talk 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not accusing you of doing that. And yes, Huey needs to be blocked. KonveyorBelt 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If this area has been harmed by a sudden influx of partisans from outside (not that bringing in outside editors is inherently bad, of course, but bringing in crusaders is definitely bad) and tribal editing, then setting up a new wikiproject is the last thing we need. Use existing rules & tools, discuss the issue in existing fora. Those are my principles. (If you don't like them, I have others). bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It was not my intent to create an article, have it so poorly written, and then try to defend the article. For that, I take full blame and responsibility for being new to the community. It was also not my intention to throw accusation without providing information that I see from my point of view. When I first created the article I was attempting to create it in a way that provided sources to where I was getting information. That is why the timeline looks so sporadic. After 1 hour, the AfD was created. 1 hour seems like a very small time frame to me in order to make changes and get the article edited in the correct direction. Like I said earlier, I was still learning at that time. I understood, the sources were bad and the overall look of it was pitiful. I made a note that on multiple occasions that I was continuing to update the article and it seemed like every time I tried to explain and make a comment about what I was doing, a specific user was shooting everything I did down and pushing SO hard to have the article removed. It seemed as if it was his sole mission to have it removed. If it is removed due to WP policy then that is fine, but no one deserves to be talked down to and that is what it felt like. So I decided to defend what I had said, maybe snark, but did so anyway. On to the potential COI... The nominator for AfD mentions his "neutrality" to the matter and then proceeds to link to a picture that states otherwise by people that seem to have seen this in the past. Then, come to find out, the nominator is the same user that created an article on another cryptocurrency that is based on a Meme. We all know what happens when there is a cult following on a specific topic. Putting those two things together, the time it took to start the AfD, and the fact that the nominator states that he has a potential WP:COI based on this section #2 made me come to the conclusion. I started commenting on the AfD with WP:AGF but after putting those together, I could no longer. As far as the article is concerned, if it gets deleted because of notability, I understand. Although, it no longer sound like a WP:PROMO. Huey2323 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking

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

---

User talk:Jacksonthegreat continues to blank a section of the Brian Setencich article, despite 2 warnings. Eg. [35]. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. They have done nothing but blank sections, on and off, since 2011 --Guerillero | My Talk 06:38, 15 January 2014 (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.

Incivility by User:Kwamikagami

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 try to follow WP:BRD as I have no interest in edit warring. When I asked Kwamikagami to stop edit warring on Bushmen on their user page, they removed my post and called me an "asshole" in their edit summary. When I asked them to stop their personal attacks, they removed my post and insulted me again on my talk page. HelenOnline 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call you an asshole, I asked you not to be an asshole (or a WP:DICK, same thing), because of your ridiculous templating. Oh, and I removed your post – terrible of me, I know. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist like you, but the obvious implication of statement like that is that the target of the "advice" is presently an asshole, or at least behaving like one. Is there any point otherwise in telling someone not to be an asshole [in the future] if they aren't one [now, according to the advice dispenser]? Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:DTTR - Kwami was insulting you. But many editors consider those templates to themselves be insults. Best to just move on with dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation. Regulars should also know better than to edit without edit summaries and skip the D in BRD. HelenOnline 08:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is funny, but I was just on Google searching how to file the same thing. And this time I am happy someone else has reported it. I have interacted with the user for a very long time and have on numerous occasions brought up his battleground editing habits and unpleasant disposition towards me and other editors. So much so that I have STOPPED edited articles (where I have rare and special qualifications on) to avoid his conduct. So it is in a nutshell affecting Wikipedia quality. Today, my objections were called silly, I was accused on "wasting time" silly time waster now I am the one of the main contributors to the discussion and now I am "wasting time". It has to be addressed with some kind of warning and I see this attitude of incivilities across his entire history of editing on Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Calling someone who knows the topic and idiot
• Calling edits crappy
• calling scholars nonsense
• Again Stupid
• Everyone is crappy and stupid while he is not well acquainted with the topic--Inayity (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A few observations:

1. some regulars don't like being templated. Tough shit - we all need the reminder every so often to follow the rules
2. yes, kwami called someone an "asshole". Wholly inappropriate, and definitely a violation of WP:NPA
3. kwami is entitled to remove the warning(s) from their talkpage - it's acknowledgement that it's been read
4. the sole question now is: is kwami's NPA behaviour eiehter right now, or over time significant enough to block at the moment

ES&L 09:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kwami's history of disruption is various, including using admin privileges in a dispute and edit warring. As far as I'm aware, Kwami has not been sanctioned in the past for personal attacks, though looking at the diffs I'm surprised at that. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If once I would say, a slap on the hand, but this is years of abuse, (not to mention the separate issue of bully edit warring). I dont know how a block will help either, the user must agree to cease and desist and reform his ways. Because it is spoiling it for contributors. And I have told him --Inayity (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You're also being somewhat hypocritical, given this and this. Are you suggesting that you should be blocked as well, or is it only incivility when others engage in that type of behavior? - Aoidh (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously consider those = to a trend of name calling? My activity is use the talk page and discuss things. So why not use this space properly and discuss the subject at hand. also did i suggest a block, or suggested the user end his habits? I am worried that you could raise those issues which diverts from something that needs fixing.added your inability to read a sentence. If you have a problem with me, file a complaint.--Inayity (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You complaining about activity that you are also engaged in is relevant; anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. It's not "diverting from something that needs fixing" when your behavior apparently needs fixing as well, if anything is to be "fixed". What exactly do you have in mind, keeping in mind that "my inability to read a sentence" is far from civil in a discussion where you're complaining about incivility. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You called me a hypocrite. What is that? Is that not incivility. Can I ask you to use this space for the purpose it was intended. if you have a sincere problem with me File a complaint! or stop while you are behind.--Inayity (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite, I said you're being somewhat hypocritical, and you are. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence would indeed be a personal attack; I provided evidence that you are doing the same thing you're complaining about. Given that you're repeating yourself despite what you've said already being addressed I'll assume you missed it; please read WP:PETARD, as you saying "file a complaint" is not a magic "don't look at my contribs, only the person I've had issues with" button. Your recent edit summaries are continuing to be less than civil, so again what are you proposing we do about incivility, given your own incivility? - Aoidh (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone else's incivility can explain your own, but it never excuses it. Yes, on ANI, if a filing party is as much at fault, or indeed can be shown to have baited the other editor, they can indeed be blocked. The behaviour of the filing party is under the same microscope as the person being reported, and as such there is no need for a separate report. This is, of course, why WP:BOOMERANG is so frequently quoted. ES&L 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Insulting other editors is rarely helpful, and in this case I think it's definitely a problem, but calling edits crappy is necessary. There are a lot of crappy edits out there, and that is one of the encyclopædia's biggest problems; we need to be able to face up to it. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: WP:BOOMERANG has been referenced three times in this small thread. Guess what? It's not a virtue, nor is it even logical. What that essay is, is, an often-used abuse club consisting of dysfunctional dumbed-down thinking that is easy to wield in substitution for thought. It also seems to fill the wielder with feelings of self-satisfaction and superiority (smugness) which are easy and seductive but shallow and false gold. Another popular often-used dumbed down mantra used on this boad is "two wrongs don't make a right". Sorry boys ... if this were the proper venue for it, I could write walls of text that rip new anuses in both expressions. But it isn't, so you get this summary instead. The essay should be removed from WP space, as it has become an out-of-control handy, shallow abuse club to make life easier and more fulfilling for those too lazy to think on their own. (Afterall, thinking hurts one's brain, doesn't it? We don't want that in AnimalFarmLand.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BOOMERANG simply states that a reporting party does not get immunity from sanction or scrutiny simply because they reported someone else's conduct. That's it. In what way is that problematic? I agree that it can be overused, as with many shortcuts 'round here, but I think your response to that is.... well, more than a bit disturbing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What's disturbing is the abusive use and misuse of that essay. The essay originally specified same wrongdoing in the same incident, but it's been widened for more general application because that's what's wanted by those who would wield it. And look at the wide application at ANI! Life is not that simple. Here's another dumbed-down mantra that excuses abusing people because it is convenient: "No justice; only solutions" (the favorite of a popular admin with initials DB). I'm sorry if you don't like it and want to attack me by calling me "disturbing", that's expected, the culture at WP is so rife with abuse and dysfunctional/illogical mantras used in wielding power, it is like shooting fish in a barrel to point them out. But somebody should. (I did.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way is your little tirade relevant to this thread? It seems like you spotted the word boomerang and decided to go off on a tangent.--Atlan (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not little, and not irrelevant. (I'll let you figure it out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat that I have specifically noted that kwami's response/NPA is wholly unacceptable. I have also tried to gently correct the OP an editor in the belief that someone needed a new thread/report related to their own behaviour, but I have not fully investigated that behaviour, nor do I intend to ATM. I'm of the belief that neither party has been angelic, but leaving it to those-wearing-their-admin-overalls to actually move forward one way or another. So far, kwami seems to be in the belief that either his NPA was acceptable, or wasn't an NPA. ES&L 14:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of having my behaviour scrutinised under a microscope, please note that Inayity is not the OP or filing party (I am). HelenOnline 14:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrected - sorry for the possible minor panic ES&L 16:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling edits crappy is a problem because it does not build and environment of mutual respect. If this was some ip editor or crazy POV editor (and they can really be too much to handle and you can lose your cool). But I do not feel encouraged when I am raising serious issues to be told "Stop wasting time" (esp If I am 1 of 2 advocates for the debate in the 1st place). As to my own conduct.You cannot be serious!!, read the context, it was a plea to help protect the page If you want to spend time focusing on 2 tiny frustrated outburst against a problem editor, go ahead. It might just take up enough time so the core issue gets forgot! See the above time invested in going off topic. I got a note on my page for "conduct" but Kwami got skipped (wiki justice). As for the issue with Kwami, we are really here discussing more than an ODD temper flare, this is the person's behavior for Years. That is the issue. Not once, not one editor, but without apology. My only reason for talking against a block is b/c I value his contributions to linguistics, But I do not value his battleground editing style, and failure to use talk page. --Inayity (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You got a "note" because kwami was quite obviously already aware that his edits were being discussed and that others found them incivil so any kind of further notification would have served no purpose; your edits however have and continue to be problematic and you seemed to be unaware of this. Why should your incivility be excused by "context" but not others? Incivility is problematic and should be addressed, but do not hold other editors do a standard that you are not willing to meet yourself, because that makes your concerns about incivility appear disingenuous at best, and gives the appearance of an attempt to game the system to engage in battleground behavior with an editor you have argued with before; if you truly were concerned about incivility you wouldn't be engaging in the same exact behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I would argue that I was commenting on Helen's behavior in templating me when we're both trying to improve the article, and it was on my talk page, not the article, but regardless, I do agree it was much too harsh for a good editor who's been operating in good faith and trying to resolve a tricky problem. For that I'm sorry.

As for my temper, yes, I do tend to go off on people who don't deserve it, as I did Helen, especially when I'm sleep-deprived. (It was midnight and I've been woken up in the middle of the night the past several nights.) It's a problem, I know.

(As for Inayity's complaints, I think it's entirely appropriate to give the reason for deleting material from some crappy blog (and how could that possibly be taken as incivil, since I presume the author of the blog is not editing here?), or when reverting ridiculous wording like opening an article with "African traditional religion is the traditional religion of Africa". It's frustrating to have someone repeatedly restore such silliness, in this case with the argument that the opening needs to define the topic, but with similar logic elsewhere. As for the wording not being sufficient for understanding the problem, it's an edit summary: Explanations go on the talk page, where I explained over and over again that a tautology is not a definition, and that in any case we need to define the topic, not the word, as we're not Wiktionary.)

— kwami (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please can we all move on now. Kwami has apologised and I accept their apology. Yes I am quick to template and report, because I have had protracted unpleasant experiences here in the past. Nobody signs up for that. I don't care for it and prefer to nip such things in the bud. I believe all the parties involved have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and hopefully we will all be more careful in the future regardless of whom we are dealing with. HelenOnline 20:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if everyone templated immediately, as you do, so that we were all used to it from when we first started editing, we might have fewer behavioral problems. It's jarring though when hardly anyone does it. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2014 (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.

TheRedPenOfDoom, tendentious editing and a free-pass to edit-war.

Twice in the last day I've had cause to post Red Pen at WP:ANEW. First related to Mr Whoppit, secondly to Hotel California (2013 film)

• WP:ANEW#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)
• WP:ANEW#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Mixture.29

Both of these were promptly closed by user:Bbb23, without the slightest comment to Red Pen. Although one editor was blocked for socking.

Taking the second, simpler, first, we have a slow pattern of 6 repeated blankings, questioning the validity of review sources for a cinema review. I make no comment on the content issue here, but we have strong policy here that whatever a content issue is, there are other more serious behavioural issues that we don't permit, because they otherwise make collegial editing impossible. Socking and edit-warring are just two of these. How clear does WP:EW make it? Even if you're right, don't edit-war to enforce that. Find another way.

One editor has been blocked for socking, because socking is bad, m'kay. Yet the edit-warring goes uncommented by the closing admin (although two other editors did advise against it). Bbb23 also saw fit to threaten me with a block for harassing Red Pen, yet reporting an editor for edit-warring over 6 repeated blankings (and I'm otherwise uninvolved in that article) is not harassment.

The Mr Whoppit AfD followed the usual cycle of blank/blank/PROD/AfD. At the time I posted that, I agree it wasn't 3RR, yet given Red Pen's behavioural track record it was a fair assumption that they weren't going to listen to any comment from other editors. Sure enough, they followed up with the AfD. Their rationales though are crap. The PROD "all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind" ignores the long-establishing sourcing of two robust books and the Daily Telegraph as " absolutely non reliable". When raised at WP:RSN, where Red Pen has recently been castigating the Daily Mail (perhaps he's just confused between them?), this opinion gained no support whatsoever - although Red Pen has yet to comment there. The AfD rationale is that it fails GNG - a short article with twelve refs, three of them to rock-solid books and one to a national newspaper.

Now, whilst Mr Whoppit is at AfD, Red Pen has taken to blanking chunks of it and removing the sources, on the grounds that "flikr is not a reliable source". Yes, not all of the sources in this article do meet WP:RS. There is no requirement for them to do so. Some of them are there because they provide additional material that contributes to the article. Per WP:RS, the major points of this article (Campbell was a superstitious man who always carried his teddy bear mascot, the bear originated in a children's comic, the bear survives and its ownership has been a source of contention since) are all supported by sources that do meet WP:RS. There is no legitimate reason to start bulk-blanking such material or sources, especially not when an article is at AfD. Red Pen then continued to edit-war (after all, there are no sanctions against him when he does it 6 times, so what's 2?) to repeat this blanking instantly, undiscussed other than the edit summary "WHAT???? are you nuts?".

This is not a complaint about Mr Whoppit (whatever the AfD decides, I'm happy about that). This is a complaint about the long-term corrosive and toxic effects that Red Pen has on other editors, across a range of articles. He clearly has no interest in creating content, or in the wishes of those editors who do. Just look at the long-running saga at List of unusual deaths. Sometimes he may even be right to delete what he does, but his behaviour goes so far beyond that: he now sees his ego and opportunity to exercise privilege to enforce policy as absolutely outweighing the effects on others. An editor like that has gone beyond the bounds of a reasonable check on flakey content (that's a good thing, like spotting copyvios, we need people who do that) and has become destructive overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• More stalking, wikihounding and harassment by Andy Dingley, when they get into a disagreement with another user this is fairly standard tactics for him. Werieth (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The picture of the bear at a funeral is patently as primary as sources get. I see nothing wrong with that removal. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So what's the problem with the photo of the bear at the funeral, given that the Telegraph covers the same material of the feud between Gina and Tonia? The problem with primary sources isn't that we must avoid them because they're bad, it's because they're susceptible to misinterpretation. Where's the misinterpretation? If anyone wants additional sources, then that's a reasonable request, but Red Pen is just interested in blanking content when he can find an excuse, not so as to improve an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to correct some inaccuracies in Andy's report here. Andy: "Both of these were promptly closed by user:Bbb23, without the slightest comment to Red Pen. Although one editor was blocked for socking." The second report was not closed by me. EdJohnston and TRPoD agreed that TRPoD would not edit the article for seven days. After that I blocked the two named accounts and one IP TRPoD had been battling with. The two named accounts were confirmed socks, and the IP was part of it. I added comments about those blocks to the report.

In the first report, Andy wasn't really bringing up an edit warring problem. Instead, he was raising what he termed a "regular pattern of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour". AN3 is not intended for such reports. I declined it and said so.

The second report ticked me off, coming so soon on the heels of the first. However, Ed made a determination before I entered the picture. I have no quarrel with Ed's decision - never do, actually. But that doesn't mean that both reports weren't filed in bad faith by Andy under the guise of "simply reporting edit warring". In neither case did TRPoD violate WP:3RR. In the first case he wasn't even edit warring. Plus, as I said at AN3, Andy's comments demonstrate the pretextual nature of the reports. They're nasty and vindictive.

The only good thing to come out of all this is at least Andy finally took my advice and took his issues here. I'll let others review the merits of his allegations against TRPoD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In the second ANEW, you describe Red Pen and his six blankings as, "more interested in improving Wikipedia than you are." Why are you even looking at ANEW if you see sixfold edit-warring as such a non-issue? Editors do not get to ignore SOCK or EW, just because one might happen to agree with their content position. One editor was socking to impose a position, the other was edit-warring to do so. Why do we block one for a month (first block!), yet let the other off? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself more with the sock puppet policy and practice. If you understood it better, you wouldn't say such things. In my view, the sock puppetry leapt off the page even without a CU confirmation. I'm surprised TRPoD didn't claim it as an exemption to reverting. TRPoD didn't do "blankings". He removed material that not only on its face was disruptive but was poorly crafted, some unsourced, and some unreliably sourced (see [36]). Now, that kind of revert is not exempt, but your calling them "blankings" makes him sound like a vandal and again confirms my suspicions about your motives.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your closing of the ANEW

What part of sockpuppetry do you claim I don't understand? I don't claim that wasn't, nor do I see the blocking as inappropriate. As you state yourself re Red Pen, "that kind of revert is not exempt", so just what is your point here? By "blanking" of course I mean rendering large sections of an article to no longer be present. I stand by that. The link you cite as justifying Red Pen is from October,, and plays no part in any of the ANEW. Why do you mention it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a "closing". Administrators make determinations at AN3. In this instance, Ed made the determination. I simply noted after the fact that editors were blocked for sock puppetry and put a result in the header. I often put results in headers even when I play no part in the report. It's easier to see in the TOC what reports have been completed.

You described the month-long block of the sock master as a "first block" - give me a break.

The October diff is, I believe, where it all started and formed the dispute of the more recent reverts (see, e.g., [37]).

I may not respond to you again. Your comments are grossly misleading, and it takes too much of my time to correct them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Would have to agree, Andy often does make grossly misleading comments. Werieth (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster's block log One entry. Justified, but it's still their "first" block. For that to be a month indicates the seriousness with which we regard socking. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

it's the "first" block for the currently identified sock master of these three DUCK socks, but as Bbb23 and @Cmr08: point out, there is likely another sockmaster in the background other than just these 3. There's plenty of blocked fanboiz in the Bollywood article space and I didnt see any "tells" that I could specifically link to one of them so I didnt make any accusations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Pasting this here, from my talk:

Policy

Regarding your edit summary " There is no policy that all sources must meet WP:RS", you are entirely incorrect. The policy WP:V ,subsection BURDEN clearly states "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

The fact that you are apparently so oblivious to one of the 3 core content policies is quite shocking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

RedPen is removing non-RS sources from Mr Whoppit on the basis that they are not RS. There is no policy reason to do this.

Our policy is not simply "we must have RS ab initio", but it is that "All claims must be backed up by RS".

In practice, we usually allow minor claims to remain unverified, but tag them with {{cn}} and may sweep the lot up from time to time. Major or BLP claims, we do not. This is a pragmatic approach to WP:IMPERFECT, rather than any rejection of WP:BURDEN.

Note the difference in implication here: We can use a non-RS whenever we wish, but we cannot solely rely upon it. Provided that the key claims are supported (and by RS, such as the Daily Telegraph), there is no limitation on additional non-RS material (such as the Flickr photo) being used in addition). Red Pen disagrees. His editing history (almost entirely one of deletion) is based on simplistic removal of non-RS sources, whether they are being relied upon or not. Also (as here), he's quite willing to blank sections of content if they are tainted by the non-RS, even if existing RS also support them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO a reasonably bright line here is "challenged or likely to be challenged". Also IAFIU, "challenged" does NOT mean "IDONTLIKEIT": there should be a reasonable explanation why the statement is contestable or otherwise inappropriate. For example, a source which is heavily biased or looks extremely unprofessional etc. E.g., in the case of Flickr photo, we don't want Barbara Boxer with wardrobe malfunction (while I guess many say it's OK for Paris Hilton :-). Also, there is a reasonable time interval for something to be left tagged. Usually if I see something dubious sitting for over a year, then <snip-snip>, and in 98% of cases not a single moan. (I guess that's because nobody cares, but that exactly an extra point.) Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition, Flickr is hardly a usable source in many cases, because what you see and what one shows in a photo is subject to interpretation (WP:RS) hence easily contestable as to how it can support article content. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It is self-evident that if someone removes a source, she/he is challenging it. Thus, any non-reliable source, as I understand the term, may be removed on sight. That doesn't forbid adding unsourced material, or poor sources; it just forbids complaining about their removal. Howunusual (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. Please re-read my post: "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is not an argument between wikipedians; it is an invitation to a revert war. You have to provide a verifiable challenge, i.e., the reason why the source is inappropriate. The key phrase is your "as I understand them". Therefore your "forbids complaining" is not exactly so; instead, you have to talk or use dispute resolution (i.e., "complaining" is OK as long as it is in a civilized way and on a case-by-case basis).

I understand you; I've done the same. However I understand the other side as well. Here is my suggestion. While unreliable sources are not allowed, they may be useful for further search of good sources. E.g. They may provide extra facts and leads. Therefore sometimes it is useful to have a section in talk page, "Article sources", to point at all these blogs and tabloids, as a search tool, listing the potentially useful statements, so that even they are deleted from the article, later someone can do some more serious search. I've seen such discussions of sources quite a few times. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT does not trump WP:BURDEN. No "verifiable challenge" is necessary to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. Instead of edit wars, rational discourse is supposed to happen on the talk page, but there's little to discuss when someone is insistent on breaking policy. In those cases, yeah, dispute resolution is the proper way to proceed, but I can understand why someone might become frustrated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

MrCellular edit war and incivility

• MrCellular (talk · contribs · count)

Incited an edit war on Nokia Lumia 2520 by constantly re-introducing table of individual models and network compatibility (it is unclear whether there is consensus for their inclusion), used incivil edit summary "What's wrong with you?" on most recent revert that attempted to express the same information in a more fluent format. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) ViperSnake, he is in the edit war with you, so I'm not really sure it was right for you to warn him when you're doing the same thing (although I do admit that that final edit summary was a little uncalled-for). I have no opinion on the matter itself, but there is absolutely no discussion about it (or anything else, for that matter) on the article's talk page, so you should start from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist again

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.

---

Badmintonhist has been engaging in uncivil behavior, name calling, personal attacks, and not assuming good faith on Talk:War on Women (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and (the reason I decided to make this post) 6). Specifically, he has yet again targeted Roscelese, telling BullRangifer to resign, and general hostility toward Binksternet and others. Because of this user's multiple past infractions and warnings, and being the subject of noticeboard posts for stalking/hounding behavior targeting Roscelese (1, 2) and general incivility/attacks on talk pages (1) I feel it necessary to report the current behavior. Badmintonhist has been given multiple warnings over 4 years and still continues to violate the conduct guidelines of Wikipedia. Moreover, he has repeatedly attacked and harassed another user despite "final warnings".

Given the history of this user and their recidivism, I'd like to see a subject ban from all political articles and a "no contact" with Roscelese policy enforced (if that is what Roscelese wants) with violations resulting in blocking. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Badmintonhist continued following me after the supposed "final" warning, so I obviously would be very happy with an interaction ban or a block. The community can decide whether or not to ban him from political articles, but at the very least, he should be banned from War on Women and its talkpage, where he's been admonished repeatedly for wasting everyone's time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist has been continually disruptive at Talk:War on Women, and in the article space. At minimum, an article and talk page ban should be set in place. Of course, the violations of IBAN with Roscelese should be dealt with. Binksternet (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So admins, how should this particular case of harassment be dealt with? He's had his warnings and ignored them. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, would you be able to supply diffs, please? StAnselm (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, well, he was even blocked for continuing to follow me after the final warning, and then still did it again anyway (I don't remember if there's even more; as you may guess, it's been a busy few months for me and it wouldn't have surprised me if I just stopped bothering to warn after the admins' failure to enforce). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Sheesh, is there a kennel for this hound? I'm really sensing some WP:NOTHERE because s/he has continued the very behavior that s/he was blocked for at a faster (and more alarming rate). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a unfortunate because I've seen Badmintonhist contribute productively to discussions, for example at Focus on the Family where he calmly debates content issues and frequently persuades editors to consider other points of view. However, War on Women has apparently put a bee in his bonnet. He seems to be too invested in the subject to contribute dispassionately. He has repeated the same arguments ad nauseum and refuses to accept the scope of the article that has been established through consensus. His participation sometimes degrades into snarkiness, for example, "How's your eyesight?". It's obvious that Badmintonhist has contempt for Roscelese. Perhaps this could be addressed by a two way prohibition preventing both users from replying to or referring to the other on any article talk page. I don't think that an interaction ban should prevent either editor from editing the same articles, with the exception of War on women.- MrX 15:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1: topic ban

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 propose that Badmintonist be permanently banned from War on Women, including the talk page and any meta discussions about the article.

• Support as nominator, for reasons explained above.- MrX 15:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well let's see ol' Binksternet said that I didn't give an "actionable" problem with the article when I restored a template, which I clearly did; so the "how's you eyesight" query, while snarky, wasn't all that unreasonable. My "Resign" plea to BullRangifer was less than serious, and we've had a pleasant chat on his talk page since then. I say "half" because, if you care to notice, he had just engaged in one of his signature "If you don't agree with me, you're not fit to be a true Wikipedian" routines prior to my comment. Roscelese, who hadn't been around much, managed to chime in with a pointless "green spotted flying frogs" hypothetical as if it were somehow analogous to mine, so reminding her of her own ideological contentiousness, which FAR outstrips mine, is at least understandable. All in all, I'd say that I'm being indicted here for giving back as good, and sometimes perhaps better, than I got. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC) : Sorry.That was supposed to br "flying spotted green mice."

• Support ban on the topic of the US Republican War on Women, and any other instance of the phrase "war on women". Badmintonhist has been trying to water down the article and diffuse its focus, resorting to disruptive posts and repeated arguments when consensus is already clear. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Declaration that I am not an uninvolved editor. As far as article edits, I haven't seen much of an issue with Badminthonhist beyond the normal disputes that arise on a contentious article. On the discussion page, points made tend to offer opinions shared by other editors. What I think has other editors stressed is the persistence on issues when discussion seems worn out and circular - emotions are high and there is certainly some boomerang. While not clear, the !vote is leaning toward no changes, leaving the underlining issue for Badmintonhist unresolved. In an effort to change the consensus, I think he/she tried to present the discussion in a different context / role reversal and it ended up getting personal as other editors saw it as WP:IDHT. I'd say to Badmintonhist, you fought the good fight - let it go. If the discussion can move on from this topic, I think attitudes will settle down and we can work at improving the article within its current scope. Morphh ^(talk) 17:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is little more than ideological sniping in order to try and get rid of someone they don't like. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Having a POV is okay, but pushing that POV to the point it affects editing is not okay. RS determine our content, not our political POV. The added fact that an even worse POV warrior like Arzel supports him does not help the matter at all. They should both be topic banned from all political articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per original post. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per evidence and MrX. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never heard of this editor before, and am uninvolved in the article. Looking at this editor's block log, I see only one block, which was for a week several months ago. Assuming that he's the scoundrel portrayed here in this thread, I would recommend either a total block for one month, or a one-month topic-ban from this article. In other words, let's impose graduated penalties, and reserve the most severe stuff as a last resort.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Badmintonhist has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to engage civilly on this article, often holding fellow editors in apparent contempt and refusing to acknowledge consensus. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian solutions rarely work, and there is too great a chance that the editors on WOW will simply wish to remove editors who disagree with them, or retain editors who agree with them .. anyone closing this should discount such !votes from editors active on that page. Collect (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Arzel and Collect. And, BS articles like "War on Women" should be free-fire zones where anything goes—it's the culture war, stupid! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)— 71.178.50.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

^WP:NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While I find editors that push a conservative agenda every bit as troubling as those pushing a liberal agenda (even though there's far more of the latter), that article is full of problems (starting with the fact that it's titled "War on Women") and desperately needs a dissenter. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above & MrX, User wont engage in a civil discussion whatsoever so topic ban is IMHO the best solution!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, enough is enough. Cavarrone 06:32, 16 January 2014 (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.

Proposal 2: no-contact order

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 propose Badmintonhist be barred from contacting or talking to/about Roscelese. In other words, a zero-tolerance, zero-strike no contact order.

• Support (if not punished for most recent infraction) as nominator per original explanation at top of topic. User has clear history of hounding Roscelese. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:HOUND, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POINT, WP:IDHT; take your pick. (BTW, Arzel, I personally think this would be people trying to get rid of someone they didn't like only if Roscelese or Bullrangifer made the proposal.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I assume the proposal is simply a one-way interaction ban. But at this point, I can't see any diffs posted regarding personal attacks/hounding Roscelese since July 2013, when he was issued a final warning. StAnselm (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• See the links 2 and 6 in the original post (or read that talk page). Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (Note: I issued the original warning). Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the expectation that Roscelese will also not engage Badmintonhist. There is a troubling history of vitriol directed at Roscelese by Badmintonhist. Warnings and a block have not had the desired effect as evidenced by the latest interaction.- MrX 14:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. Badmintonhist was warned in July and blocked in August for harassment, and that has no place on wikipedia. I think wikipedia's biggest weakness is that we let editors get away with personal attacks. Any evidence of recent personal attacks or harassment would make me support this one-way interaction ban. However, at this stage the only diffs presented ([38][39]) are not really enough - especially if this is the only stuff that Badmintonhist has said to or about Roscelese since August. If it isn't, we need some more diffs, please. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per comments and evidence above. People can disagree on subjects without abusing others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Too many here look like combatants and not like editors who follow WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user has been warned about this matter before in previous ANI discussions. It's time to start exploring solutions beyond scolding. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggest Roscelese stop editing in a manner that irritates or provokes Badmintonhist. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)— 71.178.50.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

^That's victim-blaming and utterly insulting. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't claim to be able to read ol' 71.178.50.222's mind here, but maybe he sees poor, kindly, affable Badmintonhist as the victim of a "fighting word's" comment directed toward someone that Roscelese would presumably stay away from. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've restored this discussion from the archive. Participation has been far to broad to archive without closing, and there seems to be consensus for some sort of action. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I fail to see any "consensus for some sort of action" above. It had been properly archived, but let's see if a consensus actually emerges from this. I doubt it though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Gamaliel, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, enough is enough. Cavarrone 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Per Gamaliel, and suggest any further violations result in an indef block. And the archiving strikes me as improper, as well. I see substantial support here. Jusdafax 07:31, 16 January 2014 (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.

This could do with closing

There clearly isn't any sort of consensus on a topic ban from War On Women, but I think there is on an interaction/contact ban with Roscelese. As we have seen in the past, since Badmintonhist has not heeded previous warnings on this subject, this is probably the best way to avoid using blocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2014 (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.

Self-report, outing

Per this page's editnotice, please do not bring outing-related issues here. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I put together an SPI which is now archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014. A lot of the activity of this sockpuppeting was at Talk:Jimbo Wales (I, Jimbo and others were involved with discussions with these sockpuppets there), so I reported the results at the talk [40]. My last comment in particular was very misleading, as it was widely understood to mean something about workplace impropriety, which was not what I meant (I tried to clarify the statement: [41]). I've removed my misleading remarks, but there is the opinion that I broke policy and outed someone [42]. I never meant to do this and at first I was sure that this is not what I had done (I thought I was just reporting the sockpuppeting and COI-editing activities that happened to involve IPs, and the context), but now I'm not so sure, and I think I may have done something wrong, because of the response. I just wanted to post this here so that an admin can revdelete any outing, and explain to me where exactly I went wrong, and take voluntarily whatever admonishment is required . --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC) If you are concerned about possible outing, you need to report it in private and discuss it with them, also, in private. All your doing at ANI is bringing more attention to what should be a private matter.--v/r - TP 04:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) I just think linking IPs with their workplace and broadcasting it to a wide audience is not a very fair tactic even when they are doing something we think is against policy. It runs a real risk of someone taking the accusation for action and notifying their employer. This transfers small "p" wiki politics into someone's real life and could seriously hurt them. Moreover, when you step away from the individual case there is still a knock-on effect of chilling IPs from editing for fear of real world reprisal. Sure the IP could create an account to avoid this issue but the WMF strongly supports anonymous editing as a first principle. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin editing through full protection

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.

---

List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio has long been a target of editors depositing unsourced material and has been semi-protected for "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content" since 14 December 2013. Today, after several editors added additional unsourced content, I raised protection to full-protection for "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content" .

Shortly thereafter, Admin Mtmelendez (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) made 3 additional edits [43][44][45] through full-protection, adding the same unsourced material. Attempts to get this admin to self-revert via his/her talk page and direct email have not gotten a response. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your note at his talk page was just half an hour ago and he hasn't edited since nearly an hour before that, so he may well be AFK at the moment. Let's give him a chance to respond. In the meantime I think it's sensible to treat this as an honest mistake and revert his edits. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I cannot see any good reason for this to be fully protectedfaccessible only to Admins. Make it semi and allow ordinary editors to manage the content. Leaky Caldron 17:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) I'm not understanding why you fully protected the article and reverted all of those additions. The entire article is unsourced and obviously not in the best shape. Look here - DiCaprio's Oscar nomination was announced today and multiple editors have tried inserting that into the article along with the other unsourced awards. If you'd be so kind as to un-protect the page, I can add this reference and perhaps add some more to this page. Gloss • talk 17:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Leaky - that's rather missing the point of full-protection. The article shouldn't be edited at all, by admins or otherwise, until the debate is settled. That's why it ended up at this board. Full protection is not used to make articles "only accessible to admins". Gloss - try making an edit request on the talk page? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no point for full-protection here. There was and is no debate. Editors were trying to add an Oscar nomination of his that was announced today. Toddst1 reverted them and locked the page because the edits didn't include sources. He's since unprotected and I've added the necessary citations. Gloss • talk 17:21, 16 January 2014 (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:Shalom11111:Incivility, slurs and accusations of antisemitism

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

---

In this presentation for the deletion of an article, User:Shalom11111 has made a very serious attack on my work, and bona fides by presenting a slur. I notified him and the page that he was mistaken in these assertions, and had engaged in a WP:AGF violation. He has not changed his text, (though from his subsequent edit to the page, he has read my protest) or provided evidence for these absurd claims, so I presume he sticks by the smear.

I have notified him of my complaint here, on his talk page.

The slur runs that I am 'spread(ing) this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews"). In addition Shalom11111 insinuates that I am promoting on wikipedia a theory,' a theory 'often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes.'

He provided no diff for the first generalization.

The second point makes no bones about suggesting I am promoting antisemitism on wikipedia.

I would like an administrator to intervene and ask him either to prove his assertions (in which case he should take me to AE) or strike them out.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call this the damning evidence that Shalom11111 claims it is. It can be interpreted the way Shalom11111 has, but it certainly doesn't look too terrible to the uneducated eye. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not evidence for anything except the fact that demographics is a notable issue in arguments about origins in the I/P area, and cannot be interpreted as Shalom11111 does except with malice. I've been on wikipedia for 8 years, and have generally ignored the frequent attempts to get me off one area of it by people who play the 'antisemitic' card as if that trumped all argument. It is as vile a practice as antisemitism itself, poisoning the well by smearing editors simply from dislike of their inability to share a POV (which they take to be a failure to observe WP:NPOV). It should not be tolerated anymore than we should tolerate the usual racist zanies round here. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You complained about accusations of racism, then accused others of being racist. Howunusual (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Previous topic ban: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123#Nishidani --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Correction: two previous topic bans.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#Nishidani

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123#Nishidani

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the point, except as an implication of the type de te fabula narratur'. My occasional errors for 1R infractionsa year or so ago surely have no bearing on my complaint about Shalom11111. One AE case does. I was accused, precisely, of antisemitism not too long ago, and the plaintiff, after close scrutinty, had his complain boomerang and was sanctioned severely. The last time this antisemitic slur was thrown my way was here Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, Anon(Howunusual) please learn to construe English correctly. I didn't accuse 'others' of being racist (meaning my interlocutor). I compared intolerance for misusing labels like 'antisemitic' of editors to our healthy contempt for the many 'brief candles' who flicker into wikipedia with the usual racist cant, and are reflexively and justly banned. than is quite disjunctive, while correlative. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Shalom11111's comment: Amazing, Nishdani, what you're doing is called hypocrisy - should I remind you of this edit where you blatantly accused me of being some paid Israeli Zionist Wikipedian?

First off, I have never accused anyone on Wikipedia of being an anti-Semite, for I naturally respect one's opinion and because I know what the consequences of such words would be. And thankfully, I haven't been accused of anything similar so far either, hopefully rightly so. You're clearly exploiting things I wrote.

To answer the points you raised (quote: "He [Shalom11111] provided no diff for the first generalization. The second point makes no bones about suggesting I am promoting antisemitism on wikipedia") -

It's true that the theory is often regarded as antisemitic, as is the fact that you're constantly working to expand it on various article on Wikipedia. However, I did not say that you're doing it intentionally for antisemitic purposes, and that's a huge difference. I'm concerned about the actual theory, not about what you think of it.

Secondly, no specific diffs are needed to prove my point, let me please quote what User:Tritomex said on in the deletion discussion of The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory article: "Nishidani is censoring all scientific and reliable sources which he believes could question the "Khazarian theory" (which btw do not have even a scientifically established name.) He also added (or participated in addition) of this theory in at least fore other articles: Genetic studies on Jews, Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People and Ashkenazi Jews".

Even Einstein was wrong a few times during his life, but every time a user criticizes you, he/she is always the one to blame... What an interesting phenomenon. -Shalom11111 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, now you cite this diff for the assertion that I 'blatantly accused (you) of being some paid Israeli Zionist Wikipedian.' Well, the diff does not even mention you. It provides ample evidence that a government actively promotes editing wikipedia in conformity with its idea of what the truth is. I'm not surprised at this. Most governments manipulate or try to manipulate free media like wikipedia, suffice it to look at the Chinese wikipedia. I commented that this may account for why I have been the subject of so many attempts to have me permabanned in the I/P area. You have once more misused diffs which do not substantiate what you argue from them.

To return to the substance of my complaint. You wrote of an article I 'created' (actually half of it is what you composed):-

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it, as he did in "Talk:Palestinian people" here for example

I was raised on grammar, and am old(-fashioned) but I think the art of construing the obvious meaning of English sentences is not quite dead. I would appreciate any administrator commenting directly on this particular remark, in terms of its consonance with WP:AGF. To me it is not only defamatory, but much worse, false and undocumented, and requires attention. I don't mind the abuse. I do mind having my intentions misconstrued to create an impression I work with malice against one of the 5 pillars. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I was asked by Nishidani to show the list of his bias revisions regarding his removals of every source that challenge the so called Khazarian theory. He removed an academic article from the journal of Donetsk National university dealing with the biggest archeological excavation of Khazar sites. The article written by the director of the project, who details the findings of archeological excavations and challenge the base of Khazar theory. [46] and [47] The link of the article is here: [48]despite the fact that other editors supported its inclusion [49], [50] and no one beside him at that time gave any objection on talk page. He claimed that the view of Dr. Flyorov were fringe. Similarly, Nishidani removed an entire section dealing with the criticism of Khazar theory [51] and again [52] and when it was reinstalled he deleted it again, [53] by moving to sub-page which he created, named and written unilaterally. This has been done contrary to opinion of 3 editors. He copied there both the text of Khazarian theory (created by himself) and the criticism, while he removed only the criticism from the article, keeping his text in both the article and the sub page. [54], This was all done without any consensus and as I showed by reverting 3 editors. Previously he removed an academic article written by famous Israeli historian Moshe Gil, which claims invalidity of Khazar theory. Among reasons for removal he stated that Prof. Gil was too old and that his views are fringe.[55] Nishidani removed and replaced the entire genetic section, placing one study, the only study which gave some support to Khazar theory in at least 3 places of the Khazar article. Other studies (more than 20) which directly or indirectly are dealing with this question, and do oppose this theory, he summarized in 2 sentence. All but one genetic study were wiped out or summarized in 2 sentence with his own wording. He removed all criticism of Elhaik study which was widespread and came from scientific sources although it directly questioned the sources of his edits .[56] The controversial book "The invention of Jewish people" by S.Sand was used as source for numerous historic claims, while he removed criticism of Sand, even those directly related to this question. Sand is being criticized by numerous historians for denying Jewish nationhood and origin. I removed a hexagonal star image from the article, as the capitation bellow did not match any source, and the image itself came from disputed source. Also the majority of editors on talk page, at that time, asked for the removal of this dubious image with the problematic capitation. Nishidani reverted me, leaving the source he added (K. A. Brook) and his own wording on capitation. I asked for direct quote for the capitation, as the source he gave claims that the hexagonal star was likely unrelated to Judaism and represent a pagan sun disc, however I was again reverted and the capitation written now by Nishadani tells now that the meaning of the symbol is uncertain.(sourced by Brook who claims that the symbol likely represents a Pagan sun disc. This creates an impression that this hexagonal star represents Jewsih symbol although the only source found regarding this image tells otherwise. [57] and [58],

He continually edited the Khazar theory, day by day and removed in same way all sources challenging it. Recently have revriten the entire article, removing all/most sources which challenge the historicity of so called Khazar Theory. [59].[60] Nishidani removed the template challenging the accuracy and neutrality of his edits, [61] while the discussion was ongoing, the same he use to do in other articles when the neutrality of his edits is questioned [62]. He interrupts and censor my texts on talk pages [63] [64] and violates WP:CIVIL by replying me with "blah, blah, blah" [65] use profane words including the F word in conversation with editors who do not share his opinion. He also has special opinion about "Jewish genes" and "Jewish markers" [66] and openly promote his political views on talk page, namely that the State of Israel carries out apartheid in West Bank and Gaza or as he said "(Apartheid) tends to begin to work as the intrinsic tendency of policy, settlement and development in colonization of the West Bank".[67]. He edited the Khazarian theory or as he called it (The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory) (as this theory does not even have scientifically established name and definition) in many other articles beyond the Khazars and the sub page he cretaed. This articles are Genetic Studies on Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Shlomo Sand, Invention of the Jewish people etc.--Tritomex (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The above spray shows a breathtaking unwillingness to read what Nishidani actually wrote, or is it an inability to read it? The claim He also has special opinion about "Jewish genes" and "Jewish markers" is extreme as it uses code words to suggest that a racist and anti-semitic line is being pushed. However, reading the diff shows nothing of the kind. Likewise, the comments on apartheid are much more nuanced than Tritomex seems able to discern, and are not a promotion of a political view. I checked some of the other links and while they will probably achieve their aim of smearing mud because others have little incentive to investigate, the links show a completely different picture from that imagined by Tritomex. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Nishidani wrote, In my family, we also have a genes that are Jewish markers, which however, since we have a fair understanding of logic, does not mean we 'originated in the Middle East',

There are no such thing as Jewish marker and Jewish genes.--Tritomex (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Nishidani than wrote: "What these geneticists keep doing to define the Jewish type is excluding the logical deduction one could equally make from the other 30-55/60% of the genome which hails from other lands."

Nowhere geneticist ever defined the "Jewish type" .--Tritomex (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds as if you agree with Nishidani who wrote "That is why I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians as well who observe the methods of professional research in that discipline" (in this diff which you included above). Let me translate—Nishidani believes that the views of a geneticist (who is not also a historian) should be ignored in matters relating to history. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No I do not agree, while there is no such thing as Jewish types, marks and genes, and no geneticist ever claimed such thing, population genetics is a legitimate science and individual editors are not entitled to ignore or disrespect it as a science. Also, as Nishidani edited the Elhaik study about Khazar origin of Jews in many articles, I guess he have changed his mind on this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! Can I get someone to look at my complaint. What is happening here, derailing a legitimate request for supervision by shifting the goalposts and ignoring my evidence, is extraordinary. I registered a complaint, and there has been zero attention given it. Instead, a pseudo-AE list of factitious diffs, by several people, has been mugged up to argue I'm a lousy editor. Perhaps I am, but what has that got to do with the price of fish? All you are doing, Tritomex, is listing your grievances against me for insisting that wiki policies be scrupulously applied, esp. in controversial areas, so I won't reply to them.

To return to the substance of my complaint. Shalom11111 wrote:-

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it, as he did in "Talk:Palestinian people" here for example

These are serious accusations,-I am said to be using wikipedia to spread ideas, associated with antisemitism, that the majority of Jews are 'fake'. Shalom11111 himself should be called to account to justify them by evidence, translate them into a complaint about my behaviour at AE or to strike them out. Or is it now permitted to make outageous accusations and insinuations with impunity, under the benign eyes of administrative oversight?Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• agree with Johnuniq, basically. This old giezer Nishidani tries to maintain an article that is clearly notable in terms of WP:NOTABLITY, and whence he has the occasion to make a rare recourse to the drama boards, he gets double-reverse hoodwinked on a non-level playing field. One can only cringe an object to such highly partial and non-policy compliant moves to censure a proven editor. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't read all the responses above because I don't have the time for it at the moment (I will, though), but I still want to leave a comment now.

I'm shocked by the amount of evidence Tritomex just brought, and will look deeper into these diffs later. I really ask myself why there are a few editors here that completely ignore it, and I wonder why Nishidani never bothers to give detailed explanations for such edits. Nishidani, you and others from that old discussion know what you were implying in that edit of yours.

Also, you keep taking out of context that sentence I wrote which you repeatedly quote. Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I clearly see no direct accusation of antisemitism there. I'll say this again: The fact that you "promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic " and "spread this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews")", is not calling you an an antisemite, but saying that your edits are somewhat problematic. I don't care what your personal views are about anything, I care about views and edits found on Wikipedia that aren't neutral or are pov-pushing. And I'm not stupid, I know very well what Wikipedia doesn't allow saying, so please don't put words I never said into my mouth. -Shalom11111 (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex brought no evidence of anything disruptive. I can take that to pieces, bit by bit, easily, but would only repeat the extensive arguments on the talk page sections regarding each of his complaints. Click on any link and see how I examined in detail every item of his arguments on the talk page. He has yet to have written anything in Wikipedia that reaches even minimum standards for articles. I write them from top to bottom.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not being a native English speaker is about the only excuse you have, weak as it is, since the vast majority of native English speakers would take your words as an accusation of antisemitism. Now you try to rewrite the facts: you didn't just say that Nishidani promotes something incidentally, you said that he writes what he does "solely in an attempt" to promote it. It was an obvious and blatant attack on his motivation. Nobody is putting words in your mouth except yourself. Zero^talk 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: you mention that the Israeli government is manipulating Wikipedia. I will appreciate it if you help me finding this task force. It may assist me in finding images and articles at I,D.f archive and other archives. It was rather difficult and lengthy process to receive the Kaukji armored vehicle with the famous emblem. Once I will have this task force address, Iguess it will cut short the beurocratic problem that I confront now. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As Zero notes, this is yet another attempt to derail my request for administrative review by distracting attention from Shalom11111's remarks. Shalom11111 gave this link. Click on it. Then open the page and read the articles from the Israeli press. It is all calmly documented on my talk page.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add here that I have just noticed (on that notification thingamijig on my alk page which alerts one whenever one is mentioned somewhere) that above, several cases (Ronreisman, Ykantor, Pluto and Huldra) were being discussed when I raised this point. I know many think suspiciously, and in context, my complaint here might be taken as part of some tactical warfare in a long series. My record shows I have rarely, if ever, in 8 years, complained here or elsewhere. I don't know what credibility I have here, but I had to bookmark the A/I page which I don't follow, on making this complaint, and had no knowledge of the cases from that area immediately prior to my own.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And here we see another attempt to add noise so as to defect attention from the complaint. Zero^talk 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if there were so many editors who would complain countless of times against Nishidani (which is not true), that would not make it acceptable that you claim he is an "antisemite". And for this, you should be sanctionned.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani continues with his violations of WP:CIVIL even here on this page by claiming about me "He has yet to have written anything in Wikipedia that reaches even minimum standards for articles." I ask for administrators to respond accordingly.--Tritomex (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators, please respond to this complaint. In my opinion, it is serious and deserves attention. Zero^talk 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Administrators, please respond to our and dozens of other complaints made by so many editors countless times against the users Nishidani and Zero0000. In my opinion, it is serious and deserves attention. -Shalom11111 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days, there is now perfect unanimity between plaintiff and accused, Shalom11111, that the substance of his statement be examined. Shalom11111 has had 3 days to corroborate his charge with evidence. He has yet to provide one diff. The relevant historical background directly bearing on the charge was covered here, where the petitioner, User:No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions and here, where Yamabaram petitioned against me and stated I make racist comments. Respectively awaiting administrative review, or at least an administrative request that the first item on the agenda, Shalom11111's accusations I am a racist and promote antisemitic views on wikipedia, be substantiated by highly specific diff evidence (not the spurious 'evidence' dismissed as vexatious baiting by reviewing admins), or struck out with an apology.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you bring me up, allow me to set the record straight. My AE complaint was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator who said he didn't bother looking into it. It hardly cleared you of wrongdoing. He assumed I was acting in bad faith (without evidence or a prior history of such actions, but that's another issue). And it's not a coincidence that you are the only editor who has been attracting these sort of complaints over and over for years. Perhaps an admin with some balls would take this opportunity to look into your behavior, but I doubt it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You appealed and that verdict that you made 'unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism' which ha(ve) the effect of harassment or gaming the system' was confirmed by 6 independent admins who turned your appeal down. You weren't acting in bad faith. But good faith, profound sincerity, is no guarantee of good or discriminating judgement: and unless Shalom11111 has better evidence than you produced, since he is making the same accusation in the wake of that precedent, he should apologize for what is a vile smear. I don't want a sanction. I wish to clear my name from this trolling habit of making repeatedly an association of my editing with antisemitism. If my attitude is 'antisemitic', then wikipedia should pass a rule disallowing any editor from using material written by any Israeli journalist, philosopher or social critic employed by Haaretz, which is roughly the Israeli version of the New York Times. I know how liberals in the US feel when the cant of polemical refusals to discriminate one's terms has led to hypnotic effects so that 'liberalism' is widely understood to be an alias for communism, just as sensitivity to one people's plight in a complex narrative is frequently slammed as 'antisemitic' by supporters of the historic victor. Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—at WP:TPYES I find: "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." I don't think the following is atypical of your posts: "I like confusion, blurred borders, complexity. Myths also, but I know that they are lullabies for children, unless deconstructed to draw out their deeper truths, which are not ethnic, but existential. Think about it."[68] In your above post you say "I know how liberals in the US feel when the cant of polemical refusals to discriminate one's terms has led to hypnotic effects so that 'liberalism' is widely understood to be an alias for communism, just as sensitivity to one people's plight in a complex narrative is frequently slammed as 'antisemitic' by supporters of the historic victor." I am saying that I think you might try being more concise, in accordance with our Talk page guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You got the wrong editor. My first, second, and third formulations of my complaint were concise. They elicited Tritomex's noisy screed of indictment above.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—you aren't being clear in Talk page posts and then you are upset that you are misunderstood: "Antisemites define themselves by their hatred of Jews: Jews are not obliged to define themselves collectively by that hatred, as a collectivity defined by racial antipathy. To do so is to yield victory to the arseholes of history by ceding them a pivotal role in defining oneself"[69].. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not upset if I am misunderstood. Most conversations I observe consist of a complicity of misprisions, and that is true of most wiki arbitration complaint threads. I was raised in a milieu where reading a book a day was not unusual,- one learnt to concentrate through long swathes of often difficult prose. But I know much of our late world restricts itself to twitter posts, and buzzes over sms and one line emails. Anything beyond that is regarding as 'boring'. To construe (a) the first clause alludes to Jean-Paul Sartre's thesis réflexions sur la question juive (Gallimard 1954). That is the only mystery in what is otherwise a perfectly clear example of summarizing a subject with an immense literature in two lines. If you can't understand it, either tell me what's difficult about a normal English sentence or just ignore this thread.Nishidani (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—you shouldn't be talking over anybody's head or you risk being misunderstood. Anything worth saying on a Wikipedia Talk page should be sayable in easy-to-understand terms. I think that colorful terms such as "lullabies for children"[70] are not conducive to Talk page use, although there could be exceptions. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, 'lullabies for children' (as opposed to lullabies that enchant us even as adults, as Theodor Adorno wrote in a memorable passage, a recollection of which was in my mind when I wrote that sentence) is 'talking over everybody's head'? On wikipedia, no one is obliged to read anything, esp. anything I write in response to a query, on my talk page. My allusions aren't necessary for understand what I wrote. They are sizzling private mental props to stop me collapsing from the sheer tedium of argufying the obvious here. Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a nice trick, and one you're quite adept at, but it won't work. The appeal was against a sanction, it did not deal with the original complaint. You behavior was not cleared. It was not even looked into. I'm not surprised you'd try to use this as some kind of get out of jail free card "precedent" though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Again WP:AGF. I am 'in gaol' trying to weasel out of a criminal conviction by using 'tricks'. As with Ankhmorpork's innuendo, the plaintiff is guilty, the accused the victim. You listed a series of diffs to show I was antisemitic. They were reviewed, and discussed, and the appeal was turned down. In layman's terms, your diffs did not signify to third parties what you thought they signified and your attempt to twist the evidence was sufficiently 'vexatious' for you to be told to not participate in AE cases.Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering you helpfully posted a link to the AE case, anyone can read it and see the diffs were not reviewed (unless you call looking only at one of them and saying you don't see anything about the subject in the Wikipedia article about the topic a "review") nor discussed (only one admin commented once and then closed the report). And yes, we all know you're always the victim. I have a nice quote about that kind of thing on my user page. In layman's terms you got lucky and a fatigued admin who sees bad faith everywhere didn't bother to look into a report and closed it before other admins even participated.

I learned two things from this: 1. Wikipedia is not equipped or not interested in dealing with long term sophisticated harassers such as yourself, and 2. an organization that punishes members in good standing and with clean records for reporting harassment is one I don't want to be a member of.

Now, if you stop mentioning my name I'll go away again and you will be free to continue to POV push while bullying, harassing, and prodding those who disagree with you until they either leave or make a mistake you and your coiterie can exploit to get them removed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012, I'm afraid you lack basic reading abilities, because nowhere on Wikipedia did I call a user an "antisemite", as you claimed I did. Nishdani, so far every time a user has said something that's not supportive of your argument here, you quickly claimed they changed the topic (and a few other users as well. Reminds me of what you said here: "I like confusion, blurred borders, complexity"), making everything much harder to deal with.

I can apologize if you think that I directed a racist accusation against you, because that's how you interpreted it for yourself and I have no control over that. It's understandable. I find it important to note that Nishidani is not denying the fact that he has written extensively about this theory on Wikipedia, weather it's an antisemitic theory or not, and as Tritomex showed with all these diffs, in the process of doing that he clearly broke some of Wikipedia's policies. Anyway, if for some reason I'm found quilty of bad faith, then you(Nishidani) will obviously be sanctioned as well, but I'll still change the wording of that article's deletion proposal as you asked. -Shalom11111 (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

'Can' is a potential auxiliary, meaning it lies within your ability to apologize. While I appreciate the recognition that you might apologize, I would prefer that you actually go ahead and do so by retracting that insinuation, and this noisome, but necessary thread can be closed.

I am known for being a 'stickler for language'. The reparative edit you have now made simply drops my name and converts the text to the passive voice which, however, leaves the implication there that articles are being messed with by POV-pushing that is favourable to a fringe or antisemitic perspective. In rewriting,

The article which was created recently and is about a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes . . This belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") has been spread in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it.

you have retained the gravamen of a charge that is false on several counts.

• often is untrue. As I documented, the theory was, and still is, widely entertained by scholars of high notability who, for obvious reasons (Jewish/Israelis), cannot be dismissed as antisemitic.
• it isn't a widely spreading theory. In academic terms, it has almost been disowned, though some support of a version of it reemerges from time to time. It thrives if you like in the fringe lunatic world of web-raving anisemites, who, I expect are only read by other candidates for the loony bun. I have documented all of this on the relevant pages: most people who promote it yield red links if you try to wikify the references.
• I.e. in formulating this, the premise is that any form of denial, diffidence or scepticism concerning the claim Ashkenazi Jews all have a direct line of descent from Israelitic tribes effectively amounts to a kind of negationism of the fact that the majority of Jews (Ashkenazi) are Jews. I.e. your own view, since you wrote this terrible pastiche, is that Judaism is defined exclusively in ethnic terms. It isn't, as any source, take the Jewish Virtual Library for example, will tell you (Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more.) It's news to me that the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory promotes the view that 'Ashkenazi Jews' are 'false Jews'. Arthur Koestler, who popularized the inframural studies of scholars on the topic, advanced it in order to combat antisemitism, for, by denying one descent story, he thought he would take the wind out of the sails of antisemitic racists.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Shalom11111, why don't you just say that you were wrong, that Nishidani is not creating articles solely [a]s an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes or spreading this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") if that is what you believe ? If you don't believe Nishidani is doing that, say so. If you do believe that he is doing that you are accusing him of promoting anti-semitism. To a native English speaker what you wrote is about intent, the intent to promote and spread something "often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes". If I complained about someone writing Holocaust denial articles solely as an attempt to promote and spread this belief there is no ambiguity in the accusation. It's as clear as calling them a Holocaust denier. If other editors understood it that way it's not an assumption of bad faith or because they lack basic reading abilities, it's because that is what it means. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nishidani appears to be playing the "playing the antisemitism card" card. Discussion above indicates a long-lasting content disagreement and frivolous complaints to this forum should be discouraged. Observing that a theory is regarded as antisemitic is wholly different from claiming an editor is promoting antisemitism itself - for example, The Bell Curve was criticised as a racist work, yet, the article about it cannot be said to be racist. Moreover, I am sure Nishidani can appreciate that insinuating that an editor is a paid activist is as equally unhelpful as the alleged complaint. Nishidani should be reminded of WP:BOOMERANG. Ankh.Morpork 14:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Translation. Shalom11111 is within his rights to call an editor he dislikes a racist and an antisemite or antisemitism-pusher. Any response from the target of the slur is, on the other hand, a frivolous resort to "playing the antisemitism card". Heads you win, tails I lose. In that kind of bizarre logic, some editors have a unique privilege to abuse others, and any evidence used by the defence must be read as self-incriminating. This thread is getting pathological in its waywardness.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the questions about the nature of Khazar theory, its role in Antisemitism I suggest the following book Kizilov, Mikhail, and Diana Mikhaylova. “The Khazar Kaganate and the Khazars in European Nationalist Ideologies and Scholarship.” Archivum Eurasii Medii Aevi 2005 page 25 [71]--Tritomex (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the section on this on the Khazar page, and am documenting the fact in greater detail on the Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry page. So why on earth is Nishidani the antisemite taking so much trouble to provide wikipedia with details of this obscure episode in antisemitism? Your insinuation is absurd.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Its clear that claiming a theory as antisemitic and claiming violations in editorial policy, does not equal claiming that an editor is himself an antisemite. Reading numerous other complaints involving violations from WP:CIVIL to WP: NPOV, its obvious that many editors have concerns about Nishidani behavior. Replying them with "blah, blah, blah" or calling them the worst editors unworthy of any edit, does not solve this concerns.--Tritomex (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC) 23:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Sean.hoyland I think I now understand the confusion over this issue better. When I wrote that this article is (and other ones) are attempts to spread this belief which is often regarded as antisemitic, I meant to this phenomenon in general and not in the sense that it's necessarily the result of "Nishidani's evil deeds". The word "solely" made it sound bad, sorry I said that. And what I said there is factually correct (perhaps I should've opened a separate case at here at WP:ANI) because Nishidani indeed writes a lot about this, but it does not mean I think he's doing it because he is an antisemite - give me a break! I wanted to raise concerns about this issue and my intentions were wrongly interpreted, and now everybody focuses a few words I said instead of other serious stuff unfortunately. No Sean.hoyland, not all editors "understood it that way". Nishidani, I must say it doesn't mean much if you also worked on the other viewpoints in the Khazars article which do not support theory of the Khazars' conversion to Judaism. Because by all means I (and other users who reverted you there) can't see how a neutral editor would do what Tritomex earlier described that you did: Inserted the hexagonal star which looks like the star of David, in that section of the Khazars article, while adding captions that do not much the original source (continuing Tritomex:) "which actually said that the star was likely unrelated to Judaism and represents a pagan sun disc... [Nishidani] created an impression that this hexagonal star represents Jewsih symbol although the only source found regarding this image tells otherwise." Now you'll say that I don't assume good faith, but I indeed suspect, not accuse, that something is fishy, and hope admins will check this as well. -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you won't apologize and insist 'something is fishy'. All your 'evidence' refers to distorted rehashings of content disputes and have no place on this page.

I rewrote the Khazar article from top to bottom, most of it does not concern Jews, and dealt with all notable viewpoints pr WP:Undue according to the best academic RS. No one complaining here or there (you and Tritomex basically) has done any work, or made any edits except on this minor topic of antisemitism, and the 'disproof' of the theory: both of you wish to adduce every possible newspaper comment or negative opinion to show the theory is both untrue and antisemitic. Just as Tritomex inverted all normal wiki rules in his attempt to showcase an amateur's non-notable theory and sweep under the rug what the most authoritative scholar thought at Ophel inscription, where I had to rewrite the whole article to fix the POV pushing (this has proved impossible at Ashkenazi Jews, which is in a state of paralysis). In both instances WP:NPOV was ignored in order to push a position. We don't take sides here, and it is particularly disappointing to see editors looking at articles only in terms of one obsessive concern with one particular theme, and making out anyone who doesn't edit it according to their theories of how that theme must be handled in every article in wikipedia is therefore biased.

Anyone sufficiently masochistic to review what actually happened re the minute details of the seal discussion can wade their way through the relevant section, where I analysed the issue at exhaustive length to meet Tritomex's objections. Nishidani (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for administrative oversight. No.4

Is it acceptable to state, suggest or make innuendos that an editor is antisemitic without providing any evidence for the claim, on wikipedia? Is it okay to allow such statements to be made, so that an editor must work under a trailing cloud of not infrequently vented 'suspicions'?

Shalom11111, Tritomex, No More Mr Nice Guy, | AnkhMorpork variously argue my editing is 'problematic' and the suggestion is that there is an odour of antisemitism there, or that I edit material that antisemites use, ergo. . .'there is something fishy' about my work on wikipedia.

The brief answer to this is Chemi Shalev, 'A New York Times reporter in Israel is invariably called an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew,' at Haaretz Jan 16, 2014, where a New York Times reporter Clyde Haberman reflects on his career and recounts that a middle-of-the-road, orthodox-raised reporter like himself who strives to be professionally even-handed (compare WP:NPOV) in reporting the I/P area is chronically afflicted by numerous accusations and tirades from their fellow co-religionists that he is being 'antisemitic'. The label 'antisemitic' by Haberman's own testimony is misused to put pressure on people like himself who strive for neutrality. Unless they espouse an identifiable line, they are 'Jewish self-haters' or antisemites.

In my view, over 8 years, antisemites or any other brand of racist should be banned on sight from editing wikipedia. By the same token heckling editors by making charges they are 'antisemites', a worn but almost reflex trick in the POV trade (Haberman), because you dislike their work, or views, is equally unacceptable, because it is very frequently wielded to put pressure on people. Editors found using this charge without any evidence for the smearing allegation should be warned, asked to strike their statements out, and apologize.Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Poppycock. I didn't assert anything of the kind. I merely noted that observing that an academic theory is regarded as antisemitic, which Shalom11111 appears to have done, is wholly different from claiming that an article or editor is antisemitic. Your verbose posts would indicate that your view is certainly not being stifled and I would urge you to consider that just as as carelessly attaching the "antisemitic" label can pollute discussion, so too can the unfounded allegation that editors are maliciously doing so. Finally, could you address your own conduct and advise whether you consider your insinuation that Shalom11111 is a paid activist acceptable, if not a tad hypocritical? Ankh.Morpork 15:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Every attempt I have made, now four times, to see direct administrative oversight of a remark, which not only myself but several others take to warrant scrutiny as potentially a serious slur and a challenge to the serenity of my work on wikipedia as an editor, is crowded out by a backwash of demands that I explain my general behaviour. Fine, I will, disposing even of your insinuating I insinuated Shalom11111 was a paid activist, (which is not what the diff says). But I will do so only after my complaint receives the requested attention. The logical order is Shalom11111, what he said, and, if that is necessary, then Nishidani. I regard all attempts to provoke me into an unwarranted apologia pro vita mea as equivalent to an effective derailing of the issue I raised, and which I have a natural right to ask to be addressed. Administrative review is required for the simple reason that any outsider would tend to think that automatic sides have been taken by all those who have commented here: those who challenge my bona fides, here and in the past, have sided with Shalom11111. Those who see merit in my request are editors who share my (not necessary correct) interpretation of WP:NPOV. Someone beyond suspicion and this fray is required to elide the appearance that judgements are partisan, someone unswayed by either side, who simply looks at the evidence and makes a judgement according to core policies, and the devil take the hindmost. Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Small correction - those "who see merit in [your] request" are your buddies who show up every time you're in trouble. It has nothing to do with your "interpretation of WP:NPOV". There's not a single editor in the bunch who's not familiar to anyone who's seen your multiple visits to the admin boards. Easy to prove with diffs, if anyone cares. Which at this point I doubt they do, so all we really get here is another view into your inflated sense of victimhood. Poor Nishidani only trying to uphold the rules with the support of a bunch of like minded strangers while a vast conspiracy insults him and tries to take him down. This would be funny if it didn't come at the expense of the integrity of the encyclopedia. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Which is of course (buddies,inflated sense of victimhood) a personal attack again, also on the bona fides of several other editors. All the diffs both Shalom11111 and yourselves like to raise are stale, underwent review, and were dismissed. My complaint deals with a comment made some days ago.

I guess I should note the following, which contextualizes the derailment underway, and the antipathy expressed.

• (1) since this , where User:Salvio giuliano summed up his review (without implementing it) that ‘AnkhMorpork, your editing has been tendentious, at times, in my opinion and, for that, I'm inclined to issue a rather long block, unless you accept an indefinite ban from making any edits across all namespaces relating to Islam and Muslims broadly construed, ’ User:AnkhMorpork has not edited wikipedia, except desultorily (32 edits) since January 2013 (contribs), one year ago, and only to make a few comments mainly where I appear, since this incident. The occasion for returning was to comment on my ‘character defects’,

‘You had this objectionable penchant of referencing what you imagined to be other editors' religion in your discussions, touting it as if it was a piece of incriminating evidence’

I think that means in his view any time I use the word Jewish I do so as ‘a piece of incriminating evidence’. If so, then I am antisemitic. This is the kind of attack I have raised an objection to here, though for several years I have mostly ignored it, as per my meagre complaint record (as opposed to the record of complaints laid against me). I should add that in that prior case User:Media-hound- thethird, eventually indefinitely blocked, was warned repeatedly for obstructionist comments that were interpreted as attempts to derail the complaint. I consider much of the interjective stuff in here as performing the same function, rehashed stale evidence, produced by non-active editors.

• (2) Since July 23, 2013 User: No More Mr Nice Guy, when he appeared to withdraw from wikipedia when his A/E complaint about me as a 'Jew baiter' was turned down, and his further request also turned down. and this complaint, almost a half a year passed (contribs). In that period he made 3 edits (here) (here) and (here) to his mainpage all finessing the point he wishes to make there (and perfectly within his rights to do so). It is what he believes.

I am not worried by these long-stewing animosities, but I choose to work wikipedia, I have made in 8 years just 2 complaints to administrative boards despite such animosity, and wish to work here, unlike, apparently, the two editors above, and to do so without the kind of fog of innuendo they, and Shalom11111, blow my way. Nishidani (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't bring up my name, I won't need to respond to your bullshit. Your complaint was open for days without me trying to "derail" it until you mentioned me. There's a lesson here.

I also wanted to work Wikipedia, I left because of harassment and the administration's lack of will to do anything about it.

Good example with Ankh up there, by the way. He was adding stuff from RS and got banned from articles relating to Muslims, while you can gratuitously say Purim is a celebration of genocide, a theme shared with the Nazis, and nobody cares.

Go ahead, whine some more about what a victim you are. Blow "the fog of innuendo" in other people's direction while complaining about what they say about you. It's not only transparent but also pathetic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'Whine' 'pathetic' , Nishidani's views are 'shared' by Nazis (ergo...) Your falsification of what I said re Purim is already in a link supplied here. Many eyes saw the evidence. Your distortion did not pass. So, please desist from flogging the dead horse of the past, and allow fresh eyes to look at fresh evidence. Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The reply to the Nishidani shares Nazi views was just posted here. Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As I never saw this and I cant believe what I am reading I am asking Nishidani if he is regretting saying that Purim is an attempted and successful genocide? [72]

Also, I would like to hear explanation about this claim of Nishidani ":With that monicker, the Israeli planning stuff put over that their operation was 'the manifestation of the presence of the God of Israel in the Torah.' While bombing the Gazans into an Exodus, they used an idiom to apotheosize the divine light guiding their own paths into Eretz Yisrael. You really think that it acceptable to anyone who happens to be on the receiving end of this Nacht und Nebel smashing to smithereens? Who invents these names?. They are incredibly well thought out for a kind of resonance one only gets in close literary criticism of a classic. Cast Lead of course referred to Bialek's poem, and dreidels, as was appropriate since the massacre of Palestinians coincided with Israel's festival of light." [73]

What is this? [74]

Regarding the issue of hexaganoal star mentioned by Shalom11111, the image from dubious source is still on the Khazars page sourced with only one source namely K.A: Brook. The source tells that the star is likely an Shaman sun disc and not a Jewish symbol while Nishidani capitations claims that the meaning of the symbol is unknown. Nishidani removed a direct quote from the author of the image.--Tritomex (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is disruptive because (a) You must not interrupt posts with bad formatting (b) The complaint made deals with Shalom11111 (c) The material you just added comes from past AE cases already amply discussed in context, dismissed and archived (d)Introducing extraneous material on content conflicts amounts to derailing the request for input specifically on Shalom11111's remark (e) If any reviewing admin things anything else, including statements I made (even if everything cited above is 'technically' 'stale', and therefore not usable), requires a response from me, I will reply to them. So, please desist. Several editors have tried to disrupt my request, and persisting in this discourtesy constitutes a patent attempt at derailment.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Nishidani, it's not as unfortunate that you expand this Khazar conversion topic extensively as it is that you have ignored Wikipedia's policies while doing so. I may never understand why you choose to focus your editing almost entirely on this (besides documenting alleged Israeli violations/attacks and the like on other articles), because it seemed that you'd oppose it at times.

Regarding all those links, you said above "Well, the diff does not even mention you. It provides ample evidence that a government actively promotes editing wikipedia in conformity with its idea of what the truth is", but looking at this earlier diff shows otherwise, as every 6 year old kid would understand that you were implying that I'm taking part in this activity described in that article. And as some user said before, this accusation is just as serious as what you're accusing me of, and personally it's also very insulting to falsely be called a propagandanist or shill. We both think we deserve an apology.

I'm not trying to change the topic, anyone can go back to it (if there is one) if they want, but it kind of saddens me we all got to this point. It's clear that many of the participants in this discussion haven't been innocent, at least not in someone else's view, whether because their "mistake" was done in bad faith or not. This is becoming an ineffective waste of time for us all, and less and less productive. -Shalom11111 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

When I said, when you reported me as a danger to wikipedia in October 2013, that you should be more worried by the kind of intrusiveness of wikipedia reported widely in Israeli newspapers as part of a settler and government programme to counter 'anti-Zionists' you replied:Where are these paid university workers? Wikipedia needs them urgently. If I were one of them, I'd do my job proudly. Well, sometimes I really wish I could get paid for my work here

You did not find the widely documented attempts to influence media like wikipedia problematical. You find me, and Zero, dangerous here. I never said you were part of this. But I am surprised that someone denouncing me as a threat to wikipedia's integrity as a neutral source, can then, volte face approve of organizations or governments openly saying they pay people to do just that.Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

My views can hardly be described as "pro-Israeli" and I am probably much closer in mind to Nishidani than Shalom11111, but this does seem disconcerting. Nishidani made a seemingly sarcastic comment about the considerable growth in the Ashkenazi Jewish population, casting doubt on the idea that the population's increase occurred without significant conversion efforts. At the same he seems to be editing strongly in favor of the Khazarian theory, which postulates that the Ashkenazi population is actually a large group of converts from a nation situated in the Caucasus who migrated to Western Europe. While the theory is not inherently anti-semitic, it is commonly used by anti-semites as a sort of excuse for throwing out anti-semitic comments. The Khazarian theory is, to my knowledge, considered a fringe view and a sort of pseudohistory not seriously backed by any historical or genetic research. If this represents Nishidani's actual view of the origins of Ashkenazi Jewry then even an explicit accusation of anti-semitism would not be excessive since the Khazar theory is often associated with anti-semitism, especially when it is invoked by someone who regularly makes provocative comments about Jews and Israel.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. Jeezus, perhaps I should worry. I'm bewildered here. I am puzzled as to why while working hard on articles, anyone one writes on talk pages where edit problems are thrashed out, can be construed months down the track as malicious, or sarcastic or antisemitic. Well, I guess that happens once an A/I or AE case gets so much effluent opinion about a person's ostensible or suspected mindset, that everything looks 'fishy' or 'dangerous'. Take the diff you mention.

It's a complex argument, like those over the proportion of Ashkenazi Jews in modern Jewry, or the 'demographic miracle' that is required to explain how medieval Ashkenazi, apparently in the standard model without conversion, rose from 15-30,000 to several million in four or so centuries.

I wrote that after doing all the legwork on the Khazar article which has had endless commentary. The Khazar article was a complete fucking mess until I rewrote it from top to bottom. It's now close to GA.And over the two months or so I worked on it, all I got was whingeing from POV pushers with a bee in a bonnet about what is, see the page, a minor element of Khazar historical studies. I don't believe the fucking Khazar theory, anymore than I believe the standard Ashkenazi descent theory or any other theory that has no solid grounding in close detailed historical facts. No one complaining there made one useful factual, RS-based edit to that page that I can remember. They are obsessed with an implication that is fringe, as described as fringe. There are no facts there, only hypotheses. I've said this dozens times, but I'll be buggered if I have to waste more time linking to every time I've stated that. The phrase in question comes directly from several sources, which I have used on that and relevant articles. I.e.,

• 'Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century.' Gil Atzmon, Harry Ostrer et al http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/ Abraham's Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry American Journal of Human Genetics. 2010 June 11; 86(6): 850–859.

• (2) Harry Ostrer, Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People, Oxford University Press 2012 p.153 (repeats what he wrote above)
• (3) 'Despite its stops and starts, the world's Ashkenazi population attained ten million by 1900. The geneticists who study the group often comment on its steep growth curve—they use the term demographic miracle.' Jeff Wheelwright The Wandering Gene and the Indian Princess: Race, Religion, and DNA, WW Norton & Company, ‎2012 p.55
• (4) Jits van Straten The Origin of Ashkenazi Jewry: The Controversy Unraveled, De Gruyter ‎2011 actually has an article on this Straten, J. van and Snel, H. 2006, “The Jewish 'Demographic Miracle' in Nineteenth-Century Europe: Fact or Fiction?,’ in Historical Methods 39:123-131 Straten’s view is that the ‘economic miracle’ theory is a fiction. But read his chapter on it, esp pp.94ff.

I.e. you are reading into a remark where I am paraphrasing several sources, what I personally believe. Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't really reading into that part of your remark, but the other parts of your remark and the general context in which it was made. Don't think I read into it anything that is not true of your beliefs either. Looking over your edits on this matter, it does appear that you have been generally even-handed in covering the issue. Perception of bias seems to be a result of singling out specific instances rather than looking at the edits as a whole.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The other remark is addressed to one of numerous editors who consistently pop up to push a thesis, amply covered in Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial and this section in Demographics of Palestine. One gets tired of being forced to revert SPI fringe theory pushers. The politics of it are well known. Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If you do actually look at the context of that remark you'll see that an editor said he wants to challenge something regarding the demographics of the Palestinian People on the relevant talk page, which doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with Ashkenazi Jews. Nishidani's response? Jews, his favorite topic. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

'Jews, his favorite topic'. I think that this accusation is classifiable under Projective identification or its congeners. You really should look at the contribs of all the editors joining you in being upset here, and then compare them to the list of my contributions at User:Nishidani. I appear to be the only editor with extensive, continuous and intense interests and detailed wiki work outside this hot-potato area.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Question for Nishidani: This tooll reveals that your "Frequently Edited Pages" include:

- Talk:Haj Amin al-Husseini

- Talk:Khazars

- Talk:Ashkenazi Jews

- Khazars

- Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry

- Talk:Palestinian people

- Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War

- Talk:Price tag policy

- Talk:Arab Liberation Army

- Talk:Hebron

- List of Israeli price tag attacks

- Juliano Mer-Khamis

- Talk:Jewish insurgency in Palestine

The bulk of your edits relate to the Israel-Palestine conflict and are frequently critical of Israel. Recently, you have taken great interest in gleefully promoting a contentious, fringe theory about the ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews. Though you have commented on Jewish matters before, notably the time you claimed that the Jewish festival of Purim was a celebration of a successful genocide, your newfound interest in Jewish genealogy is surely outside your usual bailiwick?Ankh.Morpork 00:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Correction: I incorrectly said "recently". It appears that Nishidani has been interested in promoting this theory for over a year as evidenced by his various edits to The Invention of the Jewish People.Ankh.Morpork 01:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani - Over the last year, I have received three notifications, and surprise surprise, you have been responsible for all of them. Quite simply, my "occasion for returning" is this: you uttered a falsehood about me so I returned to rebut it. Stop talking about me and you'll stop imagining these shadowy plots. Ankh.Morpork 22:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

+1. Don't talk shit about me, and I won't have to come here to set the record straight. This complaint was open for 3 days before I showed up due to being notified you mentioned me. Now you complain about a conspiracy to derail your righteous complaint by non-active editors? Add this to the list of things that would be funny if they weren't sad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

'Plot'? 'Conspiracy'? (The subtext is obvious. Antisemites believe in a conspiracy) Nishidani (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

As do conspiracy theorists. Ankh.Morpork 00:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Poor Nishidani victimized again by an "obvious" subtext. I suppose you were just trying to say it's all a coincidence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Is being victimised by a subtext better or worse than being victimised by a meme?

Its enough to just check what sources Nishidani removed from Khazar article and what he adds there daily. He is quoting here Harry Osterer, whose conclusions was that genetic studies found no evidence that Ashkenazi Jews are linear descendants of Khazars. Nishidani removed exactly this claim, as he removed all other genetic studies directly or indirectly challenging the so called Khazar theory (more than 20) (summerizing them in 1 not 2 sentences as I claimed above by mistake) from that article, except one single, namely the Elhaik study which he edited in 3 different chapters in that article. He also edited this study in numerous other articles. Nishidani removed historic sources changing the Khazar theory, removed genetic sources challenging the Khazar theory. He removed archeological reliable sources challenging the Khazar theory, academic journals, newspapers and books. The result is obvious. Look just this- He placed the following claim ". Some archeological evidence from Čelarevo suggests the Qabars practiced Judaism since warrior graves with Jewish symbols were found there, including menorahs, shofars, etrogs, lulavs, candlesnuffers, ash collectors, inscriptions in Hebrew, and a six-pointed star identical to the Star of David." above the image of the hexagonal star which represents a Shaman Sun disc, although he removed the explanation of its meaning. Now this is in the Khazarts article (Qabars and Chelarevo in Serbia, and the Star of David above the hexagonal star image, all this in the articles about Khazars.) Also in front of the image (of hexagonal star (Shaman sun disc-identical to Star of David) whose meaning Nishidani censored, he wrote "One theory maintains that the Star of David, until then a decorative motif or magical emblem, began to assume its national value in late Jewish tradition from its earlier symbolic use in Menachem's crusade" Now what the Star of David (a Jewish symbol from only few hundreds of years ago) has to do with Khazars? The source does not even mention Khazars in the context of the Satr of David.When I asked per WP:V to clarify this edit, he threatened me with this noticeboard and gave the source in the form of following sentence from a book written in 1957. ," theretofore mainly a decorative motif or a magical emblem, began its career toward becoming the chief national-religious symbol of Judaism. Long used interchangeably with the pentagram or the "Seal of Solomon," it was attributed to David in mystic and ethical German writings from the thirteenth century on, and appeared on the Jewish flag in Prague in 1527. Thus were laid the foundations for its ultimate glorification in the nineteenth century." Based on this he pushed the Star of David in at least 3 places of the Khazars article. There are many similar edits.

Reading the comments of other editors I beleive Nishidani crossed all red lights, in the way of communication and insults directed to other editors, with his highly controversial remarks on Jews and with WP:NPOV violations for another administrative intervention.--Tritomex (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you've all had your opportunity and are now repeating yourselves and vent historic grievances. Let someone with fresh eyes look at the original complaint, and raise directly with me any questions (as Devil's advocate did). Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Administrative oversight. 5th request.

All editors who have expressed their views amply above, please abstain from the request hereon in. Thank you.

• I was reported, together with User:Zero0000 by User:Shalom11111 on 25 October 2013.

• He called me 'dangerous', stated my ‘personality, truly disgusts’ him, backed suggestions I used sockpuppets, and asserted I made racist comments.

I did not retaliate, though these are serious violations of WP:AGF. I thought stuff like this had ran its course after the prior case. Hyperbole tickles my funny bone. The case was dropped. A minor nuisance. He did add however the following statement:

I’m going to let as many people as possible know about the biased articles and editings that are taking place on Wikipedia by them. . . the least I can do, besides fighting over it, is inform people of the situation.

I do not know what this promise to ‘spread the word’ about Nishidani alluded to, offline or here or both. On wikipedia however, in proposing the deletion of Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry 3 months later, he kept his promise. He informed prospective editors called to make a judgement on that article a few days ago:

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it,'

(10 editors said the article should be kept. Only one, User:Tritomex sided with Shalom11111. They cannot see what is being asserted everywhere here.)

I have a right to edit without the odour of suspicion hanging over me. Two assertions are made, very specific.

• I create articles to spread theories associated with anti-Semites
• I spread the belief that Ashkenazi Jews ae 'fake Jews' (this is repeated from the Oct 25, 2013 case)

None of the noise above, nor the diffs to material in prior cases, has provided any evidence for this. Shalom11111 has said he could apologize, but hasn't. He changed the accusation into the passive voice, but the implication remains on the record. To avoid repetitions of this rumour-mongering in future, since I’ve had it since User:Zeq started it in 2007, I request clarification on whether editors can proceed with impunity to make the kind of charge Yamabaram laid at my door, or whether such accusations require proof, on pain of severe sanctions, in the future.Nishidani (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (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.

Hans Adler and Circumcision

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.

---

Hans Adler has clearly stated his personal disgust with circumcision, and unfortunately his personal feelings interfere so much that his editing has become disruptive both at the article and in other areas regarding the topic. Hans has made his personal views on the subject will known, for example in his use of the article Talk page here plus other places. Hans has also used the article Talk page to engage in general commentary/soapboxing about the topic here. I am disappointed that an editor as established and as experienced as Hans would disregard WP:TPG like this.

A few days ago brand new Norwegian IP editor 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made some pretty disgusting remarks at Talk:Circumcision, airing their personal views on the subject and included comments like "I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies" and "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs." I left the IP a welcome message and explained my concerns at their User Talk. I then also started this ANI thread about the edits. As an outside administrator, Drmies handled the ANI, reviewed the edits and quickly blocked the IP for 31 hours, and later hatted the comments as "soapboxing/trolling" with an edit summary indicating he wouldn't even mind if someone deleted the comments altogether. Hans then undid the hat, edit summary "Totally inappropriate censorship of valid criticism of a biased article", restoring visibility of the offensive comments. Drmies redid the hat, Hans again undid the hat. Drmies approach Hans about this on his User Talk, expressing his disappointment, see the second half of the section here.

Hans was also involved in a series of back-and-forth reverts over the placement of an article-wide NPOV tag [75], which resulted in the article being full-protected for three days by John Reaves after my request at RFPP. There was a lot of discussion at the article Talk page and this WP:AN discussion over the placement of the tag, with no clear consensus in support of it. 20 hours after the full protection expired Hans re-added the tag, which then was removed, Hans added it back (edit summary "your blindness to your own bias is no justification to remove" is interesting), it was removed again and then Drmies ended up having to full-protect the article for a week to stop the disruption.

In that WP:AN discussion I mentioned Hans spent a lot of effort questioning my integrity: [76] [77]. I asked him on his User Talk if we could just stick to the article sources and content; in his response Hans appeared to decline, indicating to me that he would continue to attack me personally in his resopnses.

I've got to say even the Norwegian IP editor I mentioned above has done a much better job of keeping their own feelings in check and respecting Wikipedia's guidelines than Hans. While blocked, that IP editor made some interesting comments on their User Talk clearly expressing strongly-held personal feelings, see for example these comments they added in between my notes, and the status of the User Talk page here (quite visually striking actually!!). Yet even that editor has started to figure out Wikipedia's rules, deleting their soapbox-y commentary here after Yobol pointed out it wasn't appropriate. If this IP can do it, why can't Hans?

Hans' involvement has interfered with the discussion, which is often tense to start with, by using the Talk page inappropriately, casting personal aspersions against other editors, edit-warring with an admin to retain trolling comments and causing the article to get full-protected for a week, and disregarding WP:TPG with soapboxing, which sets a bad example.

I'm proposing an indefinite topic ban of Hans from the subject of circumcision until it can be demonstrated that Hans can edit in areas he feels strongly about without his feelings causing disruption. Zad68 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Norwegian IP's comments were targeted towards improvement of the article, if not in form then certainly in content. It is totally normal for a European to be outraged by the article in its current state. Circumcision is virtually non-existent in Scandinavia because it's considered weird and even for most medical indications there are better alternative treatments. Yet the circumcision article currently presents it as a rational practice that incidentally can also be performed for ritual or fashion reasons. And not a word about children's rights (or religious rights, for that matter). Let alone a big section, as exists in the German Wikipedia, for example. Of course people become angry when they realise this. The solution is not to block the angry editors, it's to fix the article. (But of course it can't be fixed because there is nothing on human rights in Pubmed.) Hans Adler 23:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue, there is no justification for "angry editing" of any kind. - ^theWOLFchild 06:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Diffs seem to support some serious soapboxing.--v/r - TP 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support topic ban, but I don't know about indefinite. And frankly, Zad, I'm surprised you didn't mention any of the problems Hans caused on the article itself: [78] [79] [80]. (Incidentally, I'm not too crazy about circumcision myself, but Hans' contributions appear to be a combination of WP:SOAP and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Erpert, good point about the missing diffs... I just don't like putting these ANI threads together, they take a long time. Sorry I missed those. As for whether it should be indef, I don't know how to come up with a specific time-frame in which it'd be reasonable to expect the issues would be resolved. Hans' editing has been very sporadic. I'd rather go by evidence of behavior. Zad68 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess Zad68 knows better than to present my adding a perfectly valid POV tag to the article as me causing problems "on the article itself". Such statements tend to undermine one's credibility. Hans Adler 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Hans calls the ip out for their inappropriate statement "it was unwise in that it can be read as antisemitic", Zad copy pastes it here -- who's actually creating the drama? This whole mess has been pooched up from the get go -- an admin going 3rr on the NPOV tag in the first place, all sorts of ad homimem at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Circumcision and elsewhere. Obviously the tag should have remained in place since there was an ongoing discussion going on but the wrong version got protected with some awkwardly phrased statements. Now I guess we can't discuss this like mature adults because it involves peckers. No one seem to have a problem with calling female circumcision mutilation, but merely raising the term on the talk page is a cause for a ruckus?? As Mike Godwin said, The best answer for bad speech is more speech" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What we need is productive speech. There are plenty of editors at the article who share Hans' views. We need discussion like mature adults, just like you say, but the issue here is behavior, not the views themselves. Zad68 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Productive speech; edit warring, page protection, ad hominem, hats, et. al. are not. NE Ent 23:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article so that the fiercely protected current over-emphasis of technical medical matters and American medical sources can be fixed, is disruptive. Whereas the definition of productive speech is that which does not endanger the status quo. Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing, because mature adults are shouted down with appeals to earlier consensus and nobody notices their protest.

It's unfortunate, but that's just how Wikipedia works. Another aspect of Wikipedia is that this kind of discussion usually starts when Europeans are about to go to bed and Americans are beginning to get fully active. (It's past midnight where I am.) Hans Adler 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans states: Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article ... is disruptive. ... Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing -- I'm reading this as a plain statement of intent to continue disruptive behavior. I don't think this is sarcasm. Does anybody else read this differently? Zad68 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans is more mature than that. He is just making an observation about what it takes to push through a change in a difficult environment. The meek don't get heard. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An observation or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Not having any prior engagement with the dispute, when I attempted to get an answer out of ScienceApe about what reliable sources showed the POV issue, I got instead from Hans Adler the kind of response described by him above. Was he attempting to be heard, by not being meek? If so, all he did was convince me that the behavior on that article talk would be so contentious and difficult that engaging any further to try to understand what was happening in that article would not be productive. So, at minimum, the approach by ScienceApe and Hans Adler resulted in chasing off one medical editor who didn't whack her sons' willies at birth and was more than willing to hear what sources might need to be represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Not having any prior engagement with the dispute". I am not trying to contradict you, but it seems worthwhile to point out that you checked, and praised, the article's lopsided sourcing when Jmh649, the editor signing as "Doc James", was planning to pass it as a GA. And your response to my proposal to read three sources that would make it clear how biased the article is was amazing. You said that one source was in Dutch (which it isn't), and that the others are too long to read. Are you really so proud of your reaction that you feel you must draw attention to it by bringing up my response to your response? Hans Adler 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "not having any prior engagement with the dispute". My very limited review pre-GA was to confirm that the sources met MEDRS, and to say that there were some prose issues. At that time, I was aware of no dispute (in fact, I don't believe there was one). Subsequently, when the dispute showed up at the NPOV noticeboard, my attempts to get an answer on reliable sources at the noticeboard discussion were met with the attitude mentioned above. ScienceApe provided no sources, only charges of misconduct. You provided three sources that had all already been addressed or accounted for, none which explained the problem, and all were presented in a misleading fashion (perhaps not intentionally, but nonetheless). It was not a matter of "too long to read"; when you present sources about legislative proposals, the logical response is, "and what happened to those proposals", and the answers to that question were revealing.

In summary, as in many POV disputes, this one might be much easier dealt with by all with a) focus on sources, b) AGF, c) less attitude being thrown around that chases off anyone who might help. And although I've not engaged talk, in these discussions, I've only seen evidence of that attitude coming from about three people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, in only my second interaction with Hans Adler on the talk page, it produced what I would consider assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality as well as a bizarre analogy asserting decapitation is a medical procedure. This editor may not have the objectivity to neutrally edit this topic area. This topic area needs editors who will stick to sourcing and Wikipedia policy, not editors who soapbox or enable the trolling/soapboxing of others. Yobol (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Serious misrepresentation. Could you please stop it with the hyperbole and simplifications? Of course decapitation is not a medical procedure and I made it perfectly clear how my argument runs. ("I dispute that WP:MEDMOS fully applies to this article. In particular, circumcision is not just any surgical procedure but one that started as a ritual and still is performed most often as a ritual. The article decapitation is not structured according to MEDMOS, and neither should this one be, as the generic MEDMOS structure for surgical procedures marginalises some of the most important aspects. MEDMOS was not written with such a special case in mind." Later clarification: "Decapitation was just the first thing that came to my mind as a surgical procedure that one could but very obviously should not treat according to MEDMOS.")
  There was a problem on the talk page caused by your sloppy argumentation. You confused sources about economy that mention circumcision and sources on circumcision that mention economic aspects – two very different things for a weight discussion, which that was. And when the Norwegian IP reacted to what you said rather than what would have been reasonable to say, you went ballistic. Now you are doing a very similar simplification with the applicability of MEDMOS to the circumcision article. I am arguing that circumcision is a rich topic which one can't do justice with an overall article structure based on WP:MEDMOS#Surgeries and procedures. Instead of simply saying you disagree with that specific point and arguing for your position, you claim that I want MEDMOS not to apply to the article at all and that this breaks prior consensus. Very bad form.
  Your assessment of my actions seems to be clouded by your uneasiness at that interaction, for which I am not more to blame than you are. Hans Adler 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll let neutral editors read our interaction on the article talk page and come to their own conclusions. Your battleground mentality is unfortunately rather obvious. That you think I went "ballistic" anywhere in my interaction with the IP is, again, bizarre. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not bizarre, just wrong. I misremembered and at this time of night I didn't check before posting. There was, however, a miscommunication between you and the IP which I had to clear up. You said, whether you meant it or not, that economics deserves weight in the circumcision article merely because there are many publications discussing the economics of circumcision. This is what the IP questioned, and you lectured the IP ("No, that is precisely how we determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give a topic") instead of conceding his valid point and adjusting your argument.

After that event, I frankly consider it bizarre to be attacked here in this way. Hans Adler 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

References

• I oppose a topic ban. I see nothing in Hans's rhetoric that should disqualify him from the debate. Obviously the neutrality of the article was being disputed, so the tag should have remained for the duration of the discussion. Circumcision is just as much a matter for philosophy, religion and the social sciences as it is for medicine, so please make plenty of room for notable perspectives from those domains. Hans could be more polite but there is bad form on all sides here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony the issue isn't the content but the behavior. I've dealt with lots of impolite behavior at the article, and usually a reminder or two of "please don't do that" gets things back on track. What Hans is doing is disruptive and he's promising more of it. He's actually making it harder to have a polite, rational, policy- and source-based discussion about the kinds of changes he'd like to see. Zad68 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I hatted those comments and blocked the IP; if I'm not mistaken they've come back with better manners. I did indeed "express disappointment" with Hans's behavior in relation to those disgusting, off-topic comments and the personal insults in them; Zad gave a nice and accurate plot summary. I'm fairly disgusted with being accused of "censorship" and of "hiding comments"--surely I don't have to explain here that such is utter bullshit and a rather low blow, or an attempt at a low blow.

  Having said all that, I don't see why Hans should be topic-banned here (with apologies to Zad); I do not believe that his behavior is so disruptive as to warrant a topic ban. For the record, I have an opinion here, and I'm probably aligned with Hans and the IP; when I protected the article, I protected what I consider to be the wrong version, since I believe the tag to be valid--not just because of possible bias, but also because I believe there are valid comments on the talk page about this bias (well said, Anthony, and I agree that there are bad manners on the other side as well). Drmies (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies so what do you suggest as the alterntive? Hans has been pointed to WP:TPG and the like and simply doesn't care. I've made an appeal to him to knock off the personal comments and he told me to expect more of the same. You, an outside admin sympathetic to Hans' views, intervened to remove some disgusting comments and he put them back. You removed them again and he put them back again. Right now the disgusting comments you described as "soapboxing/trolling" are still visible on the article Talk page. You had a personal conversation with Hans on his User Talk and basically gave up. If removing Hans from the topic area isn't what we should do, what should we do? Zad68 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know, Zad. Maybe some other admin is willing to hat the comments, for instance; I'm not going to do it again since I tried twice and I don't care to listen to more abuse from an adult who should know better. I have little interest in policing that talk page or the article--I'm sorry, but I'm of no use here. Still, I think it way too early for topic ban hammers. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have worked with Hans Adler on difficult and complex topics and I find him quite reasonable. His stance on this topic is strong but he is not deaf to high quality arguments. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like, "hatting is not censorhip"? :) Drmies (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drmies. The spat doesn't rise to the level of a ban. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Hans Adler is a welcome breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. While I do not always agree with him, I find his open minded approach and ability to look at both sides of a problem a valuable skill that most editors don't possess. Circumcision is a contentious and controversial topic area, and this dispute exists independently of Hans Adler's participation. Although I greatly respect the work that WikiProject Medicine has performed as volunteers, they have a tendency to don riot gear and wield truncheons whenever their "authoritay" is questioned. They also engage in tag team revert wars to silence their opponents. For this reason, I don't see Hans Adler as the problem, I see him as the victim. I have previously commented on the NPOV dispute touched upon in this thread, and I discovered that members of WikiProject Medicine were to blame for inflaming it. This transparent attempt to silence Hans is more of the same. Although I may not agree with the content of Hans' argument, I will stand beside him and protect his right to speak his mind. Because of militant groups like WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia is entering a dangerous phase in its existence. We should all be concerned when editors espousing minority positions are facing blocks and bans for disagreeing with the majority. It's time to speak up. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Viriditas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per well documented soapboxing, battlegrounding, and general disruption in circumcision-related discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Mark Arsten. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see a pattern of disruption, merely a contnt dispute. Hans Adler has not been blocked for edit-warring, and editors on the other side of the issue have not taken the case to dispute resolution noticeboards. TFD (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that the recent issues started less than a week ago, and while I have extreme sympathy for those who try to maintain circumcision-related articles which anyone can and does edit, I nevertheless think that the standard responses should be adjusted when dealing with a highly experienced and rational editor such as Hans. Engaging with his arguments might be tedious, but a better article would follow. It easy for researchers to find evidence that supports their cultural norms, so I doubt that the article can be modified in a manner that suits Hans, but he should have every opportunity to express his concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support The disruption by Hans Adler on the Talk page and his edit warring in the article go back much farther in time than the recent examples presented by Zad68. This disruption did not start just yesterday. Adler consistently misrepresents sources, twists what editors say to put the worst imaginable spin on it, blatantly ignores Wikipedia rules (especially on Talk page discourse), barks orders at fellow editors, and is apparently unable to distinguish between his personal opinion and the picture presented by the preponderance of sources. He is a culture warrior. He burns with the conviction that circumcision is a moral outrage, a human rights violation, a horrible mutilation inflicted on defenseless babies. He is hell-bent on turning the en WP article into a counterpart of the German WP article on circumcision, which has long been an anti-circ propaganda piece and a horror show, complete with gruesome color photographs of (extremely rare) botched circumcisions out of all proportion to actual reality as well as cherry-picked primary sources and references to web pages from so-called intactivist sites. He needs to be excused from participation in this topic.89.204.155.132 (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are? Have you ever been banned from that topic here or on de.Wikipedia? I've just read every Hans Adler post in that article's archive and, on balance, you are full of shit. Hans can be blunt. Get over it. He demonstrated in that archive that he can be persuaded by good argument. In the couple of threads I read in full (all sides) his reasoning was sound and he made more sense than his interlocutors. This is argument on a controversial, emotive topic. It is robust but, so far, not unhealthy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, never been banned from either article. I did manage, though, to get the German WP editors to remove one of the most bogus claims from their article, that of an estimated 117 deaths annually from circumcision in the United States alone. The rest of my well-founded criticism was ignored so I gave up. Adler claims to speak for all Europeans yet in his own country (Germany) the parliament passed a law a year ago explicitly legalizing non-therapeutic circumcision if the interests of the child are safeguarded (it had been implicitly legal for religiously based cases before) by a vote of 436 to 100.89.204.155.132 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An IP-hopping non-geolocatable Telefonica Germany customer with a pro-circumcision viewpoint that is so over the top, that he makes himself ridiculous. Just like the one who commented on my talk page yesterday. To quote him: "For some reason the circumcision topic attracts some deeply troubled individuals". There may be some truth in that. His reaction to this was to propose on my talk page that the Norwegian IP needs "marital counseling and perhaps a visit to a divorce lawyer". I thought this was a common troll, but apparently he is for real. Hans Adler 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans you describe the German IP as having "a pro-circumcision viewpoint that is so over the top, that he makes himself ridiculous" and "a common troll". And you have no such comments for the Norwegian IP, and actually revert to restore the visibility of their comments on the article Talk page? Doesn't this say something about your ability to maintain objectivity in this area? Zad68 14:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. But if you really think that the Norwegian IP is as bad as the German IP, then this also says something about your ability to maintain objectivity in this area. The German IP's comment on my past behaviour at Talk:Circumcision was way over the top, as anyone can verify by reading all my contributions there. I just did so, and I found nothing that is disruptive or of which I am ashamed. In fact, I would be pretty proud of my comments in those threads if they hadn't proved completely ineffective.

I also stand by this edit. As proved by the Norwegian IP's later behaviour, this was not trolling but genuine concern about the article's quality. It is normal for an unexperienced editor to innocently start criticism of an article in such a way. Hatting such comments, and even blocking the editor, tends to alienate a possible new co-worker and drive him away before he even had a chance to learn how the community works. The result is a systemic bias against those who disagree with the article. Hans Adler 15:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the diff you are proud of makes the comments "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs." visible. It also adds a comment from you that includes "I actually agree that inflicting circumcision on a baby is not better than inducing a child to do a blowjob."

The change in the Norwegian IP's behavior was in spite of, and not because of, your actions. I told the IP on their User Talk that Wikipedia is not an Internet chat forum and the kinds of comments they were making weren't acceptable. The short block by Drmies indicated that we're serious. Subsequently when Yobol told the IP not to use the article Talk page for general comments, the IP complied. Your actions only encouraged the bad behavior: by validating it when you restored visibility of the comments (twice) and then by providing a bad role model by using the article Talk page to make the same kind out-of-scope (per WP:TPG) comments. Zad68 15:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. "stand by" ≠ "proud of". I am not proud of that diff, and I certainly wouldn't have done it just for the first paragraph. However, Drmies hatted the entire ensuing discussion as well. Hans Adler 06:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course: it's a package deal. I considered redacting, but that was a lot of comments to redact--and it's not just the Jewish doctor blowjob thing I'd redact, but some of the other stuff as well. So I chose to hat (or "censor", as you called it), yes, and there is no way to do a "partial" hatting in such a discussion without breaking up things. We are to keep talk page threads intact as much as possible. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it seems much more selfish to induce a child to do a blowjob, but people might feel almost equally violated from having been mutilated as a child. Many genital mutilated women certainly feel extremely violated from the mutilation done to them, and of course this is much more serious than losing some foreskin. But I am also quite certain that many people feel quite violated from having lost their foreskin during childhood.84.210.13.40 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that this, when done for no valid reason, is worse than inducing a child to do a blowjob. (I don't like this formulation, but I guess as a non-native speaker I have no chance of coming up with one that is more appropriate in a child abuse context.) That's because I measure abuse primarily by its effect and only second by malicious intent. To have an idea of the effect, one needs to know how sensitive that region is, especially before sexual maturity. Just sliding back the foreskin already hurts like hell. And that's just the regular case which does not involve medical complications. The research that found occasional serious trauma lasting up to a year is perfectly plausible. Hans Adler 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans, with my knowledge of the deep and long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse, I can't agree with your take on that as compared to circumcision. An adult who was sexually abused as a child (an adult who remembers that he or she was) is subject to all kinds of psychological problems; usually suffers from several or many of them. An adult male who had circumcision performed on him as a child usually accepts that he was circumcised and is usually not pained by the circumcision (physically or emotionally), especially considering that circumcision is generally a cultural way of life in such cases. Quite different than child sexual abuse; comparing these two topics is like comparing apples and oranges. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That could be the start of a reasonable argument if the specific kind of sexual abuse with which we are comparing circumcision here left similar verifiable marks on the child. It does not. Consequently, we cannot compare all children who were subjected to one of the two. We can only compare all children who were subjected to circumcision to those children who were subjected to this particular ("blowjob") form of sexual abuse (not all forms; you seem to be mixing that up as well, probably for practical reasons as it seems impossible to get separate numbers) [added later, but this is what I meant: and it came out somehow. "Blowjobs" with little effect, if they occur, would rarely be counted.] Add to this the fact that parents who inflict circumcision on their children usually do so innocently, love their children and will be good parents, whereas other forms of child abuse are signs of deep personal troubles that will fuck up their children's lives in manifold ways, and you just can't compare the two in the way you propose.

Indeed, comparing apples and oranges if one tries to do it that way. However, I at least can follow the link I gave, listen to the child, and additionally think: "How would I have felt if someone had done that to me at age fourteen or so (the furthest I can think back)." It's about empathy with the victim. Then it is clear what the child's cries mean after the point where their quality changes: Utter horror at the torture he is being subjected to. Hans Adler 06:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to disagree on comparing these two topics; my reply to the IP below sums up the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That depends. In a country where most men are circumcised it is probably easier to accept it than in a country where most men aren't circumcised. Not all teenagers find it easy to have a dick that looks different. Later in life some people might also start wondering how it would be to have a foreskin, with little possibility of getting it back.84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be devolving into a debate of personal opinion which is unhelpful and inappropriate. Please focus on the article, not your personal views on the subject. -- John Reaves 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, IP; it generally does not depend, which is exactly why you will not find any WP:Reliable sources reporting that males are generally pained by circumcision. By contrast, you will find an abundance of WP:Reliable sources reporting that adults who were sexually abused as children (ones who remember that they were, or even ones who've discovered that they were but don't remember it) are pained by it in one way or another. Notice that I used the words usually and generally with regard my post about the effects of male circumcision. I never stated that an adult male cannot be pained by knowledge that he was circumcised as a child. But either way, any psychological effects on that matter are far different and nowhere close to as vast as the psychological effects from child sexual abuse. I won't be debating this matter much further, if at all, seeing that there is hardly anything to debate on this apples-and-oranges comparison. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GAH! It's exactly this use of Wikipedia to air and debate our personal views regarding article topics that I started this ANI discussion in the first place. And look what part of the conversation is springing from: an airing of personal views by the Norwegian IP, followed by encouragement/enablement from Hans. Is this allowed now? Can I go to Talk:Jesus or Talk:Global warming or Talk:Abortion or even Talk:Beyoncé Knowles, start making comments like "<Article topic> is worse than forcing children to do blow jobs", and expect those comments to remain untouched? Zad68 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Hans Adler's comment: Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article ... is disruptive. ... Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing encapsulates the problem, here. He has, as shown by the diffs, turned to soapboxing, edit warring, and battlegrounding in what he apparently views as a deeply moral issue to right great wrongs. Sorry, but that approach is directly contrary to purpose and process on this project, and Hans Adler is apparently blind to even the idea that reasonable people can reason together over the representation of reliable sources for this article -- no one is here to discuss Hans Adler's morals, but that is the unrelenting distraction and, yes, disruption, he apparently wishes to engage in. This is just not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Viriditas and others. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am not taking a vote, but aren't Hans Adler's comments and the IP editor's comments equally offensive? Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  Epicgenius, you may want to clarify your comment, as there is a strongly anti-circumcision Norwegian IP and a strongly pro-circumcision German IP. Without guessing your position on the dispute, it's not clear which of the two you are referring to. Hans Adler 15:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · 84.210.13.40 WHOIS), the Norwegian one. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose　--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Care to explain why? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If anything contributes to making wikipedia articles better it is negative feedback. Hans Adler has given the best negative feedback I have seen on the circumcision talk page. If wikipedia starts to ban all people giving negative feedback to their articles wikipedia will stagnate. It would serve wikipedia better to ban people like Doc James, because he always repeats the status quo and never says anything I find even remotely intelligent. Such people don't contribute to anything. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — 84.210.13.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Note: This is the Norwegian IP editor discussed before. Zad68 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC) ...adding: And thank you for removing at least the most offensive of the comments from the article Talk page. Zad68 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Drmies and Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support if the WP:Soapboxing continues. I have seen Hans Adler make valid and/or good arguments on Wikipedia; the same goes for Zad68. Soapboxing, however, is not needed to make good or great arguments. And the type of soapboxing that Hans Adler was engaging in at the Circumcision article, or that Tumadoireacht still engages in at that article, detracts from any valid problem there may be with the article and contributes to animosity among the editors involved. Circumcision is a controversial topic enough as it is; all that loaded rhetoric doesn't make it any more controversial, but it does make participating in topics pertaining to it far more unpleasant. Our editors need a healthy working environment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm open to the idea that this is a user with some rough edges fighting against entrenched article ownership, if evidence is presented to that effect. But edit warring over hatting offensive trollish comments and calling it "censorship"? That's a neon sign that indicates to me a dedicated single-issue edit warrior. This edit summary and the comment "Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing" do not disabuse me of that impression. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Update The most inflammatory comments have been voluntarily removed by 84.210.13.40 from a page with a couple hundred watchers. The same comments, posted twice by Zad68, remain on this page with its six thousand watchers. While Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common logical fallacy, the removal followed a polite request on the talk page of the IP. Perhaps the greater Wikipedia community could try that first next time, before hatting and blocking and edit warring over the hat and long ANI threads? NE Ent 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Makes lots of comments such as "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article" without references.[81] And is unable to provide references [82] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hans providing references. (Oh and here's one with "nih.gov" in the url [83] which I found by reading one the ones Hans provided.)NE Ent 03:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Holey moley, NE Ent, please read for context. The first link Doc provided is showing that Hans made a specific claim that "male genital mutilation" is "the more politically correct term" without providing a reference. The second link Doc provided is showing that after Hans was pressed on the matter he admitted he didn't have a reference to provide. The first link you're providing is entirely unrelated to Doc's point, and didn't end up being useful to support what he was saying anyway. For your second link, I have no idea why you'd think a link to some letters to the editor would be useful here, even if it does appear "with 'nih.gov' in the url". Zad68 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts + goose/gander issues. From a very long list of problems with the article, most of which were never fixed though Jmh649 (the editor signing as "Doc James") claimed otherwise to justify his passing the article as GA, he picked out one in which I used my personal assessment to express a verifiable problem.

• Personal assessment: [In my opinion,] MGM is the more politically correct term.
• Verifiable problem: MGM is a closely related issue, often mentioned in the context of male circumcision. Conversely, to the extent that people discuss MGM at all, circumcision is generally discussed as the by far most prominent, though controversial, example. Yet the term is not even mentioned in the article. (Of course this is only verifiable if you are open to the possibility that for non-medical claims such as this, non-medical sources are permissible and in fact are usually better. Jmh649/Doc James has been trying to prevent the use of non-medical sources while generally not saying what he must know the be an indefensible principle. An unethical but unfortunately quite successful technique.)

Now, about a year after that long post, for the crime of quoting the list completely (as points brought up long ago but never addressed), Jmh649/Doc James and you attack me for a bit of opinion in a very long post that you don't want to address, by acting as if I had proposed my personal comment for direct inclusion in the article. And again, by not claiming that I proposed it for inclusion (easily falsifiable) yet incessantly commenting as if I had done so, you make it very hard for me to defend myself against this unfounded attack. (Essentially the same unethical technique that I mentioned in the previous paragraph wrt sourcing.)

Example: "The first link Doc provided is showing that Hans made a specific claim that 'male genital mutilation' is 'the more politically correct term' without providing a reference." Zad68, you object when I ascribe you motivations. If you don't like that, then please act in such a way that I have a chance to assume good faith. This is not how to do it. Most readers of your comment will assume that "Hans made a specific claim" means I proposed it for inclusion in the article and will not follow the link, where they would see that I did not. Of course you are profiting from plausible deniability. It might be that you just misspoke. However, as these little 'mistakes' pile up and you don't even correct them, let alone apologise for them, quantity slowly turns into quality and it gets harder to resist the interpretation that you are being intentionally manipulative.

It has gone so far that we even have editors looking for sources for what I supposedly proposed for inclusion, to defend me. So the technique even works on those editors who are on my side and are prepared to do some research.

This misrepresenting and attacking what you consider the weakest point in my long list came after simply claiming it had been addressed didn't fly. The one thing that is missing is actual communication in the proper sense. You know, the thing that leads to compromise and an article that everyone is proud of.

Anyone who thinks I am full of shit, just search for my name in the archives of Talk:Circumcision. There you will see how I was trying for a long time to argue with a row of police in riot gear and with lowered eyepieces. That's the background for my current frustration and for my statements about the editing atmosphere at the article, and about what works and what doesn't work. Hans Adler 10:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly then this means the problem is worse than I thought. You made a rather contentious statement that male genital mutilation is a more politically-correct term. Assuming good faith, Doc James and I both read your comment as a genuine proposal to add content to the article, and you were asked for sources to support it. In the conversation on your User Talk you discussed looking for sources for it, and stated you didn't have any--to me this sounded like you were indeed serious. Now here you're saying you never intended that claim to be an article content change suggestion in the first place. So what actually happened is that you used a Wikipedia article content discussion page to air your contentious personal views regarding the article topic, and it interfered with discussion. This is another example of exactly the point I am bringing forward in this ANI discussion. Zad68 14:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly also, the name differences represent biases in the medical community that write articles about this. Surly male circumcision is genital mutialtion. Not of the same character as female genital mutilation, but it is still mutilation. Cutting off the hand of a baby is of course worse than cutting off the little finger, but nobody can claim that cutting off the little finger (or the foreskin) is not also mutilation. The name differences in the medical community probably arises from where the medical community that publishes about these things comes from. I doubt that the medical community in countries practicing female genital mutilation calls it female genital mutilation. They probably call it female circumcision. But the medical community publishing about these things doesn't come from Africa. It comes from USA and Europe where nobody practices female circumcision. USA and Europe does however practice male genital mutilation, and therefore it is called male circumcision in the literature.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're new to Wikipedia so a bit of background: For content discussions, especially about controversial topics, it's really important that, instead of making general comments based on our own opinions, we cite reliable sources and represent them accurately. We have a secondary source, the book Surgical Guide to Circumcision by Bolnick, Koyle and Yosha, that reviews the positions of the world's major medical organizations (Chapter 1, "Current Circumcision Trends and Guidelines," pp. 3-8). They call out the Royal Dutch Medical Association (the KNMG) as the major medical organization having the most negative view of circumcision. In the KNMG's own Viewpoint document on the subject, "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)", the KNMG uses "circumcision" and does not refer to it as "male genital mutilation", although they list a small activism organization that does. However once again this is a separate topic for the article Talk page. Zad68 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(posted after two edit conflicts and a real-life interruption) Congratulations, Zad68. Your response is so weird that I hardly know what to respond to that nonsense. But I will try anyway.

• The passage from me that you are referring to starts with "This question [i.e. for sources for MGM being the politically correct term for circumcision] is not constructive." Do you take me for so stupid that I consider asking for sources for proposed article content unconstructive?
• My second sentence: "The claim that 'male genital mutilation' is a more politically correct term than 'circumcision' is a political claim and as such cannot be proved or stated as fact in the article." So that's me saying explicitly that the article can't say it. No need to look for sources. "No doubt there are reliable sources making this claim (I am pretty sure I saw some when I last researched the non-medical literature on circumcision), but as these won't help us [...]." They won't help us because (a) nobody ever made the change proposal that you and Jmh649/Doc James are trying hard to foist on me, and (b) sources of that kind would be insufficient for that strawman change proposal.
• Then in my third paragraph I continued with a much weaker proposal, which incidentally is also something I was asking for from the start and that I am still asking for: "But such reliable sources [added for clarity: i.e. sources which claim MGM is the politically correct term or even just making the connection] are not even required for saying in the article: 'The analogous surgical procedure for females, clitoral hood reduction, is known as type Ia female genital mutilation.' [Added for clarity: This is just an example formulation. The real problem is that FGM isn't even mentioned.] This could easily be supported with references to the political debate, the extensive section 'Female genital mutilation vs. NTC' in the KNMG paper, legal opinion in Germany, Scandinavian laws and ombudsman positions etc., all of which would show that this modest sentence is by no means making an original connection."

Back to MGM. When I originally asked for the term to be discussed in the circumcision article a year ago, male genital mutilation still redirected to the article. As I have since become aware, that is no longer the case. It now redirects elsewhere. Turns out that when that was proposed, I agreed immediately [84], removing the foundation for this particular complaint of mine. (Obviously I did so because I'm a reckless POV warrior trying to score a point.) If I had still been aware of that when I copied my old list, I would have dropped the item from my list. Then you and Jmh649/Doc James would have had to look for another strawman. Hans Adler 17:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your choice to include your assertion that it's a "more politically correct term" appeared to be given as justification in support of the proposal, otherwise why did you include it? Why couldn't you have just said "The term male genital mutilation is never used"? This brings us back to my point that airing contentious personal views about article topics interferes with communication, which is the reason why we're having this ANI conversation.

(Is this one item possibly just a language barrier thing? You've stated you're a non-native speaker of English, and I don't think any native English speaker would use the phrase "more politically correct" in this way, no matter what their personal views... "politically correct" is generally meant to indicate phrasing designed to give offense to the fewest people.) Zad68 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It was an unfortunate choice of words: a political statement more than a subjective claim of fact. And no, it's not a false friend issue.

"Your choice to include your assertion that it's a "more politically correct term" appeared to be given as justification in support of the proposal, otherwise why did you include it?" Don't you think your choice to refer to my words a year ago with the words "your choice" is a bit silly? I don't know about you, but even in my peer-reviewed publications only a tiny percentage of words has been carefully chosen, rather than spontaneously written to get across a specific, carefully chosen point. Were you so impressed with my long list that you thought I had carefully crafted it over the period of a week, maybe with input of a committee? In that case I am afraid I will have to disabuse you. I am only an amateur Wikipedia editor, neither willing nor able to expend that kind of effort.

I am not a professional editor, and Wikipedia is an extremely unprofessional environment. That includes the current state of the circumcision article, your behaviour, Jmh649's behaviour (not just his signing habit) and of course mine. As an aside, Wikipedia's unprofessionalism is why I was so furious when during an Arbitration case (related to a situation in which I tried hard to prevent the continued trampling of the feelings of adherents of the religion that circumcises its older boys) I was called out by arbitrators for supposedly being unprofessional. You may be happy to hear that they even "reminded me" to use "an appropriate degree of civility" when dealing with insane incivility.

The two of you have obsessed over a single sentence of a long post that you have otherwise ignored. You have done so in a way that I would consider rude, hostile and unprofessional, not to mention uncollegial, even if done to a sentence picked from a high-profile scientific publication. I think this proved my point that constructive discussions of the article's scope and biases are not, in practice, permitted by you, the current owners. Hans Adler 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As it's now understood it was an unfortunate choice of words, no worries and I won't bring it up again. I very much welcome constructive discussions, but I feel very strongly that we can't have constructive discussions if they're littered with contentious personal views and/or original research. My views here are in line with WP:TPG. Hans, if you'll agree to do your very best to avoid airing your personal views/original research (and retract it when called on it), adhere to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines—especially the requirement to provide reliable sourcing to support suggested changes, and allow outside admins/experienced neutral editors to make course corrections when our conversation goes off track, I'd be happy to drop this ANI. What are your requirements of me? Zad68 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not going to give you any formal promises that I can be hung up from if I don't follow them. I can't predict future details of my approach. I am usually pretty consistent though in following my conscience and my instincts of what is appropriate. (These may differ from Americans' due to my different socialisation.) I do not necessarily follow the words of policies and guidelines; I follow their intent, and if words and intent differ I may well make sure that the words are corrected. I do not cave in to hollow authority, though I am aware I must try not to overdo it. (I still think Drmies' hatting was a bit overzealous, but in retrospect so was my full revert. I was primarily not thinking of the first paragraph.) As an aside, in case you have drawn conclusions from the fact that I am not an admin: That's by choice, as I feel I have enough tools at my disposal and can act more freely.

Circumcision is one of the few topics where in practice there are no neutral editors because the pool of enthusiastic non-neutral editors is too big to allow neutral editors to make any impact. But the easiest way to make me correct a course is to actually communicate with me and where appropriate convince me I am wrong about something. Seriously. I have years of professional training on noticing when I am wrong.

With so little on offer, I have only one wish: That we will finally discuss the article – both details and overall effect on the reader – in a constructive atmosphere. It would be really great if you could help with that. And then you will see that I am actually not as extreme as I appear at first when I am trying to change a bias. While I wouldn't personally mind the article expressing my personal opinions, that's definitely not what I am going to push for. I am still a Wikipedian first. Hans Adler 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I want a constructive atmosphere too, that's my whole point. For us to have one we need to stick to sources and content policy and avoid using the article Talk page to air personal opinions. Hans can I ask you directly: With this response are you indicating an intention to change your behavior at all? If the answer is Yes, we can be done here. Zad68 01:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans, you said above that "there are no neutral editors" in circumcision, and although I only became aware of this comment today, you said a year ago that "SandyGeorgia is an American editor and often edits medical topics, so it is not surprising that she missed the extreme American and medicalisation bias of this article. Hans Adler 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)". There we have another indication of where more AGF and less combativeness might yield better results. You know little or nothing of my cultural background in general, or my personal views on circumcision, specifically. When you make assumptions about other editors based on nationality, or anything else for that matter, the tendency seems to be then for you to react to requests for sources with a battleground mentality. It's not. Yes, I support both RS and MEDRS above all, no matter my personal preferences or biases, but I would have been able to understand your concerns if you had simply engaged in good faith without the hyperbole. Please try to not make assumptions about other editors' beliefs or perceived biases based on nationality, and if you'll leave the battleground out of discussions, it will save everyone a lot of time and agida.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to "Assuming good faith" (up there somewhere): Interpreting an editors opinion as intent to insert unsourced material into an article, and then using that interpretation as grounds for topic banning the editor is not assuming good faith. NE Ent 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Zad Apparently you are unaware of the differentiation made between the fields of prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics with regard to the naming versus the describing of phenomena.

In short, there is absolutely nothing innacurate with describing the cutting off of the foreskin of the sex organ of male infants as "genital mutilation", the same manner as is used to describe the practice of disfiguring the sexual organs of female infants.
The religious and/or historical (i.e., pre-modern hygienic practices) are not relevant to the present discussion. They may have originated on the basis of intentions that are at variance, but that is, I repeat, irrelevant to the present discussion. Moreover, the question is not related exclusively to the field of medicine.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ban. The way to deal with this dispute is to work through it not to remove one strong, intelligent, experienced party from the discussion giving others a free reign. I've been watching this discussion and many like it for along time. MEDRS is a means to protect the health of the readers, but let me be perfectly blunt. It has been used in multiple circumstances to shield content and sources from fair scrutiny and to disallow some good RS content. Hans Adler is raising some good points in regards to this article but as with many articles where MEDRS is involved he was met with derision and attack. Did he seem to become frustrated with that, yes. Is that blockable? In my mind, no, not unless there are more blocks handed out, but there is a prevailing wind right now on Wikipedia that uses MEDRS to control and cover other issues. I for one, and I suspect some nasty little comment will again be lobbed at me, intend to comment when I see this happening. I have very good reasons that I believe will impact this encyclopedia in the long run so please do not discount my comments in anyway to oppose a sanction here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

• Tally By my count two days, 9 support, 13 oppose -> time to close. NE Ent 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  NE Ent for as active as you are at ANI it's surprising you don't seem to be applying the principle that consensus isn't determined by a vote count; rather it's based on the strength of the arguments. In my view it looks like many of the oppose !votes aren't based on the behavior documented here and instead are based on interactions people have had with Hans in other areas of the project, general dislike of WP:MEDICINE, and in at least one case, based on no reason at all. If you wouldn't mind I have one last question for Hans, could we keep this thread open until that's answered? Zad68 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Mark Arsten. It's a rare Talk page comment by Hans Adler on this topic that doesn't include some sort of irrelevant dig at other editors, or that does include a suggested change in article content based on reliable and relevant secondary sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per how to use article pages, the use of talk pages goes far beyond "a suggested change in article content based on reliable and relevant secondary sources." -- in fact, it explicitly says "The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. " (emphasis mine). Some examples of Hans's contribution include [85],[86],[87],[88],[89]. NE Ent 02:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not "go far beyond that" and your quote does not suggest otherwise. And unsourced personal opinion sexual abuse claims are just disruptive and inflammatory on that talk page, so the discussion drowns under the weight of such as that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ban. oppose ban per editor little olive rationale. Also @ Flyer -proposing missing content inclusion is not soapboxing, despite your somewhat diminishing suggestion that this might be so above. This is,in fact one of the primary and politest functions of an article talk page.If you dislike any proposed content you are free to continue to say so, as you do, often, and at length. -please re-read policy more carefully.There is a particular carelessness on the Circumcision talk page by many editors who really should know better than so carelessly citing policies - for instance weight is what it says on the tin - more about emphasis that about inclusion or non inclusion and so information about some considering cutting bits off any child's genitals modification at best or mutilation SHOULD be mentioned in a balanced article. Hans Adler has had the energy and courage to continue to speak out on this prematurely awarded "Good" article and should be supported not castigated. Perhaps other editors who by their silence on it and positions taken should declare ethnic, religious or other pro or con circumcision positions which may influence their edits, revert pattern, posturing and collusions within and without WP concerning this article. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht the littleolive !vote that this oppose is citing is one of the general anti-WP:MEDICINE !votes that doesn't actually address the behavior in the diffs given. You are a self-declared tendentious editor at this topic (see whole conversation here), and have developed into a single-purpose account regarding circumcision, I calculate about 98% of your edits over the past year have been related to it. Your attitude toward and understanding of Wikipedia content policy can be understood from this RFC you started that closed like 20 to 2 against your position, the exchange starting with when I asked you "What Wikipedia policy supports these proposed edits?" illustrate it best. You appear to believe your personal moral assessments should trump WP:DUEWEIGHT, see [90] for an example. I'm hoping whoever closes this thread will take this into account in determining how much weight should be given to this !vote. Zad68 15:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, you do indeed WP:Soapbox at the Circumcision talk page, over and over again...with the same or similar comments. I barely comment at that talk page, so there is no "often, and at length" with regard to me on that front. I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; so I don't need to read any of them more carefully. You do, however. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad. I respect that you are dealing with diffs. Many wouldn't bother. However, you don't have the right to dismiss my or any editor's vote based on assumptions about personal positions, in this case that my vote is anti-medicine. I wonder where you are getting your information, Please note my vote and comments on the medical disclaimer discussion which supports a disclaimer because it will protect our readers. Even if I was an anti- medicine vote that does not give anyone permission to discount my or any editor's position and opinion. That's as bias I would hate to see propagated. Further, In my comment I address Hans Adler's behaviour in general, which is perfectly acceptable position, and as someone would who had been watching this editor for years. I note in my comment that he is frustrated, a clear but oblique reference to the diffs and the discussion which I have been watching closely. I also imply that his behaviour is a reaction. But since my comment wasn't clear enough: I am suggesting there was considerable baiting going on, and that I watched a very standard procedure among some editors to remove those who stand in their way. Hans Adler to be more straight forward, is intelligent, experienced and in my opinion, for the most part neutral, and fights for that neutrality. He has integrity and is honest although he can also be abrasive. Wikipedia needs him and this article which is owned needs his viewpoint and abilities too. I note the tone and snarkiness and arrogance of some of those who dealt with HA, and while one should not bite when baited, one should not bait either. My position and vote is worth what anyone else's is here. I respect your sense of neutrality and fairness, and I hope you will with draw your ill advised comment or at the least consider more carefully, in the future, judgments that cast a shadow both on editors and their motives.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

• Support. Reluctantly as I believe Hans has an important perspective to offer. However, I'm struck by an overweening sense of entitlement in the contribution of this editor to the talk page; that is, that their opinion and perspective, without significant reference to sources, is of direct relevance and validity to whatever topic arrives on that talk page - to the point where advice on proper genital hygiene appears to be offered [91]. And this is to say nothing of the entirely inane, unreflective - and unresearched - supposition prosecuted above that would equate child sexual abuse with male circumcision. Regardless, I wouldn't favour an indef topic ban - 1 month would be fine for an editor in otherwise good standing. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm an outsider to the general debate, and have not interacted with Hans or with the circumcision article. Reading through this thread, it's clear to me that Hans Adler has been acting disruptively, per WP:BATTLE, in an unapologetically biased manner. His defense and protection of manifestly inappropriate behavior by an anon makes collaborating on Wikipedia harder for everyone, and he has been unwilling to entertain the possibility that his edits were inappropriate. He defends that is it "normal for a European to be outraged", and when it was suggested that everyone should behave like mature adults, he counters "Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing, because mature adults are shouted down with appeals to earlier consensus and nobody notices their protest." This defense of anger and immaturity is totally antithetical to the spirit of collaboration on Wikipedia. What's more distressing is that it appears to me that the !vote comments by some here (not all) are primarily motivated by their stance on circumcision itself, not by the analysis of Hans's behavior, which is clearly out of line. I think a topic ban would be appropriate, and if that is not done, I think something must be done to show that it such behavior is unacceptible on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• In fact, the IP comments in question were removed, and Hans in no way interfered with that process. What he pushed back against was failure to follow policy, which suggests "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page.". NE Ent 14:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a demonstrably untrue characterization as can be seen from the actual diffs [92] [93] and his own comments like [94] and [95] that show he never had a concern that the IP's comments were in any way inappropriate. Zad68 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• For all this rhetoric, what we haven't achieved yet is a neutral article. I've just read around the topic area, and if I was uninformed about the subject, I would have emerged with the view that circumcision is a perfectly normal and relatively uncontroversial practice, like cutting a child's hair, that only a few people really object to, and has real health benefits in AIDS-rich areas (an idea which seriously strains my credulity). We do need to present a more truthful picture of this subject area by putting the medical and ethical debate much higher up the agenda in the article.—S Marshall T/C 06:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm no fan of this practice (neutral leaning toward opposed) but last I checked (just before my son was born, so some years ago now) the AIDs claims looked solid. It was a coordination correlation without clear causation, and the cause could easily have been economic (only done by wealthier families) or cultural. But it was pretty strong as I recall and weighed quite a bit in my thinking on the issue. Hobit (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we might be concerned that someone who states that the "idea" that circumcision "has real health benefits in AIDS-rich areas ... seriously strains [his] credulity" is weighing in and alleging POV without apparently having reviewed what reliable secondary sources say on the topic-- one example (of which there are many). Discussions of POV are usually more productive with sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment and rebuttal- @ Zad -it is distressing to notice a pattern developing in your talk page behaviour Zad, where you label contributions of other editors and then subsequently and repeatedly attribute such labelling to its subject. Poor form Zad - and transparent too. @Flyer - your definition of your participation at WP circumcision as "barely commenting" is very easily proven wrong. You are a strong proponent of the article in its current truncated form. As to my own editing pattern or stance and despite Zad maintaining that I edit this article almost exclusively- I have long since given up editing the article page at all at all{ chiefly because the coterie of editors who maintain the article in its current damnably unbalanced state (as S Marshall succinctly describes above) blanket revert without debate,and group condemn most attempts at inclusion of any material from several commercial, sociological, economic and cultural aspects of this form of child (and less often adult) genital body modification and excision.} I think it important that the merry blinkered dance towards "featured" status slow down a little and will continue to exercise my right as an editor in good standing to debate how to improve this,or any article I choose on their respective talkpages. Attempts to intimidate other editors with misattributed policy references are counterproductive and unworthy of senior editors. The chief points I raised in my previous entry on this page remain unanswered. Is there any single pr-circumcision editor who is active on this page prepared to declare that a personal leaning (for whatever reason) in favour of circumcision may,even only at times, influence their individual or group behaviour ? Or that group planning of tag team edit ambushes takes place off campus ? A solution in the medium term may be to have two medical "sub " articles one describing the "surgical procedure" article and the second about the "medical culture" article surrounding it and to initiate a very different "flagship" article that does truly illustrate an over view of every aspect of circumcision - from its depiction in literature and comedy to its soft science,legal history, and psychoanalytic aspects including an overview of the area of MC that the current article focusses so heavily upon --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 14:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, you stated, "@Flyer - your definition of your participation at WP circumcision as 'barely commenting' is very easily proven wrong. You are a strong proponent of the article in its current truncated form." I state in reply to that: "Um, no. And this is very easily seen by anyone who checks that article's edit history to see just how many times I've commented there and in what way. Do I believe that the Circumcision article is fine as is? Yes. Do I care much about that article or the topic of circumcision? No." That you can even misrepresent my involvement with that article, and in such a boasting way, when it can easily be proven that you are wrong on that front, it just goes to show what Zad68 and others mean about your argument skills (or lack there of). And as for you editing the Circumcision article almost exclusively... It's that you edit the Circumcision talk page almost exclusively (clearly shown by your contributions), and mostly to complain, belittle and mock. Flyer22 (talk) 09:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, people are eager to discuss their own views about the practice of circumcision, and how they think the article should look, but what's under question here is the inappropriate behavior of a specific editor. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• The article's failure to meet NPOV is not irrelevant, Quadell.—S Marshall T/C 15:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with S Marshall (hey, when you type that out, it's like you're a US Marshall! That's kind of cool). Drmies (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I do see that I may have appeared a little off topic above Quadell but it was a natural corollary. It is heartening to see other editors here appear to recognize/identify patterns of intimidation or exclusion which I have remarked upon before. i see Hans Adler's vociferousness as very much a response to, and expression of frustration with this. I do admire editors on both and neither side of this debate who have the energy and resources and time and dedication to WP to continue chipping away at improving the article. Perhaps this is sometimes WP at its best and the article need not be a camel - a horse designed by a committee ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 20:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is indeed on-topic, but not for the reasons being given. One's personal feelings that well-substantiated and supported medical findings "strain credulity" are simply not relevant. Please find the reliable systematic reviews that say the same things and post them on the article Talk page, and stop using unsupported claims as an excuse for justifying improper behavior. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Where have I used unsupported claims as an excuse for justifying improper behaviour? What I said is that our coverage isn't neutral, and that the article is misleading by giving too much weight to the pro-circumcision view, and that the medical claims in the article look unlikely to me. My view is that if they're accurate then they've been overemphasised. I have expressed no judgment about anyone's behaviour.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Read a few lines up, to a reliable source (one of many) that deals with the topic of your "strained credulity"; a well-positioned discussion of POV involves sources, and knowledge of the topic, not opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, okay, after reading around I'm prepared to accept that, but I'm still of the view that the 2009 study is given way too much emphasis in the article. As currently written, we've got the health benefits of circumcision in AIDS-prevalent areas placed front and centre, in the third paragraph of the lede, before even the basic topic of worldwide circumcision rates, while the ethical debate is buried way down in the depths of the article. I put it to you that the emphasis is plainly wrong and not NPOV at all.—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's probably not even just the amount of emphasis. Research in the medical sciences has extremely serious quality problems. [96] Usually there is a bias for interventions, especially for the use of pharmaceuticals. (The 'cleanest' manipulation technique is doing plenty of similar studies and publishing only those which accidentally say what you want. As effects tend to be rather small compared to random events, that actually works.) Doctors who consider circumcision unethical can't even do the best kind of research in the first place, and the other side, which has no qualms, seems to be exploiting this fact in some countries where people can easily be talked into circumcision for little recompensation. Overall, it is not surprising that there is disagreement among professionals. It's essentially a political topic and needs to be treated as such. The only way to treat it as a non-political, scientific, objective topic is by picking out one of the two camps as the arbiter of truth. Hans Adler 17:10, 17 January 2014‎ (UTC)

I think Quadell's comments here are exactly on target. Zad68 03:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I see that Quadell's comments are exactly OFF target. We are NOT here to discuss "the inappropriate behavior of a specific editor" Any awake judge would slap down and have such a remark withdrawn from a court record. I politely urge Quadell to withdraw it. We are here instead to discuss editor/admin Zad/Zach's allegations that another editor's personal feelings have not and will not permit him to debate the article subject. Zad/Zach has made a proposal based on his interpretation and projection of another editors position and mindset to topic ban this editor at his (Zad/Zach's) request. -— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 2:51 pm, Today (UTC−5)

So far, in so far as a vote count counts and from an entry above it appears that vote counts are important to the "ban" camp - we have 13 oppose ban votes and 2 "strong" oppose ban votes ( making 15) and 10 support ban votes and 1 support ban vote- on the condition that the alleged "disruptive behaviour' , to use Quadell's term, does not cease. Hans Adler's editing IS disruptive and tendentious. It is disrupting the sterile state of the article and its talk page. It is tendentious in strongly favoring a particular point of view in a way that may cause quality discussion and change- both things which the article+ talk page badly need. Long may his lum reek.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 19:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. There seem to be issues which make NPOV editing impossible. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. (and... only 31 hrs for the "Norwegian IP"? wow.) - ^theWOLFchild 06:28, 19 January 2014 (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 violations, edit warring, and probable socking by User:Clubintheclub

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.

---

First as an IP, then as a just-created account, User:Clubintheclub has repeatedly added unproven allegations of misconduct to Woody Allen. The allegations are rather graphic, and are characterized as unproven. Despite the edits being rejected and removed by multiple editors, most frequently myself, generally as BLP violations, the editor keeps adding them back, and has violated 3RR. Comments on various talk pages show sufficient expertise with WP principles and policies to support the inference that this is a "bad hand" account of an experienced editor (and the "if you exclude my content you're violating NPOV" is a standard trope of BLP violators). Request block of this account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Response from Club in the Club

I have requested mediation to solve this dispute (actually prior to your posting here. See the mediation page - you should have gotten a notification. You should try mediation before going to Administrator's noticeboard. Clubintheclub (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am a longtime lurker, new editor. Hope that we can resolve this amicably! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, false accusations by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has reported false allegations against me above after I tried to find a solution through mediation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has denied mediation. Summary of issue on the Woody Allen BLP can be found here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Woody_Allen_-_violation_of_NPOV_and_BLP_by_user_Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

Allegations against me for "socking" or "using multiple accounts" or being "a bad hand" are false and will be found to be true with any analysis of my usage patterns and IP.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has also violated 3RR and NPOV editing and ignores the BLP guidelines. I request an investigation into this behavior and sanctions against the account should the administrators find my concerns valid. Additionally, I request dismissal of the report Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has made against me.

I apologize to the Admin who has to deal with this petty dispute. Again, I attempted mediation but all parties must agree. :-/

Clubintheclub (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

More info on the specific page edits can be found here Talk:Woody_Allen#Sexual_Abuse_Allegations Clubintheclub (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Clubintheclub, if you continue to edit-war to restore unproven court-rejected allegations to the Woody Allen article without absolute consensus that doing so is in compliance with BLP policy I will block you. I am completely uninvolved from an admin standpoint and your actions on the article so far are unacceptable. A block for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not going to happen as he was correct in removing the disputed and incredibly contentious material while it is under discussion. Do you not see the irony in starting a section here decrying "false allegations" against another editor while potentially adding your own in to the article of a living subject? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Understood. If I understand you correctly, I should continue to promote discussion and come to a consensus in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • Yes. --John (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I've merged these complaints, warned Clubintheclub for 3RR and BLP, closed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's ANEW thread and will "keep an eye" on the new user in case he/she needs further support. I invite an uninvolved admin to formally close this unless anyone thinks further immediate action is required. --John (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2014 (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.

Gil Brendan D´Angels

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.

---

Gil Brendan D´Angels (talk · contribs) Has persisted in posting various versions of what is either a hoax or a highly promotional autobiography in spite of repeated warnings and deletions. See the user's talk page and deleted contributions especially. There are zero helpful contributions. I would like support for an indefinite block as per WP:NOTHERE. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure he'll get an indef because the last (not final) warning was given to him/her a few months ago. Also, other than the warnings, everything else listed on the talk page isn't in English, so it's a little difficult to understand exactly what is going on. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at his deleted contribs, you will see that this editor started by posting what was in form an article about himself (or someone of the same name as the user name at least), which if not a Hoax, would be highly promotional. It was deleted as a Hoax multiple times. Variant versions of this have been re-posted in several locations on multiple occasions. More recently, this editor has taken to posting what seems to be a longer version of this same text, but in Spanish. It is in any case, pretty clearly not an attempt to communicate with anyone at Wikipedia, and so does not belong on the user talk page. See [this edit to the user talk page, this edit to the sandbox and this recreation of the user page. DES ^(talk) 20:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Only admins can look at deleted contributions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. He ignored the final warning and the ANI notice, and it's clear he was only here to promote himself. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (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.

Continued violation of WP:Original research at List of metro systems

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

---

This article uses user-invented criteria to list metro systems, including arbitrary numbers with no direct, reliable source. An example of this is that a subway must have a headway of 10 minutes in order to be listed. While sources do mention "high fequency of service", they do not give a direct number that backs up this 10 min rule, hence making the invention of a 10 min rule a breach of WP:Original research. User:IJBall is continuously ignoring consensus held by other editors to remove this 10 min rule, and despite multiple warnings of violating WP:Original research, it has now come to a point where he is deliberately manipulating a reference to mislead others and suit his own need. It appears that discussion alone will not result in a consensus due to User:IJBall continuously violating WP:Original research. I request actions taken by an admin to deal with this user's non constructive behavior. Massyparcer (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Massyparcer, I have supplied multiple references, which you continue to ignore. I also have made no claim about keeping the specific "10 minute rule", just pointed out that, by reference, headway must be considered as a criteria. That is all. --IJBall (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations here please. I have not ignored the references but quoted all the information from the references to show that a 10 minute rule doesn't exist in the sources. High frequency of service must be considered but not by an arbitrary number invented by a Wiki user, which you have continued to claim out of nowhere in the talk page. WP:Original research makes it explicitly clear that "you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Massyparcer (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The "10 Minute Headway" number is derived from sources, which is the fact that you continue to ignore. But, at this point, I'll wait for a ruling on this from someone official looking at the transcripts. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Then put up a source here to prove your claim. This is the problem. You have never shown any source that mentions the 10 min rule directly and are continuing to invent an arbitrary number out of the air. At this point, you have declared on the talk page not to respond to me, which is not constructive. You need to talk with other editors, even if they disagree with you, to reach consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

NYC Transit Forums is one source you can use. Unfortunately, I can't find the page, and forums aren't reliable sources anyway. Why does the 10-minute rule need to be included, anyhow? All heavy rail underground systems (at least all that I know of) can be listed here. Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

UrbanRail.net is another source for the 10 minute headway figure. In any case, it matters because traffic volume (and, in the case of one reference, frequency) is a defining characteristic of "heavy rail" - otherwise, the system is a "light metro" (i.e. medium-capacity rail transport system), and not a "full" or "true" heavy rail metro system. Also, there are "premetro" light rail systems that have a "heavy rail" underground portion, but are not true "heavy rail" systems. --IJBall (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, the author of UrbanRail.net makes it explicitly clear from the beginning that the 10 min rule is his "personal definition" and hence can't used because it is original research that doesn't cite a single reliable reference. Read WP:SOURCES first which makes it very clear that sources relying heavily on "personal opinion" fall under questionable sources and self-published sources (i.e. unreliable sources). Massyparcer (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

There are premetro lines that exceed that requirement of more than 6 trains per hour. For example, the Green Line (MBTA). Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But systems like the Green Line have at-grade crossings, which rules them out as "heavy rail" metro. --IJBall (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So does the Chicago 'L'. The 'L' has eight rapid transit lines, four (Brown, Pink, Purple, and Yellow Lines) of which have at-grade crossings. Is the 'L' not a metro system, based on this? Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, though, MBTA's Green Line is mostly at street level, but the other lines are more underground. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Penwhale: True, but this is missing the point. Some metro lines with numerous grade crossings still qualify as metro lines, not light rail, because they pass the "10 minute headway" criteria mentioned above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe the difference between the two examples above is the number of grade-crossings per line. But I think this discussion here has veered too far afield, and it would probably be better if it was directed back to Talk:List of metro systems... --IJBall (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That or WP:DRN. Going to close this off now. Blackmane (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2014 (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.

COI on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Hello. I've been pointed here after asking the lovely IronGargoyle for advice on an issue that's been bugging me. Since I already summed up the issue when I asked him, I'll just be so bold as to quote it here:

Hello there. I have a question on how to process with something that's been bugging me for a couple of days now. Seeing as I'm not sure on where to ask (my issue doesn't seem to meet RFC/U requirements), and I've seen you being active (read: being faster reverting in Huggle than I was), I thought I'd ask you.

Here's a quick outline of my situation:

About two weeks ago, there was a user named Animalgatekeeper who was valiantly removing content from the RSPCA page, despite being reverted many times by various users. After he was finally blocked, I got an e-mail from the user through the Wiki, in which the user claimed to be the Head of Communications at the RSPCA. After discussing with the folks on IRC about the possibility of a fake, and verifying that there really is a person with that name and position at the company, I decided to give it a go and replied to the e-mail. It turns out that this person was indeed who he claimed he is. In the e-mail, I tried to explain to him what he did wrong and how he should proceed instead to the best of my knowledge. He seemed to understand what the issue was, and I figured the issue over. (PS: I uploaded a copy of the e-mail exchange here) However, a couple of days ago, out of curiousity, I checked up on the RSPCA page.

In the meantime, there seem to have been various edits done by two similarily named users, AdamB21 and RichB6. These two users seem to be desperate trying to mend some of the criticism in the article. A lot of the edits seem rather dubious to me. However, my entire "life" on Wikipedia is being a gnome, really, and I feel very insecure when it comes to editing of any kind.

For that very reason, I wanted to look for outside help.

What would you say the right course of action from here would be?

PS: If you can't be bothered, which I'd fully understand of course, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction on where to ask. :-)

In any case, thanks a lot. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, I don't know if this is all just in my head. But maybe it's not, so I'd be grateful for some input about this. It doesn't seem far-fetched that this may well have been the same person.

Now, as mentioned to IronGargoyle, I'm more of a casual Huggler. If you folks were to decide that this is something worth looking into, I'm happily willing to participate of course (e.g. make the SPI or something like that), but if anyone is willing to take over, that would be good as well. Thanks & cheers. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have an WP:OTRS system where someone can "prove" their identity, however, that still does not give them "ownership over the article - they still have to edit as per WP:COI. Indeed, Jimbo himself has stated that those with COI should not edit the article directly, but propose changes on the article talkpage to gain new consensus ES&L 09:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

On a quick look I see a lot of edit-warring going on, but absolutely nothing recent on the talk page, where these editors need to be directed to sort things out. Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

They may not all be the same editor. Animalgatekeeper's repeated section blanking, which clearly constitutes edit warring, is rather different from the attempts by AdamB21 (who has not edit-warred) to write accounts of controversial episodes in the charity's history that are based entirely on its own press statements. Except for one case of section blanking, which I reverted, I've tried to reformulate these modifications so as to deal with both sides fairly. I've also left a note on the editor's talk page. Both accounts now seem to be inactive. RichB6 seems to be making fairly honest attempts to correct inaccuracies. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia national association football team‎

Could an admin please step in to restore some sanity at this article. There have been two move requests in the past six weeks, both of which failed. The proposers of the move claim the article title is an NPOV violation, but they have not gained sufficient support for this position. Unfortunately, two editors have continued tagging the article with an NPOV tag after the discussion was closed, despite the failure of the proposal (WP:FLOG). Due to the extremely unpleasant atmosphere created in the debate by the proposers of the move (basically accusing anyone opposing the proposal as being chauvinist/sexist/misogynist - which has continued in the discussion on the NPOV tag), I have no desire to continue to interact with the editors involved, but someone needs to put their foot down to stop the madness. Thanks Number 57 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at it now. Please join me in article talk and we will try to thrash it out. --John (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've started a formal RfC here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#RfC: How should articles on national sports teams handle gendered teams? I'm now going to a pub for a drink. Everyone be nice to one another. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any good reason Clavdia chauchat still has an empty block log? All her (at least recent) contribution to the article seems to be edit warring over the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Her behaviour (on talk pages) was recently raised on ANI as a result of a continuation of her long-runnung vendetta on the article's talk page, but unfortunately ignored. Number 57 13:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If the roles were reversed, that might tell me I was offended over nothing. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Four reverts in eight weeks, all accompanied by contributions to the ongoing talk page dispute. See WP:NPOVD: "An editor should not remove the tag merely because he or she feels the article does comply with NPOV: The tag should be removed only when there is a consensus that the disputes have indeed been resolved." There is categorically no consensus that the dispute is resolved. As I see it the reasons provided for removing the tag have been: "I think the article is neutral so I'm unilaterally removing the tag despite the dispute" (Number 57) and "This dispute is dragging on a bit, let's remove the tag which serves as notification of the dispute (?)" (Sionk). For experienced editors this is lamentable. There should be much more respect for Wikipedia policy and fellow editors. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking or warning an 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.

---

Please take a look at the discussion between me and another editor on Rebecca Chamberlain. Firstly, this editor completely ignores some of my queries when I answer all of hers and she's particularly aggressive: Tells me to follow rules that she doesn't herself, and runs on with commentary before I've even finished editing. But mostly I'm annoyed because after giving me a list of where citations were needed, she comes up with another list. Can editors even do this?! I don't think Jeff Koons or Richard Serra's articles have warranted this much referencing. thank you--Aichik (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if the disagreement warrants a block, but I listed the situation at WP:3. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added comments to the article talk page about what I think happened.

In the meantime Aichik has tagged two articles I worked on sometime ago: The Guild of Boston Artists article with a "Refimprove" tag, when there were no missing citations. Farmhouse in Provence was also tagged. This may have been a misunderstanding. The citation was placed at the end of a list of bullets, which the user may have thought meant that only that sentence. There was one sentence that included the source in the sentence - and I formatted that into a citation. I posted a warning on her talk page about the non-constructive tagging of the Boston Guild article and a likely misunderstanding for Farmhouse in Provence at User talk:Aichik#January 2014. --CaroleHenson (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What do these have anything to do with our work on Rebecca Chamberlain? The fact of the matter is that you exaggerated my use of Myspace. Then I added Facebook LATER, again only using it once. I start to address the issues you bring up with my citations then you make another long list? I think you're having a hard time focussing and just need to take a break.--Aichik (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This is really not a posting for ANI. LadyofShalott 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Paid editing at Whisper (app) - it's getting weird.

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.

---

Yesterday, paid editing at Whisper (app) came up on AN/I, so I went over there and cleaned up the article, which read like an ad. The article had been edited mostly by two SPAs and an anon located in the same city as the company's headquarters. Today we're having an edit war of sorts. Big deletion by an anon 72.87.239.18 (talk · contribs), plus putting in some names of people associated with the company.[97]. Anon gets reverted, anon repeats same edit, anon gets reverted by a different editor. The anon is about to hit 3RR, so they can't edit again.

Then it gets strange. ViceAdmiralColorge (talk · contribs) suddenly becomes active and puts in the same material as the anon. That account hadn't made an edit in five years. Whomever is now using that account also deleted the old info on the user page about the individual. [98] Did someone just take over an old account and use it for paid editing? I asked why they did the deletion on Whisper on their talk page, but did not receive a reply.

Anyway, I'd like to ask for a few days of semi-protection on that article until this is figured out. A sockpuppet check between the anon and the old account may be indicated as well. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Semi for one week. --AdmrBoltz 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the editing history of ViceAdmiralColorge (talk · contribs), which is sparse and narrowly distributed over certain specific articles, I suspect this was more a case of someone in the company complaining about getting changes reverted, and a coworker saying, "Wait a minute, I have a Wikipedia account I used to edit from". I wouldn't jump straight to an account takeover or paid editing. bd2412 T 19:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Plausible. We must assume good faith. Anyway, there are enough eyes on the article now to keep it from turning back into an ad, and hopefully things will quiet down. John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2014 (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.

TheRedPenOfDoom gaming the system

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.

---

Hello. I have recently been donating my valuable free time to help out with the Abby Martin situation. (For those not familiar with it, see backstory discussion here and here) To make a long story short, I've been working on improving a sandbox version of the proposed article (here and here) For some reason, User:TheRedPenOfDoom visited both of those articles and removed the lead image, which was, TTBOMK, appropriately licensed from RT.[99][100] Aproximately six minutes later, User:Natuur12 deleted the licensed image from Commons.[101] When I attempted to discuss this issue with User:TheRedPenOfDoom, he refused to answer any questions about the image, ignored my patient queries, and instead treated me with derision.[102] Curious as to how an image can be removed by one user on Wikipedia without discussion and then deleted six minutes later by another user on Commons, I looked at the deleting admins user talk page. On their talk page, I discovered that the admin frequents an IRC channel used for identifying problematic images (Jouw foto's kwamen ter zaken op de IRC dat er mogelijk auteursrechten geschonden waren). It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce that TheRedPenOfDoom bypassed all forms of discussion and requested deletion of an image on IRC without discussing it, and refusing to discuss it when asked. I would like some feedback from administrators on how to handle this problem user. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It must be a full moon out. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If an article or image meets the criteria of speedy deletion, it wouldn't be unreasonable to ask an available admin on IRC to delete the image. It would achieve the same result as posting a speedy deletion template. The important aspect is that there is transparency of the deletion. Natuur12 stated that the image was deleted because it was a screenshot of a copyrighted show and commons requires all images to have free licenses. While it was a good idea to contact the deleting admin for further explanation, I would recommend that you avoid antagonizing the situation. Natuur12's last action was at 22:38 January 16 and your first post occurred at 00:51 January 17. Let's assume good faith. It's likely that he or she has stepped away from the project and has not yet seen your message. Only if he or she continues to edit and then ignores your messages would it be a possible concern. If discussion were to fail, you could always contact another administrator or post at Commons:Undeletion requests. As for TheRedPenOfDoom's comments, were they a bit cheeky? I might agree. Was there a misuse of administrator tools? I do not think so, from what is visible to me. As I'm not a commons admin, I cannot agree or disagree with the image deletion and I do not see any concerns on en.wikipedia. If you feel that TheRedPenofDoom's comments towards you are uncivil enough that there needs to be a proper discussion, you are welcome to follow the procedures at dispute resolution. Mike V • Talk 05:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

RT does release some of their videos on YouTube under a Standard Youtube License, meaning they would be copyrighted. As I noted below, however, they also release some videos under a Creative Commons license. Specifically, a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 unported license as indicated on YouTube's page here. While I cannot see the specific image, the Google cache shows it was said to be lifted from this video, which is released under the CC license. I believe this is a commercial license acceptable here on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Many other images do exist on Commons of screencaps from RT programs. You are right that this seems to be perfectly acceptable as the official RT YouTube account uploads programs under a Creative Commons license allowing reuse. I believe TRPoD and the admin in question may have simply presumed that screencaps from a news channel were not freely licensed and thus for them it seemed like an obvious delete. Red Pen should have paid closer attention to what you were saying and not just talk smack, but I do understand why he presumed it was a copyright violation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The file has been restored. However the scenario discribed by Viriditas is not what happened. There was never any kind of request at the IRC-channel. When he posted the messages I was asleep so I couldn't react or read the messages. When the message was posted it was 01:51 in my homecountry. If you disagree with any of my actions just tell me and things can be sorted out without making administrator's requests and thinking of possible scenario's that didnot happened. There was no need for it, nor was there any need to rush this. This could have been resolved so much easier. I regret that I missed the license but we are all human and I'm not perfect. Natuur12 (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the file. If I was wrong for assuming there was a request on IRC based on your talk page history, then I apologize. But going from removal on Wikipedia to deletion on Commons in six minutes is unusual. What made you delete the file in the first place? Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed in how this played out. What appears to have been honest was laid out like some form of mortal sin, with accusations of gaming, with the "I'm a volunteer, this should not happen to me" card thrown in. Stop the drama by a) dealing with the main party directly first, b) assuming good faith. ES&L 09:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Be disappointed all you want, but know that I dealt directly with the main party and received no reply to my query for over two hours.[103] My good faith expired after two hours of failing to get any answer as to 1) why was the file removed, 2) why was the file deleted, and 3) were you aware that the license was valid, and that RT licenses images for use on Wikipedia? At no time during the course of that discussion did I receive any answer. I did, however, receive a heap of dramatic theatrics from TheRedPenOfDoom, who began this drama by following me to two separate sandbox pages and removing a lead image without discussion, an image that was then magically deleted from Commons six minutes later, by an admin who hangs out on IRC. The admin now claims that TheRedPenOfDoom did not request deletion on IRC, but we are still not given an answer as to how the image was deleted six minutes after TheRedPenOfDoom removed it erroneously without discussion. If you are trying to mop up the mess that these editors left behind, then you are too late. Blaming the messenger isn't going to work. I was working in good faith on a proto-article only to have my work removed and deleted without any rationale and without any discussion. That's unacceptable. Furthermore, any editor who removes content, better have a goddamn good reason, otherwise it is indistinguishable from harassment at best and vandalism at worst. When asked why the content was removed, no answer was received, even though an active discussion occurred on the talk page of the user. Finding that the image was actually deleted six minutes later with no discussion was simply icing on the cake. Clearly, something is rotten here, but nobody is talking. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Two hours? On a project where editors live around the globe? Not really good faith at play there at all ES&L 10:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I received four replies to my queries from TheRedPenOfDoom during those two hours, not one of which discussed the problem. There's no reason for him to be following me around and screwing with the page like this. If he wants to play in a sandbox, he's welcome to experiment in his own. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

But your real issue had to do with the deletion of an image on Commons - and as such, you were required to address the deleting admin on Commons. The image deletion has little to do with the English Wikipedia. If you think TRPoD has issues unrelated to images, then bring it up here but don't talk about Commons. If you neglected to discuss the deltion with the deleting admin, that's your own fault - if you discussed Commons deletions on English Wikipedia, I'd ignore the heck out of you too. ES&L 12:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It had a speedy tagg and I just missed the free license and that it was deleted within six minutes is just a coincidence since I just cleaned up a huge part of the missing source images and there where a couple of possible copyrightviolations left so I did those to. I simply made a mistake and I regret that. Just for the record, I talk seldon about stuff like this at the IRC-channel. I understand that you are angry but I already awnsered at my commons talkpage that I missed the free license. Any disputes you have with my actions should be discussed there and not here since I didnot preform any sysop action on this project. Natuur12 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2014 (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.

Usurpation and trademark claims at Mobonix

Please see Talk:Mobonix. Originally about one Mohammed Kabir. Usurping article about one Maurice White User claiming to be Maurice White (Markwinters1 (talk · contribs)) claims to own trademark on name "Mobonix". Illxchild (talk · contribs), creator of original article, has started an AfC on the talkpage, but I think this may go beyond a simple AfC. Dlohcierekim 02:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Markwinters1 (talk · contribs) claims to be Maurice White. But now we also have a Mauricelwhite (talk · contribs) involved. Socking? Impersonation? Grr. DMacks (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Look at: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91208466&pty=OPP&eno=16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricelwhite (talk • contribs) 04:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I am not seeing anything more than a cross-party legal threat. Wikipedia has generally covered trademarked words, such as Coca-cola, without serious problems. There's always an option for a disambig if both sides are using it, unless a WP:SPI investigation finds something --Marianian^(talk) 10:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If he's using Wikipedia to further a real world legal dispute, then we should block him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• I talked to someone about this last night, and he was of the impression that neither of the Mobonixes met WP:MUSICBIO, so we might be able to solve the issue by just deleting the page. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• Based just on content and present sourcing, I concur with the lack of notability, but have not performed WP:BEFORE thoroughly. I also don't see Wikipedia as having a dog in the fight between the competing claimants to the article/name/trademark/what-have-you. Dlohcierekim 16:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've nominated it for deletion. I hope no one minds me editing through protection to add the Afd template. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No. Net positive. Dlohcierekim 17:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, I'm not sure what you meant but a search on EBSCOhost and Nexis returned nothing (I'm at uni). --Marianian^(talk) 17:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I mean Mark editing through protection to nominate for deletion is a wonderful thing. Dlohcierekim 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I am the one who protected it, and am fine with the administrative AfD tagging. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

This dynamic IP hasn't edited since 5:35 today so there's no need for a block (and it is not a registered account either). Next time you spot IP vandalism, please inform WP:AIV. De728631 (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

---

User talk:24.152.167.212. The purpose of this user's account seems to be to make random and incorrect changes to climate data. Eg. [104]. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Uncivil Conduct & Insulting Language Usage of User:Kansas Bear

Reporting user:Kansas Bear for violation of WP:CIV and WP:TPG using Ad hominem abusive language. I made an edit on Hassan-i Sabbah EnWiki Article, the diff can be found below: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hassan-i_Sabbah&diff=589836561&oldid=589825202

Received this response from user: Kansas Bear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aretemetic#Since_you_have_a_reading_problem.....

Since you have a reading problem.....[edit] Hassan i Sabbah: Farhad Daftary, The Isma'ilis: Their History and Doctrines, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 311;"Hasan was born in the mid-1050s in Qumm into a Twelver Shi'i family. His father, 'Ali b. Muhammad b Ja'far b. al-Husayn b. Muhammad b al-Sabbah al-Himyari, a Kufan Arab claiming Yamani origins..." --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to report user:Kansas Bear for violation of WP:CIV for using insulting language on my talk page "Since you have a reading problem" Unacceptable abusive language and personal attack in violation of WP:CIV ,WP:TPG, WP:POINT and WP:DE

Notified User talk:Kansas Bear about this discussion. Aretemetic (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Why did you change the ethnicity to Persian twice despite having been reverted by Kansas Bear with the edit summary "restored referenced information, per article" and despite the contents of the article being inconsistent with your update ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Dealing with this sort of thing is tiresome/stressful/irritating/downright maddening at times. Sure, maybe KB should have kept his cool, but it just isn't always possible. I'd like an answer to Sean's question as well. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Well, this is not a matter of whining obviously. There are some clear code of conducts and protocols here at WP and by default it is mandatory to adhere them. If it is not possible for someone to write in a respectful manner and keep their temper, therefore maybe is not a good idea to be here!Aretemetic (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC) @Sean: Changed it because of inconsistency with the information in the Article. References were added by Kansas Bear the second time around, still this can be a matter of debate when writing a biography of a historic figure. Aretemetic (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Under certain interpretations, what Kansas Bear wrote on your talkpage isn't even uncivil. You changed the changed the sourced ethnicity of a historical figure to another ethnicity without citing any sources. When KB undid this change as unsourced, you're then supposed to go to the talkpage of the article to discuss. Instead, you simply changed the ethnicity back to your preferred version, without a source. KB reverted you again, implored you to use the talkpage, and then left a message at your talkpage with a mildly uncivil section title. No action is going to be taken against Kansas Bear for the "reading problem" comment, and you need to learn in the future to discuss an edit to an article once it's challenged instead of edit warring. 205.166.218.66 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Aretemetic has now removed the Arab ethnicity again(ie. (1)edit-warring), and added Rashid ud-din Fazalellah 'Jame-ut-Tawrikh', pg. 1 as a "source" for Persian ethnicity.[105] (2)Now does anyone believe that the Jami ut Tawrikh mentions Sabbah on page 1 of this book[106]? This is typical modus operandi of POV editing, (1)edit war, (2)fake sources, and attempts to remove editor(s) that disagree with him(see above). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's the text[107] - now it's up to Aretemetic to quote the whole sentence he claims says this and confirm the page number. It's that or be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Aretemetic, I think this shows the state of the article before the first of your 2 edits that changed the ethnicity, so your statement that you "Changed it because of inconsistency with the information in the Article. References were added by Kansas Bear the second time around" does not appear to be accurate. If you read the article and didn't see that information, and it wasn't "a reading problem", what explains your action ? An editor who considered ethnicity to be a matter of debate in this case wouldn't make an edit that stated ethnicity as a fact, so that statement does not explain your action either. Please provide a straightforward explanation for why you changed the ethnicity that is consistent with the evidence. If your objective is to advocate the notion that the subject was Persian for some reason just say so and explain why. Admins can then take the appropriate action based on your accurate description of your behavior. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looks like it's boomerang season again... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of Arakanese king pages by IP 78.179.27.173

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

---

This is to report changes by IP 78.179.27.173 (talk) on Arakanese kings. He's changed the religion to Islam without providing any citations. That they were Buddhist is not disputed in any scholarly book, I'm aware of, and is cited in the articles. I don't want to get to revert wars. Please look into it. Hybernator (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked 24 hours per this. Also, his edits have all been reverted by now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:174.16.246.163

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.

---

Clear legal threats by 174.16.246.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please see this diff.

Looks like the IP has already been blocked. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:45, 17 January 2014 (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.

Elephant Article

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

---

I recently added a discussion to the talk page on "Elephant". User Apokryltaros posted this warning on my talk page. I just thought that that was real uncalled for. All I did was suggest unprotecting the elephant page. And I get a warning of a block? 67.182.171.189 (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• That warning is really inappropriate. That being said, the article itself has had... issues in the past and it may very well end up being semi-protected for a long time. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Penwhale here. If Apokryltaros has not already done so, I suggest he retract that warning. LadyofShalott 03:56, 18 January 2014 (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.

Editing dispute on Capital FM Arena Nottingham article

I am not too sure of how to approach this issue. Rushton2010 has been blindly reverting edits to the Capital FM Arena Nottingham, despite factual information. The main dispute is former naming of the arena. The article focuses on the arena, which is a part of the National Ice Centre. This editor insists on constantly adding information that refers to the National Ice Centre and NOT the arena. The first action took place on 9 October 2013 when he/she reverted an edit over verbiage of past name. The arena was opened under the name "Nottingham Arena". The editor is claiming it's still acknowledged as Nottingham Arena, although is no local or national media source to support his/her theory. Also on that day, he added a bunch of erroneous previous/former names citing a "add name that is still on the roadsigns approaching the city", other names were included with no sources. On 20 October 2013 and 24 October 2013, I removed this names due to no sources, which the editor reverted citing vandalism. When the editor did decide to add sources, he/she references another WIKI site and TripAdvisor.

When an non-IP editor intervenes (in the article & on the user's page) he/she simply ignores and continues to revert edits citing disruptive editing. On 22 December 2013, the editor adds irrelevant information to the article. When Onepoint21GigaWatts disputes this information, he reverts the edits, citing disruptive editing and vandalism. On 12 January 2014, I reverted the edits citing information pulled directly from the arena's official website, which again, he/she reverts the edits citing vandalism. This followed by a dubious warning left on my talk page. This editor has clearly shown he/she is not in a position to discuss his.her edits in a reasonable manner. 50.152.18.168 (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Lets be very clear what is happening here. There may have been an argument for you to remove un-cited names -but for quite while they have all been referenced, and you continue to remove such reference material. On (at a quick count) 9 occasions you have removed referenced information from the article; and on another occasion used a [sock-puppet] to do the same. More recently adding in un-cited incorrect hidden text.
Yes, when I initially added an additional name, I did so without a reference, -using local knowledge and putting it in the edit summary so it was clear to other editors I was not pulling it from thin air, while I had no reference. I think you'll find nothing about that is wrong or improper. As per Wikipedia:Be bold - and just Wikipedia's general practice - information is added to articles all the time without references (especially these low interest local articles); usually with the intention of references added later - as I did. Other people have added things this article and never added references: eg. the fasting selling shows, the darts etc. Regardless, all the names have been cited with reliable references - including local newspapers and the tour archive of a band who played there- and yet you continue to attack only the referenced material.
On a side note, the TripAdvisor reference you mentioned was added for the bit in brackets. I personally had never heard of that full "Nottingham Arena At National Ice Centre", but stumbled across its use. As I am not a biased editor, and believe in wikipedia's policy [[Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth], I added it in as there was a source to verify it. It is not neutral editing to ignore such things you find during research. I would say I am happy for it to be removed, but then what right do I to decide referenced material should be deleted because I don't like it? - Maybe you should have a think about that one!

So I have added unsourced information months ago, it was removed, I added it back with references (Bold, revert, cycle).
You and your sock puppets have over a period of a few months repeatedly removed referenced materials...
Your only starting the ANI because you got here before me. I have reported your sockpuppetry and requested protection for the article to prevent further disruptive/vandalistic removals of referenced material.

Best -- Rushton2010 (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

user:Combie-tractor

For the last 6 hours, this user has been looking at new articles and placing some rather bizzare warnings.:

• [[109]] where an article is tagged as ref improve with ~65 references. When I tried to discuss the matter, I was summarily reverted: [[110]].
• Several examples of tagging an article for speedy deletion after an unreasonably short time e.g. [[111]]. I discussed this here [[112]] at 20:51 UTC. At 21:11 this happenned [[113]].
• Several incorrect templates, e.g. the example above where the article clearly states the article is about Tim Matthews a racing driver and yet is tagged as having no context. Again I tried to discuus the matter but was reverted : [[114]]

Combie Tractor has now done the following: [[115]] where the article has been tagged a minute after creation, with the wrong tag (Doesn't state importance when the article says the subject was an England Mascot). On the other hand, he has done nothing about the fact that the author apparantly has a conflict of interest.
I am sorry, but this editor does not seem to be competent to be doing this sort of work and judging by the way efforts to talk are just reverted then I don't see any prospect of competence being learn't. Can anything be done? Op47 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the messages on this user's talk page are explanations of why his/her speedy deletion tags are inappropriate. But I don't see any response on their part. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The user is continuing with his mistaken CSD tagging [116], [117], [118] --CutOffTies (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also had a problem with this user with a CSD based on an inappropriate section A7 suggesting that perhaps his understanding of the CSD criteria is not clear. In any case I've been a Wikipedia for eight years now and this is exactly why I've stopped contributing as much as I used to when I find a gap in Wikipedia. --LW (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

LW refers to an article called Ritmeyer. A quick search on Google showed that the article to which LW refers at one time included the words "Ritmeyer is a prominent niche piano company, known for making pianos of". Clearly, the article does make a claim of notability and should not have been deleted per WP:A7. Can the article please be undeleted? Op47 (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• He was inactive for 7 months, and the first thing the editor did upon returning to active editing was new page patrolling, CSD tagging, and refimprove tags. Something's not right here... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oy. User:Combie-tractor, in case it is unclear: you are not competent enough to perform new page patrols. Your overtagging drives editors away. Please stop immediately. My suggestion to the board here is that Combie be warned that his next poorly-executed new page patrol will result in a block to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. VQuakr (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Rajpurohit

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 bringing this report with unclean hands as I have been engaged in an edit war for the last two weeks.

On 22 Dec 13, I stumbled across the Rajpurohit article while on recent changes patrol. I looked through the article and relized that several editors had been attempting to drop unsourced, POV edits on a caste-related article. I reverted the changes and added the article to my watchlist.

On 3 Jan 14, Rajpurohit-Veer registered his account and made his first edit to the article. He was reverted four times by Sitush over the following three days.

On 11 Jan 14, I reverted RV's changes, since his edit had removed sourced content in favor of caste pushing. RV reverted back to his edit, telling me via his edit summary to read the info provided by the links. I checked the first link, Rajpurohit India, and realized the info he was adding was a direct copy-paste from the website. I proceeded to revert his change again on copyvio grounds.

RV reverted again and chided me for reverting, stating that it was not a copyvio since his community owns the website. I tried explaining that the info is still copyrighted, but he refuses to listen.

I admit that I know I was wrong to constantly revert, but the user is refusing to listen. The outcome I am looking for is for another editor to explain to this user that the info he is adding is still a copyright violation. I know that caste-related articles are under general sanctions, so if my conduct is found to be grossly disruptive, I will accept any sanctions given. I just want this copyright violation to be handled. Ishdarian 03:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have full protected while we sort this out (for 3 days). I think it's on the version with the questioned text in it, if I read the history right. I didn't intentionally lock the "wrong version" in - I just froze as is.

If any other admin confirms copyright status we should remove the info asap.

I am contacting the other editor on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ishdarian, the only problem with your editing is that you didn't report this situation sooner. You found someone who was repeatedly dumping nonfree copyrighted text into an article, and you and Sitush did the right thing in removing it; the exceptions to the three-revert rule include the removal of copyvio text. Copyvio text re-removed, both per what GWH says and per the copyvio exception in WP:PREFER. I've also blocked Rajpurohit-Veer: someone who persistently adds copyvios despite warnings just isn't getting the point and needs to understand that this isn't tolerated. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2014 (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.

TFA

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.

---

Today's featured article is Nigersaurus, and it's been hit with the inevitable re-spellings, along with image vandalism. I semi-protected it for three hours a while ago, but it will warrant closer attention that most TFAs for the next 20 hours. Acroterion (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to someone protecting this for the rest of the time that it is up, since it is inevitably going to get worse as the rest of the western world wakes up today. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2014 (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.

BookSpam?

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 issued a warning to a new user for promoting their book as BookSpam (refspam) and removed their additions but I have an established user that seems to disagree with my characterization. After explaining myself on the talk page, the established user decided to restore the bookspam while we were still discussing the matter and apparently did so inappropriately using rollback without an edit summary. I am asking for other eyes to opine on whether this is bookspam and on the use/misuse of rollback.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A new editor, in their first four edits, added a reference to an article in a professional journal (not a book) to three WP pages. The reference was completely on topic (archeology, remote sensing). It appears to be fine to me as "Further reading". There was no attempt to suggest that it was used as a source for the article. I am concerned that someone new, who is trying to add useful content is accused of furthering a private agenda (spam). --Greenmaven (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

On the rollback without summary - we had established our positions on the editor's talk page. There were three articles; I did not see a need for an edit summary on each one. My reasons for rolling back had already been stated. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is grounds for removal:"Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool."

I was looking for your reasoning based in policy through the edit summary and it never happened because you misused the tool. You didn't (don't) have a stance based on policy on the talk page either.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

One can't use Rollback like that. Using Rollback because one does not see the need to give an edit summary is absolutely not what the tool is meant for. No comment on whether the tool should be removed from this user, but I agree that Rollback was used improperly here. Doc talk 05:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that my use of rollback was improper. I have just read Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback. I had no idea the rules for use were so restrictive. The spam question is still open. I will agree that it is too specific to be relevant to Remote sensing. I think it can be justified for the other two articles. --Greenmaven (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The rules are quite restrictive. Unless it's deleting blatant vandalism, you must use the undo function every single time over Rollback, ideally with an edit summary attached. Doc talk 06:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. This is the first time I have been criticised for misusing the tool in the 13 months I have had it. I will be more careful now that I have had this explained. --Greenmaven (talk) 06:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I recommend that you be allowed to retain it. Cheers :> Doc talk 06:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Greenmaven, have you read the article that the new editor is trying to add? Why would you add this back again if you haven't? Why are you trying to justify their edits?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, but I have reviewed the table of contents and list of contributors, and given the reputable publisher, it seems legitimate and appropriate for "Further reading" at Remote sensing (archaeology). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It is improperly pushed into articles. Why would you assist bad behavior against policy? Here is their one and only contrib on the Deutsch wiki. Here is their contribs on Es wiki. Start looking and you'll see the account exists on other wikis now solely to spam this particular article. It should be ripped out of all of them with prejudice.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No I have not read the book. From an independent review: "This book provides a state-of-the art overview of satellite archaeology and it is an invaluable volume for archaeologists, scientists, and managers interested in using satellite Earth Observation (EO) to improve the traditional approach for archaeological investigation, protection and management of Cultural Heritage." it continues: "The authors are renowned experts from the international scientific community.

Audience: This book will be of interest to scientists in remote sensing applied to archeology, geoarcheology, paleo-environment, paleo-climate and cultural heritage." I gave my reasons for leaving the edits in on the Talk Page of the editor, at the beginning of this discussion. I still think it can reasonably be included on the two articles that are specifically about archeology. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I expressed the opinion that this book published by a reputable academic house was appropriate for further reading at one single article. Do you disagree? If so, why? This isn't crank theorizing by a self-published author. I don't monitor other language Wikipedias. New users are often over-enthusiastic and often need to have our policies and guidelines explained. Except for you and me, Berean Hunter, as we were exemplary from our very first edits. At least you were. So, I wouldn't conclude "bad behavior" so rapidly. If the pattern of behavior persists, then I may come to agree with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Letting the reference stand in one article, Remote sensing (archaeology), sounds like a good solution. --Greenmaven (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, it's spam, and yes it should be removed until someone provides a justification for including it. Casual editors have no idea how many spam links are added each day, and it is only hard work from volunteeers such as Berean Hunter that keep articles relatively free from promotional gumph. Consider how many books and articles have been written on a topic such as Archaeology, and then consider how the article would look if "further reading" listed all links that passed the test proposed above, namely that it's relevant and a glowing review has been found. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2014 (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.

Concerned about threats of on-wiki police action

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

---

I recently saw a discussion between LoganHermann123 (talk · contribs) and WonderBuono! (talk · contribs) over edits made to List of Winx Club episodes. LoganHermann123 disagreed with some changes WonderBuono made to the article and reverted them twice, the second time with the edit summary Stop it now! We called the police yesterday! If you dont stop it we are allowed to block your account! GET IT [119]. WonderBuono attempted to discuss this with him, but he removed the messages with the edit summary not important. He also posted a reply on WonderBuono's talk suggesting that that he had called the police and was informed that further edits to the page would result in a block of WonderBuono. Something should be done, but I'm not sure what.--Auric talk 15:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for legal threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

217.251.80.40 (talk · contribs · 217.251.80.40 WHOIS) has now removed the content with the edit summary We called the police! It has the right to stand there!--Auric talk 17:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection may be in order.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this for me; I wasn't sure how to go about it. I believe that user has also used the IPs: 87.146.198.121 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 87.146.200.16 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), as they've both used the same threat (latter was to a different user). WonderBuono! (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article and blocked the most recent sock account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Barek; that should take care of it. It's a pretty stupid set of edits/comments, and if disruption returns perhaps a range block can be considered, if that's viable. I've no doubt that the legal threat won't be retracted so at least that indef block will stand. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threats by KarterFury

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.

---

Clear legal threat by KarterFury. Please see this diff. The user has since been put under an indefinite block for disruptive editing, so I don't see any further action for an Administrator to take. However, I assume I am still supposed to report it per WP:NLT. Please let me know if I am incorrect in reporting legal threats from users who have since been blocked. Thanks for all your help, —Josh3580_talk/hist 18:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the legal threat in question was in article space before their indef block, no further action is needed. If they subsequently resort to more legal threats on their talk page, it's then worth reporting so that an administrator can remove their talk page action. Likewise, if they go back to the article with a new account or while logged out, that's worth reporting too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If legal threats pop up thru socks, then I guess it can be protected, other than that it seems like a minor issue. If he really was representing someone, wouldn't there have been a public statement. Havingbeen at the receiving end of legal threats earlier, I suggest notifying an admin and then ignoring it. Works best if we don't feed the trolls. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, much appreciated. —Josh3580_talk/hist 19:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add implied physical threats via email to the list as well. Not sure why this individual is so up in arms about something Allender talks openly about on his FB account. Email and talk page editing blocked as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:03, 19 January 2014 (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:Kwamikagami

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 issue is significantly related to the one posted by me above so feel free to put them together if necessary. user:Kwamikagami, another established user, is removing reliably sourced content from the most scholarly of encyclopedias, Britannica, simply because it does not serve his POV-agenda.[120] I.e. a clear-cut case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. User in question belongs to what you might call the "pro-Serbo-Croatian" camp and is determined to present the term "Serbo-Croatian" as definite without all the controversy and ramifications that actually surround it. Linguist Ronelle Alexander writes in her Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary ("The first book to cover all three components of the post-Yugoslav linguistic environment"), Univ of Wisconsin Press (2006), p. xvii: Some claim that Serbo-Croatian still exists as a unified language and that to call the successor systems separate languages is a political fiction required by the existence of separate states, while others claim that there was never a unified language and that the naming of one was likewise a political fiction required by the existence of a single state. Most thinking falls somewhere between these two poles. Wikipedia's approach should reflect this situation and that is exactly why I have been attempting to cite Britannica. Unfortunately, the language articles regarding Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian have been POV-hijacked for quite some time now. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If Praxis wishes to add his note to the article, he should get consensus for it. He appears to think that any disagreement with him is somehow a violation of WP policy. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In reality, the note is lifted from a highly reliable source that provides a balanced overview and is entirely uncontroversial to those who do not have a POV agenda. I wouldn't call this a simple content dispute but a breach of NPOV. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a whole lot of accusations both here and on the talk page, apparently because others disagree with you. I suggest you ratchet down the rhetoric and stick to content and consensus. What you're doing is counterproductive.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and should be avoided where possible. If it's impossible to find a source that meets our criteria at WP:RS then we probably shouldn't use the encyclopedia. This applies even to the Britannica. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I am not promoting a personal view, I have no personal view. My view is the Britannica, which is a RS. @Dougweller: that's nonsense. A highly reliable tertiary source as the Encyclopedia Britannica is exactly what's optimal for this kind of overview: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. The pro-Serbo-Croatian camp been pushing cherry-picked secondary sources for years. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:11, 18 January 2014 (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.

HELP!

Dbrodbeck and I are being oppressed, just as he and I were getting to know each other. Please see the contributions of IP 65.94.214.76. Thanks. Mindy Dirt (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, oppressed seems a tad strong, that said, this IP seems to have some odd active dislike for me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I blocked a couple IPs, let me know if more turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mark Arsten, that's very kind of you. You proved once again that ANI is much faster than AIV, and easier too. Oops, that's a dirty little secret of course. Mindy Dirt (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Abusive terms in 'Edit summary'

The Wikipedia article Edu-Clubs was blanked on 3 Jan 2014 and was replaced by abusive terms; the derogatory comments was repeated in edit summary too. Same is the case with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel page. There too the edit summary includes the same comments Though the edit to the Edu-Clubs page was reverted immediately by some bot and the Wikipedia Club page by some users, the page history of both the pages displays the very same text in edit summary even now. It request the admins to hide the abusive edit summary in page history from both the pages. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but it doesn't strike me as that offensive. Perhaps other admins can weigh in? (ANI? wink wink?) Drmies (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's a person's real name then it could indeed do with some revdel.

In other news, I've nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edu-Clubs. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably real names. I have removed from view. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerns over Editor

Hi,

I am really concerned that I am being accused of COI issues when adding sources and evidence to an article on Emma Kenny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Kenny I am trying to be neutral with the info with having any relative material on there. I dont have a personal issue with this editor but cannot understand why they keep taking any info i put up there down. The have also mentioned my family within their discussions with me aswell as saying all this will end in tears. i find this extremely disturbing and it comes across as a personal attack. I must apologise if i am not getting things right on this site as its all new to me.

Here is some of the conversation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Flat_Out#Complaint_regarding_emma_Kennys_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emma_Kenny

I have again and again sourced information that has to be notable regarding Emma Kenny. This is in no way bias and wether it be positive or negative it is the truth. I have recently shown a government document from the Gateshead council on the talk page which shows Emma Kenny as a TV psychologist and counsellor http://www.gateshead.gov.uk/DocumentLibrary/Education/Leaflets/AdultLearning/TheSafeNetworkStandards.pdf and Im not sure why this would be looked at as not being a relevant and reliable source.

Please can we get this issue sorted as it is becoming highly stressful and damaging.

pedros (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petesmith2013 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- I'm going to bed as it's quite late here, so I won't be able to respond again for quite a while. I stubified Emma Kenny yesterday because the article was largely unsourced and POV with some edit warring going on. The editor who is reporting me is the author of this article and has declared they have a close working relationship with the subject. As you will see on the article's talk page and my talk page I have gone to extensive lengths to assist this editor make changes to the article. Every edit has been argued ad nauseum by this conflicted editor who attempted to whitewash what was, previously, a controversial article. I have not mentioned the editor's family so i don't know what that's about, however I have reported them for exceeding 3RR and for suspected sockpuppetry. The article is at AfD and is destined for deletion and I have no intention wasting any further time editing it, or responding to this editors multiple posts on my talk page, the article's talk page and elsewhere trying to get support for sources as the one above where the subject describes herself as tv psychologist and counsellor. best wishes and good night Flat Out let's discuss it 12:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That you have a certain amount of conflict of interest is evident from your comment that you "do all of her PA". I've made a delete !vote on the AFD, which lays out my view on this article. That Emma Kenny is a registered psychologist is not really the question. It's whether she has any notability as reported by substantive reliable sources. As it stands, Flat Out is correct that the article will most likely be deleted due to a lack of notability. As for the comment regarding your family, that was made by an IP editor and should be revdelled as a violation of WP:OUTING. Blackmane (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

lol yeah

• https://twitter.com/emmakennytv/status/414467483010347008
• https://twitter.com/mrpedros
• https://www.facebook.com/pages/Emma-Kenny/341711569190033

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

non admin commentPedros/Petesmith/Bobins or who ever this guy is, he is WP:NOTHERE. Only edits relate to Emma Kenny, only concern is this article, which afd'ed at tghe moment and IMO wont survive. He is also up on 3RR bosrd for his behavour on this article. When people work for or with someone, it is generally not a good idea to create an article and then decide what should go in it. Murry1975 (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

After that AfD you won't see that guy again _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the article and the AfD, which I might close shortly for reasons of SNOW. But Flat Out, this is not how to write a BLP--come on. (Jéské Couriano, that goes for this one too: nothing but negative in the opening sentence, that's not OK.) Bobbins123 is so obviously a sock (or a piece of meat) that I don't think we have to wait for the SPI: I'll block them in a minute. I agree that Petesmith is not likely to come back after this article is deleted, so I won't block: their crime, if crime it is, is edit warring on one particular article and promoting that article's subject. If that article does not exist anymore, they might perhaps move on and start writing about flowers and butterflies; I do not wish to deprive Wikipedia of that potential. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Happy to take that criticism. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bigpoliticsfan

Bigpoliticsfan (talk · contribs)

This user is adding speedy delete notices to articles, but is generating a high number of false positives, which is being disruptive. He has been warned multiple times on his user page, but is continuing, which makes me think that he's deliberately being disruptive. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So, User:Bigpoliticsfan, why didn't you stop when you were first advised to stop? ES&L 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

All things being equal, I expect it just depends on who asks. And how, perhaps. 17:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs)

Legal threats/sock puppets

The same person mentioned in the "Concerned about threats of on-wiki police action" section above has come back with another account and threatened me again. WonderBuono! (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

WonderBuono!, have you thought of filing a request for checkuser? This would reveal whether any other accounts exist, and I can't imagine the request being denied after the guy's already created two accounts to do the same thing. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge's "uninvolved administrator" warning should probably be removed from the case decision.

Sorry to bother about this, but I think something still has to be fixed regarding User:A Quest For Knowledge (notified on talk page) and the formal warning of someone as "an uninvolved administrator".

This (non-Administrator) editor used an Administrator warning. It contains the phrasing This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision). It looks like it did just that and logged User:Nomoskedasticity onto the case decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Here's the diff.

If I hadn't noticed that it formally and erroneously added that user to the list of individuals "warned" by administrators, I wouldn't have brought it up. I don't think the user meant to go so far as to add it to the case decision, but maybe you agree it should be removed from the case decision as an error. Thanks. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is quite poorly worded, but WP:General sanctions specifically allows anyone to issue warnings, and for such warnings to appropriately logged. It is a good example why using templates for warnings is often problematic, but not indicative of improper logging of such notifications. There has been recent discussion about this, but this is the current state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone have the patience to sort what is behind the "warning/notification"? My quick look suggests that two editors !voted in opposite directions at Talk:James Delingpole#Edit protect (and reached different conclusions at WP:BLPN#James Delingpole), and one of them dropped that irritating blurb on the other's talk, and rather triumphantly made an officious log (diff). That's a pretty outrageous loophole that gives one player a way to irritate and poke an opposing player. I know it's being thrashed out at WT:AC/DSR, but the myth that it's merely a "notice" and not a CIVIL way to say get fucked should not be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:General sanctions differentiates between community sanctions, and sanctions resulting from an Arbcom case. Arbcom sanctions, which this would fall under, are supposed to be logged by an uninvolved admin. The proposal at WT:AC/DSR is for ArbCom sanctions to be logged by anyone, but so far this has not yet been adopted. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

These warnings/loggings are being used too often to gain the upper hand in disputes. I agree with Johnuniq's and Neotarf's interpretation. Let's let admins take care of these types of warnings. - MrX 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed warning from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and notified clerks Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#non_admin_logging_DS NE Ent 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• At first look, and as someone completely uninvolved, it appears this "administrator warning" is being used as a chilling effect tactic. When I see that the defenders are hardly neutral on this overall subject, I suggest remedies and possible sanctions should be discussed at this time. This should not be tolerated. As for a page that lists "warnings" I confess to astonishment that such exists, much less appears to be being gamed. Jusdafax 13:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• The warning should probably be removed. It isn't enforceable anyway, except by administrators. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Point being that Nomoskedasticity understands the situation and has pushed back, whereas other less experienced editors could well be intimidated by it. Which raises the question whether this type of incident has occurred previously. Jusdafax 21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template was actually changed to no longer be a warning some time back and is now simply a notification. Unfortunately, the template was also changed some time back to include the term "uninvolved administrator" by default, which was previously absent from the boilerplate warning. Now a non-admin has to add a specific parameter to present it as a regular warning from a non-admin. Many non-admins issue notifications and this is useful since it means editors new to the process or to Wikipedia in general can be made aware more quickly and, if they are disruptive, makes it simpler when there is a need for restrictions since those require an editor to be aware of the discretionary sanctions regime in the topic area beforehand. I think the problem here is that the boilerplate warning says "uninvolved administrator" by default when that should be the optional parameter. That would be as absurd as a vandalism or 3RR warning template including that term by default. AQFK simply used a template without realizing it had been changed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems a fair summation. Collect (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the template was changed to "no longer be a warning" or not, AQFN explicitly stated it was meant to be both notification and warning. Having read a bit more of the case file, it is interesting that AQFN is attempting to warn people into proper behavior on a Climate Change related topic using a case where he was topic-banned from Climate Change articles for disruptive battle-grounding. And I still think it's arguably an inappropriate way to end a noticeboard discussion by a deeply involved editor. If it's supposed to be "just a notice" then it should only be allowed to be formally logged where it's "just a notice" and not something possibly point-making. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All this amounts to is keeping a record of who is aware of the discretionary sanctions in a topic area. There is no official finding of misconduct, but just one editor informing another of certain special rules regarding a topic and making sure others are aware said editor has been so informed. Non-admins warn other non-admins all the time about alleged misconduct. In this case such things get logged.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious what happened in this case—one editor used the notice/log to be as obnoxious as possible to another editor during a discussion where the two editors disagreed. There was not the slightest reason to issue the notice other than it is possible to do so. The case reported here demonstrates very bad behavior, and is not similar to the standard procedure whereby an editor should be warned if they may be wandering into trouble by aggressive editing or vigorous commenting. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be a concern about AQFK's conduct, but not specifically an issue with the notice. I have made some changes that should be sufficient to address concerns regarding the warning.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But why are you warning this user at all? Your "changes" were that you over-ruled an admin, NE Ent, and re-added the user to the case decision? I don't see how this helps. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent is not an admin. My change did not overrule him either as I did not restore a diff to AQFK's warning, but added a diff of Nomo's acknowledgment that he is aware of the discretionary sanctions. This is useful as it insures that, if Nomo does do something wrong in the topic area, that there will be no question of whether Nomo is or is not aware of the sanctions regime. Such awareness is a prerequisite for action just as warnings for 3RR or vandalism are generally necessary before action can be taken.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But if the user was previously made aware that the sanctions existed and had already acknowledged this, then for what practical purpose are you ne-notifying them? Informing people more than once or informing people that clearly know the sanctions are in place seems like it could be interpreted as some kind of undue harassment. In this case, the user already knew of the issue from AQFK's notice, this discussion here, and now you seem to be trying to "only notify" them again. There's still no evidence the user required any sort of notification in the first place. How many notifications are enough? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No "re-notifying" occurred. I simply tried to note in the log that Nomo said he is aware of the sanctions. Should we say that non-admins can notify editors and add it to the log and that other non-admins can come along and edit-war it out if they think this is unwarranted then we are inviting feuds over arbitration pages where some editors object to the notification. If we say that non-admins are no longer permitted to notify editors and add it to the log, well, this won't change the need for notifications, but it may encourage non-admins to try and get admins to notify editors for them so it can be logged. You may even have editors dragged to AE for the sole purpose of getting an official notification. I think it is far simpler and less disruptive to allow non-admins to make notifications and add to the logs. The real problem here was with "uninvolved administrator" being the default term in the template, which is really a problem of the template having been changed unilaterally some time back. My estimation is that changing the template to make the non-admin version the default version is the easiest way to avoid further problems of this nature.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting even more obnoxious. AQFN left that notification as a hostile act, as some above have recognised. It was not merited. And so TDA's attempt to make it kosher are not welcome. There is no problem with my editing that calls for a log of a notification of this sort. Neither AQFN nor TDA are uninvolved in this topic area and I suggest that they both step back. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't recall ever editing any article about climate change or even raising an opinion about the editing in that topic area. Notifications can be issued by anyone and then logged. This is not the sole domain of an admin. Looking over the dispute that sparked this, I do not think it was at all unwarranted for you to be notified. Seems a lot of bickering is going on recently regarding some climate change articles and further enforcement requests are likely. For the record, I do not think this is at all appropriate. AQFK made a mistake when he posted that template without knowing the default version now said "uninvolved administrator" and was not trying to pretend to be anything. Had he known, I have no doubt he would have made it the non-admin version. Your insistence on making this accusation by changing the section heading from a more neutral version is not compliant with policy regarding use of your user talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Templates, and template wording, are not policy. Policy is policy, and the current DS policy clearly specifies warnings are to be issued and logged by admins. NE Ent 23:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Except, the policy does not say that only admins can give notifications. Non-admins have been giving notifications and logging those notifications for some time without any suggestion that it was against policy, because the policy says naught on the matter. Arbitrators have similarly not suggested that there is anything stating only admins can give notifications, despite having many opportunities to do say when the issue is raised explicitly.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diff of an example.NE Ent 23:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just look through the log of notifications on ARBPIA, where you will see numerous involved non-admins and at least one involved admin giving notifications to editors who appear in the topic area. Hell, Nomo made a similar mistake to AQFK in that topic area when giving out this notification. A notification should, generally speaking, only be about informing someone of the existence of sanctions and that can reasonably be handled by anyone. Of course, any editor can "warn" an editor to stop doing something, but those are not going to be logged unless they are also notifications.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there some past history concerning TDA and Nomoskedasticity? When TDA excused AQFK's abuse of the sanctions notification system to poke an opponent I thought it was just the standard misunderstanding, but the comment above shows that something more is involved. In that comment, TDA points to a user who has made a total of 16 edits, five of which were to change the country shown in the infobox at Ariel University (like several IPs, the user prefers Israel, whereas the article states that the university is in the Palestinian territories). That is exactly the situation for which the discretionary sanctions notification is intended, and Nomoskedasticity gave a very reasonable ARBPIA notification (diff) after the fifth change of the location. Referring to that notification as a "similar mistake" is an extreme form of misunderstanding—is it grasping-at-straws to justify a hasty and incorrect initial comment here, or is it an attempt to poke an opponent from some prior dispute? Johnuniq (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Since TDA hasn't responded, I'll give my own answer. I'm not aware of any past clashes with TDA, so I suspect it's grasping at straws. As far as I'm concerned, the situation has been resolved satisfactorily: the original "notification" by AQFN was indeed a chilling tactic and was appropriately removed from the log. There's still the broader question of what to do when editors behave this way, but I'm pleased with the feedback AQFN (and TDA) have gotten here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you noticed, but Nomo used a version of the notification, an outdated one, that said "this notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here" and that clearly gives the impression that the person giving the notice is an uninvolved administrator. If you are suggesting it is fine to accidentally claim you're an admin when the user is a nobody, then I suppose we just have a different view of things. Had AQFK given the standard non-admin warning I suspect this whole dispute would not have happened as Nomo's behavior does seem to have warranted a notification.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You're the only person here who is taking that view. The others recognise things for what they were: AQFK was trying to poke an opponent, "chilling effect", etc. I don't think you're persuading anyone that my editing is equivalent to that of Ekomik (talk · contribs); as for the notification I left for him/her, I recognised my mistake and suggested it needed to be confirmed by an admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My only point is that non-admins issue notifications often without it being an issue and there is no reason why it should be an issue in itself. The default message of "uninvolved administrator" was added by an arbitrator who, all the same, added a non-admin parameter. I think a notice was warranted, even from AQFK, but since no one could argue that you are not aware of the discretionary sanctions now it makes little difference whether the log stays or not.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It is very much an issue when editors use these things as weapons in a dispute. I doubt AQFK will do that again (given the reactions posted here). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

And if it had only been a neutrally-given "notification", I probably wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. It fails that description in two places. When I opened this thread (years ago?) I gave AQFN the benefit of the doubt that a bot added the logging on the case file as both "warned and notified". Now I know it was manually added, and not unintended, and it wasn't part of using the wrong template, and that giving formal warnings (beyond notifications) goes beyond what involved non-admins are expected to be able to do. AQFN can not claim to have inadequate knowledge of what he was doing by logging it as both warning and notification, considering he would be familiar with what a warning was, citing the ArbCom case that sanctioned him with a topic ban (and which was only lifted when he said he wasn't interested in getting involved in Climate Change content disputes). People aren't mistaken to think it was stated as more than the neutral notification you say is allowed, beyond the use of the template. It seems resolved now, but I wanted to be clear that my initial concern was in what was being logged, and how involved the editor was who was doing the logging, and not purely about how it was communicated to the person formally "warned". A notification should, generally speaking, only be about informing someone of the existence of sanctions. If AQFN hadn't gone beyond that by specifically and repeatedly labeling it both a warning and a notification, or if he wasn't in the middle of a debate he was expressly involved in , this discussion could have been avoided. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Though this discussion has been useful, I remain concerned, and am clearly not alone. I believe the record shows AQFN was arguably abusive of existing process in what appears to be an effort to discourage edits on a topic in which they are involved, or formerly involved, since AQFN states on their talk page that they have recently unwatchlisted the article, in my view presumably as a result of various statements questioning AQFN's warnings. Unless there is further comment, and in lieu of administrator action seeing a number of days have gone by, I suggest an uninvolved admin close this with a brief summary for future reference if need be, and I submit that further warnings of this type from this editor or other involved editors should be taken as worthy of consideration of sanctions. Jusdafax 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Breach of copyright in a locked article

Our BlackLight Power article is currently locked, and I have just realised that it contains material copy-pasted from elsewhere - a clear breach of copyright. The paragraph beginning "In 2012 after studying the BLP process..." is copied from [121] and needs immediate removal. I've as yet not checked to see if there are further such problems with the material recently added by User:Blippy, but clearly this needs doing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• It was Blippy, a few dozen revisions back. So anything copyvioed after that, you can remove and some bored admin will take care of it later without having to check too many boxes. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I hadn't looked at Blippy's talk page last night when I locked the article, but I can see a lot of warnings there about edit-warring (which he was doing) and other problems. I'm not convinced that this editor can edit constructively. Dougweller (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... character assassination anyone?  :-) Please bring forth your evidence of my edit warring on the BLP article. Maybe an explanation of the lock might be in order too? In any case, the phrase "In 2012 after studying", nor anything similar, exists in the cited source. I am unable to view the offending edits, so perhaps someone would be kind enough to provide the diffs. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and a little bit of defending myself - I just looked at my own talk page. There is 1 warning and 1 block for edit warring, both back in 2009 - hardly something accurately described as "a lot of warnings there about edit-warring". Just how impartial are you Dougweller? Blippy (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy (talk · contribs) is being quite disruptive IMHO, and the aggressive anti-NPOV anti-consensus edits on Rupert Sheldrake e.g. [122] and pathetic attempts to ignore WP:REDFLAG claims. The rudeness is perhaps a little understandable on a Wiki. However, I am not convinced that Blippy (talk · contribs) is basically WP:COMPETENT to edit science or WP:FRINGE-related articles because of his apparently bizarre and very entrenched views on the subject. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

BBB perhaps you might have bothered to contribute on the article talk page rather than popping up out of the blue and sniping here? I don't quite see how your attempt to change the topic is strictly relevant, but I'm sure reasonable readers will notice the lack of responses to the core issues here, such as the fact that nobody bothered to check whether the claim of copyright violation actually occurred, why the page was spontaneously protected for no apparent reason - and without any discussion whatever, and - along with you - that people are resorting to smear tactics in lieu of having reasonable arguments or explanations for their actions. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, you might be missing the point of this noticeboard: it's where users are reported to administrators for further action because discussion elsewhere has escalated to a point of no-return, or the behaviours are just that horrible that action is required. As such, most commenters here are not nor shall they ever be involved in the article - after all, an WP:INVOLVED admin would be unable to take action in many cases. Most users who comment here are going to base their comments on their review of your recent edits, AND your behaviour in this thread. Those who are involved in the article will comment from a different perspective ES&L 14:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok Blippy, I will revise my comment - no one has mentioned edit-warring on your talk page since November 17th. It is a long time since your only block, over 4 years. So that's good. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ES&L you're correct that I have limited experience of this noticeboard. And copyright violations. I've asked several times to see the violation because a whole swathe of edits have been hidden. There were three edits within 8 mins of each other concerning the content in question, so I am keen to see the content of the last of those three edits and how it compares to the source text so that I can assess the copyright breach for myself and, where appropriate, learn from any mistakes I may have made. I reject any accusations of disruptive editing - but I have encountered several people who prefer to focus more on the editor than the edits, and assume that edits from any perspective that does not accord fully with their own is disruptive by definition, rather than per WP policy. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing about a copyright violation is that reposting it (or unhiding the relevant revisions) would itself constitute a copyright violation. So, no, you are not going to be able to look at those. LadyofShalott 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blippy, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. That entire paragraph was lifted from the source, with only a minor change in word order toward the end. Lady, or any other admin with magic glasses, would you mind looking at this source and this magically invisible version and confirm to Blippy here that this was properly removed? Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was improperly removed, I'm saying I don't understand what was removed. To the best of my knowledge I didn't paste a chunk of text into the article - or at least, if I did so, I would be very surprised if I simply left it as is. I noticed there were 3 edits, and I would like to be able to understand how the last of those edits compares with the source material as I do recollect tidying up some of that material. Unfortunately I am not a savant, so I don't have photographic memory of each of my edits, I usually use the edit history for such things :-) If the final of those 3 edits is a copyright violation I will be unpleasantly surprised and suitably chastened, and will particularly wish to know the specifics so that I don't make any such errors in future. I endeavour to strive for good writing that reflects the sources, not reproduces them. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for the explanation LadyofShalott - I see this creates somewhat of a Catch22 for me. And happy anniversary Loreena. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the version Drmies linked. I don't know if it's the final one or not, but yes, that one was lifted verbatim from the website, and you just can't do that. I'm glad my explanation helped. LadyofShalott 04:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you confirm that was the third edit Drmies? I think the complexity of the name spelling was why I copied/pasted into the editor, and obviously saved at that point in error. I may plead slip of the mouse on that and be extra careful in future  :-) However, if that was the third edit, then I am more troubled. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You added it on 09:07, 15 January 2014[123]. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks Dougweller - that must have been the paste and save edit. I'm referring to the state of that section two edits later at 09:15, 15 January 2014. I'm keen to know if it still violated the copyright policy at that point or not, as I thought I had made sufficient changes to the text. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't change it. You added more text and tweaked that. Dougweller (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The revdel should be undone. RD1 states "If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion cannot be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion." As the revdel contains contributions by AtG and Bhny, the conditions are not met. The linked page, Copyright problems, clearly states "The infringing text will remain in the page history for archival reasons unless the copyright holder asks the Wikimedia Foundation to remove it...". Unfortunately, it does get rather circular after that, with an "unless" looping back to RD:1, putting the reader in an infinite policy link loop of contradictory information... but anyway, just reverting the copyvio is common practice and common sense. NE Ent 13:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent, are you sure anyone's contributions have been removed? The diff[124] which includes the version before the rev/del and the one after shows quite a few changes. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly. Since the revdel prevents determining who wrote what, the revdel itself is a violation of the Wikipedia CC-BY-SA license, in that removes the required attribution. NE Ent 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• That only applies "If infringement is not blatant", to cite the header of the section Ent linked. There was nothing "suspected or complicated" about this. In addition, the names of the contributors have not been removed, so the contributors can still be determined even if the particular contributions can't. A parallel situation is found in the printing of an article: for attribution a list of contributors suffices, not what they actually did. [changed indenting to keep this together.] Drmies (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I sit corrected: WMF licensing terms clearly specify a list of authorship is sufficient; nonetheless the revdel remains non-compliant with a logical interpretation of RD1. Since revdel's don't remove authorship info, if we rely on "list attribution", the terms redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution would never apply, which begs the question why they are there in the first place. The logical interpretation is revdel a copyvio if and only if it can be done without removing specific attribution of other authors. NE Ent 17:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• RD1 is OK if "Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors." The question is what "attribution" means here. If my reading of "attribution" ("list attribution", sure) is correct, then RD could never accomplish that, unless the names of the non-offending contributors are deleted. It's possible to do that, of course, but I don't see how that would ever happen (unless erroneously) since user names can't contain a copyvio. Ordinarily speaking--I'm sure Borges could come up with one. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to hear what User:Moonriddengirl has to say about this. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I started WT:Revision deletion#RD1 wording. I reverted NE Ent's insertion of an anchor into WP:Copyright problems/Header#Suspected or complicated infringement. The subsection header is three lines above the anchor, and the only effect I can see is that it hides context by scrolling the header off the top of the window. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent reverted, with the edit summary "Anchor already used." Drmies rebutted NE Ent's citation by simply quoting from the lines above the anchor (partial diff). NE Ent, as I wrote in my revert edit summary, you can link to the subsection header. Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this is if anything a problem with the language of the criteria. As noted, attribution requires a list of authors; the step by step guide to construction we give is great but above and beyond. Otherwise, people could not reuse our content without including the full history. The criterion says, "Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion" and Wikipedia:Copyright problems explicitly referenced Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins at the time that content was added, and that page has long discussed means of keeping good content while removing old. We used to routinely use selective deletion and provide a full list of authors for removed content where the risk of inadvertent or purposeful restoration seemed high; after revision deletion was created, that practice was deprecated in favor of it. I'll go check out the conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Bhtpbank: Unfounded accusations, abuse, foul language and threats

This trail started when I discovered comments left at Talk:Railway electrification system that had nothing to do with improvement of the article [125] and [126]. These comments were an allegation sockpuppery left by Bhtpbank. As the comments were in no way connected with improvement of the article, I deleted them in accordance with the warning notice at the head of most talk pages [127] and [128]. For what it is worth, the sole evidence against the alleged socks, an IP address editor 86.169.32.152 and LiveRail is that they had agreed with each other. I believe that the reality is that they both disagreed with Bhtpbank (though others had as well). I shall not pursue this part further as LiveRail has been made aware of this ANI, and if he (or she) wishes to contribute, they can.

In accordance with established Wikipedia etiquette, I left a note on Bhtpbank's talk page as to the deletion and why [129]. I also added a friendly warning that leaving unsupported accusations at talk pages can result in a block from editing. Bhtpbank's response on my talk page [130] was highly abusive and used unacceptable language. I responded not following Bhtpbank's foul mouthed manner [131]. The point about another editor being blocked for making unsupported allegations was real [132]. This was followed by the first of Bhtpbank's threats [133] also of note is the abusive and uncalled for edit summary.

I always check out the editing history of problem editors just to make sure it is not really me. In Bhtpbank's editing history, I discovered a series of edits deleting edits made by a new editor using an IP address 24.189.166.243. His first edit was on 12th January 2014. A check on the edits showed that the edits were essentially constructive, certainly to at least the standard expected of a new editor. Bhtpbank had launched into, what can be best described, as a tirade of reversions, [134] (subsequently reverted by another as Bhtpbank's reason was wrong), [135] (subsequently reverted by another as Bhtpbank's reason was wrong), [136] & [137] The edit summaries of these last two edits betrayed Bhtpbank's reasons for the reversions. He seems to believe that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit on Wikipedia and his reversion was simply because he seems to think that IP address editors should not be able to revert edits. As far as I know, this is not Wikipedia policy. He went on with more reversions, [138], [139], [140], [141] & [142]. No edit summary was left as to why these last five were reverted, but the edit summaries above a strong clue. With these eight reverts, Bhtpbank had reverted 24.189.166.243's entire contribution to Wikipedia at that time. I should point out that this new editor only edited for a total of three days having been driven away by the welcome that he got from Bhtpbank.

I reverted the two edits that gave the fact that they were carried out by an IP address editor as the reason because I believe that this is an inadequate reason to revert someone else's contribution. I also reverted one of the remaining five edits [143], but only because although Bhtpbank had not explained his reversion, 24.189.166.243 had left a perfectly good explanation of his edit. I left the remaing five edits alone but only because no edit summaries had been left at all.

Bhtpbank's response was what now seems to be becoming a trade mark tactic - an unfounded allegation [144] - note also the embedded (and unfounded) allegations and threat. I believe that: I am correct is saying that no administrator is going to regard three (in my view justified) reversions on a single day as 'hounding' another editor. The irony is: that that is exactly what Bhtpbank was doing to 24.189.166.243 with his eight reversions.

The final threat came when Bhtbank decided to clean up his talk page, [145] the threat here being in the edit summary, "You will come to regret the day that you crossed me.". One immutable sign of problem editors is that they always remove negative comments from their talk page in order to appear squeaky clean.

Policies violated: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:PROFANEand WP:NEWCOMER definitely and WP:TE probably. I'm sure there must be a policy against making unfounded allegations, but I cannot find it at present.

I do not suppose for one moment that Bhtpbank's behaviour is going to result in a permanent block, but I believe that a short term block (say 1-3 months) is fully justified just to get the message across that making unfounded allegations, abusing and threatening other editors is unacceptable. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite whatever this inane slapfest is about isn't clear, but it's obvious that user:Bhtpbank is repeatedly behaving in a way that is far from the standard required of editors on a shared project like this. I would suggest that any repetition of this is blockable. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I read this whole complaint twice (seriously) and I'm still not sure what it's about. Anyone else want to take a shot at it? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If an admin cannot make sense of this incoherence, then it must be thrown out. It is clear that DieSwartzPunkt does not like me, but cannot put down in clear intelligible English what complaints he has against me. Is this the quality of editor that Wikipedia needs?? If he cannot enunciate in clear sentences, then perhaps he should be blocked, for wasting everyone's time?? If an editor has read it twice, and cannot make head nor tail of it, then it is time to close this case. It seems to be a blunderbuss attack, without direction nor purpose. To be honest, I would have tried to answer the accusations made against me, but I cannot understand what crime I have committed. If someone can translate gibberish into English, then I shall be happy to face the music. - Bhtpbank (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is neither inane nor gibberish, though it is lengthy. One of the accusations is that you use bad language which, at some point and in some circumstances, can be blockable; another is that your comments about IP editing are unacceptable. (Let's put it this way: if it turns out that you reverted an IP because they were an IP, you should be blocked, as far as I am concerned.) I can find little fault with DieSwartzPunkt's grammar or coherence, but it is very, very easy to find fault with the tone of your language, here and elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Follow up: At Talk:Power factor a user asked a reasonable question on an apparent inconsistency between that article and another (no problem here). An IP address editor (86.171.45.200 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) answered the query [146] reasonably accurately. Now I don't know whether it was because the response was from an IP address editor, or because Bhtpbank's knowledge of electrical engineering is deficient on the subject (probably both), but he deleted the IP addess editor's reply [147] (violating WP:TPOC if I read it right) without giving a reason and substituted his own response [148]. Unfortunately, Bhtpbank's response was wrong in every respect and unlikely to help the questioner.

86.171.45.200 restored his response [149] referring to WP:BLANKING in the edit summary (I assume he inadvertently referred to the wrong policy, but the principle was sound). He or she also posted a warning about blanking on Bhtpbank's talk page [150] also citing the wrong policy.

Bhtpbank left an abusive comment on 86.171.45.200's talk page [151] which more or less states that he regards himself as being entitled to delete anything he pleases from IP address editors from talk pages. He also goes on to state, "Also, [I] disregard bvllsh1t like this from unregistered users (i.e. fvckwits like you.)" (I assume the misspellings are some attempt at avoiding some perceived bad language bot). The edit summary of, "Get stuffed" says it all. Bhtpbank also deleted the warning from his talk page (not a problem in itself), but the edit summary of, "Get lost" is an indication of the attitude that newbie IP address editors are having to endure (Did I mention that this is a new editor?).

Now this last example may seem rather trivial and maybe not worthy of an ANI in its own right, but it is a symptom of a much larger problem. As a conclusion, Bhtpbank has posted a vitriolic statement on his user talk page against IP address editors [152] though citing a single case that seems to be a single user using multiple IP adresses to inflict vandalism (as far as I can tell there is no evidence to link 86.171.45.200 with this specific case).

While no one can prevent Bhtpbank (or anyone) having such an opinion, to actually persecute such IP address editors in practice is unacceptable behaviour. Deleting other users comments from article talk pages purely because you happen to disagree with such users posting them there, or disagreeing with the comment, is equally unacceptable. What would happen if we all did it? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @DieSwartzPunkt: please exercise more brevity on posts like this; multiparagraph posts on ANI are hard to follow. That said, I actually do agree that this treatment of a newbie by User:Bhtpbank is an immediately blockable action. VQuakr (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As this is an Admin's page, I ask for all non-admin comments to be struck out ... else this becomes a kangaroo court, pure and simple. How a non-admin can be assessed as knowledgeable in the policies of this place is unclear and does not help in the discussion. Also, we need to be absolutely clear on the difference between a genuine 'newbie" (i.e. a registered user) as opposed to an IP edit, which tends to be vandals and irregular editors. Wayne Ambler (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not how this page works. Anyone can comment here. --Onorem (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says at the top, "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors." I hasten to add that it doesn't mean that only Admins and experienced editors can comment. Anyone can. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And where did "Wayne Ambler" suddenly appear from? His first edit was yesterday. Odd that he should suddenly be an expert on "kangaroo courts" in Wikipedia pages. DieSwartzPunkt's complaints seem fairly clear to me. There is nothing confusing about them. He found an edit that seemed problematic, looked up edits by the editor (Bhtpbank) and found what seemed to him to a pattern of abusive behaviour by Bhtpbank. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• This, as VQuakr pointed out, is disgusting. The current rant on their talk page is disgusting as well, besides...how to put this delicately...untelligent? And then there's the matter of old Wayne coming by, with some nonsensical comments that indicate a complete lack of understanding. Bhtpbank, you are hereby put on notice. One more personal insult (and us kangaroos will be the judge of what that is, not you), one more disparaging edit summary, one more such remark against or about an IP editor, and I will block you indefinitely, or as long as it takes for you to understand that a. your manners are terrible; and b. IP editors have every right to edit here (and I haven't seen anything useful coming from you, just cussing and reverting).

  If any other admin sees enough reason for a block right now, power to you. And to those (Erpert et al.--"WHAT DO YOU WANT???" stop shouting please) who joked about what DieSwartzPunkt tried to argue here and how they did it (Andy Dingley?) but didn't take the time to actually read it, shame on you. This is what ANI is for, and I could repeat old Wayne's argument about non-admins needing to stay away: if all you can do is gripe at someone who is making a legitimate complaint without taking them seriously, then maybe you need to stay the hell away. They came here with a valid problem, a seriously disruptive editor, and you chewed them out. I'm done before I say something negative. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oh, and what goes for Bhtpbank goes for Wayne too, of course, so I'm not worried about them, sock or not. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Drmies, I'm not sure why you're in such a foul mood, but I wasn't joking; I seriously didn't understand the complaint. BTW, "WHAT DO YOU WANT???" is simply the link to my talk page (I comment here almost daily; you never noticed that before now?). Now then...may I offer you a spot of tea? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I came here following a notice that DieSwartzPunkt placed on my user talk page expecting to make a minor contribution based on the thread title. What I discover is that this has progressed far beyond a simple matter of incivility and allegations. This is now a matter of an editor bullying and abusing new editors to the point that they give up and leave. The first of these 24.189.166.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) provided reasonable contributions for just 3 days and has not been heard from since. The second 86.171.45.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for just 2 days following this piece of abuse posted by Bhtpbank on his talk page. I note that another user made a belated and laudable attempt at trying to rescue the situation.

Bhtpbank's rant on his talk page (here) is nothing short of disgraceful. I grant that a project such as this is going to attract unwanted attention from those who have no intention of making positive contributions, but Bhtpbank's assertion is that it is only anonymous editors who cause problems (and cites an exampe of just one problem). The reality is that registered editors are just as capable of causing problems as Bhtpbank himself is demonstrating so well. In fact just taking a straw poll of complaints in this ANI page (ignoring the merits of those complaints as I am not in a position to judge) at the time I made this post, shows 31 complaints against registered editors and just 4 against anonymous.

It is my belief that most of the original ANI complaint has paled into insignificance given the way that this has developed. The only issue that needs to be considered is Bhtpbank's deliberate and unwarranted bullying of potential new contributors to the project and his success in driving them away. It is my opinion that this factor alone warrants a permanent block of editing rights. –LiveRail < Talk > 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As for you User:LiveRail, I actually like you, I honestly do. Your lack of understanding of railway electrification gives me so much amusement, that I like having you around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

In my experience Bhtpbank has difficulty interacting with others in a civil manner. I've encountered him on several occasions, all relating to rail transport articles, and in all three cases his remarks were unhelpful and laced with bad faith. Last January he left a missive on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways [153], castigating all the participants for not writing particular articles to his satisfaction. It was offensive enough that I reverted it (probably shouldn't have), on the grounds that no good would come of it. He promptly followed up with a similar diatribe: [154]. Note that, as of writing, he hasn't done any of the article writing mentioned. Last October I put North Coast Hiawatha up for GA review. Bhtpbank conducted the first review, which you can see here: Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1. His behavior was contentious throughout, and well below the usual standard for a GA review. Eventually he withdrew it, another editor stepped in, and the article was promoted. One final example: Talk:Belfast and Moosehead Lake Railroad (2009)#Requested move. I proposed a fairly straightforward move; the only reason I did an RM instead of just doing it was that I was not the primary author of a rather substantial article. Bhtpbank was one of two editors who commented, and left an unnecessarily inflammatory remark.

Short version: it's not just new editors. Bhtpbak treats everyone badly. In addition, he's probably sockpuppeting with "Wayne Ambler" though it's so transparent one hardly cares. If he can't treat others with a modicum of respect I think he should be shown the door. Mackensen (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I wondered how long it would take for you to find your way here. Cumnon in and join the party!! Seriously, I gave you very fair treatment of your GA review of North Coast Hiawatha. The ONLY problem was that you just wanted it to be a 'slam dunk', and when I gave feedback that you weren't expecting became defensive. If you ask for a critique but can't take the comments, then find another hobby, purleeeze. Reality check: your ego was bruised by my review, and you simply couldn't take it like a man, and respond positively. And now your here to stick the boot in to get even! (The truth stings ... doesn't it?) So this here we have a prime example of Wikipedia editors, when you don't get you way you complain here. It's like two brother, one weak one strong. When the weaker brother gets beaten, he runs to his mummy to complain. Thus Wikipedia editors are exposed as being 'mummy's boys' clinging on to the apron strings of their parents, fro protection from the big bad world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I welcome other editors in this thread to review Talk:North Coast Hiawatha/GA1 and form their own opinion. I think they'll find that I responded to every critique you made, but had difficulty in getting you to actually finish the review. I believe a similar problem occurred at Talk:Bristol Parkway railway station/GA1. I was astonished to learn that after the fiasco at North Coast Hiawatha you would undertake another GA review, then claim you didn't mean to do so and leave another editor in the lurch. Mackensen (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Awwww, come here you big softie and let me give you a hug. ((((User:Mackensen))). There, there, there. Does your ego feel better now?? Seriously though, how do you manage with conflict in the real world?? Of course, you never experience that, stuck in front of a computer. Weel that's going to change very soon! Do you think that the internet is safe ... that you can remain anonymous and not identified for who you really are??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 19:52, 19 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi, that's an outing threat. On the balance of things that's a silly thing to do. I think we're done here. @Drmies: or another uninvolved administrator, can we wind this up? Mackensen (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that someone uninvolved should close this; btw, I don't like where this is going... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

To paraphrase "dey tuk oor jerrbs!" -mattbuck (Talk) 22:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• For the baiting, sneering, insulting, and possible threatening of real-world consequences for someone's comments here, blocked. If any admin decides that the comments to Mackensen, above, are grounds for an indefinite block for harassment, I couldn't fault them for it. Bhtpbank, you were warned, and now you got the block you deserve. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me or does anyone else get the impression that Bhtpbank seems to have gone out of his way to get a block? Or: since a 72 hour block seems extremely lenient to me, given the way this evolved, is it possible that Bhtpbank was expecting an indefinite block and decided to insult everyone in this ANI while he still could?

Incidentally, some administrator may wish to delete the piece at User talk:Bhtpbank regarding IP address editors since it seems to have been (almost) universally condemned here. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing it from his talk page per WP:POLEMIC. Blackmane (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Information: A sockpuppetry case has been opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhtpbank in respect of the Wayne Ambler post above. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"putin article" someone inserted "mafia state" again to the putin article DESPITE TALKPAGE RULING! this is not a content dispute

Vladimir Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

this is not a content dispute this is unconstructive editing! some users inserted the mafia state edit in the putin article despite in the talkpage section "dictator and "American diplomatic cables" the ruling was "The result of this discussion is that this should only mentioned in the body of the article, not the lede" Kalix94 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It would help of you refrained from adding misleading [155] or no [156] edit summaries and instead pointed editors to the talk page discussion. People looking at your deletion will have no indication there's a valid reason for your deletion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered talking to the user? The only interaction I see is you reverting him and tying things in all caps. No administrative action seems to be needed right now. only (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

the user violated the ruling on the talkpage, so administrative action is needed Kalix94 (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

We don't take "administrative action" for making one edit against current consensus or making an edit disregarding a discussion they may not have known existed. Let it go. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the user in question did participate in the discussion on the talk page, and modified the closing to his own desired outcome a few minutes after adding the information back to the lead of the article. only (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, when you are posting here, you are told a couple times, in bold lettering, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." You did not do this. Yet no one is suggesting administrative action is needed against you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Neil, Tataral participated in the RfC, so it's hard to argue they aren't aware of it. In addition, not only did they put the material into the lead, they also modified the closing of the already-closed RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23, There were two separate editors which is why I had an "or" clause. Darkness Shines did not participate in the discussion and may have just seen a deletion with no valid explanation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

may I suggest using your nightstick officer_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I reverted a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chaosname. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not saying whether he is or he isn't, but it did occur to me even before you posted here. I'm not familiar with that particular master, though.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Kalix94 is indeed an obvious sockpuppet engaged in pro-Putin advocacy. I and other experienced editors who have followed that particular article over some years have noticed there is a constant campaign, often by new editors and IP addresses, to delete any criticism from the Vladimir Putin article, while drowning it in praise of Putin. There is no consensus whatsoever to change the text that has been stable for quite some time now and that was agreed by previous consensus, as claimed by User:Kalix94. The article is already 99% positive, so the very little criticism that is included must be retained. Tataral (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

But you do not get to supersede an experienced, uninvolved editor's close with your own. [157], [158]. Please stop. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

And yet again. Tataral, as an "experienced" editor you should know better than to change the close of an RFC you commented in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I've formally warned Tataral that if they do it again, I will block them.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Ivan Štambuk

User in question is pushing his POV on Bosnian language by removing chunks of longstanding sourced content [159]. This behavior is disturbing considering the user is well established on Wikipedia. He has also launched a defamation initiative against me by deliberately misrepresenting and discrediting me in a largely unrelated discussion [160]. The issue should be treated as a part of the notorious subject matter which we know as the "Balkans" and is subject to WP:ARBMAC restrictions. If of any relevance, user in question hails from a "rivaling" ethnic group in the region and is determined to disqualify the notion of a "Bosnian language" as "imagination" [161]. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I think you should have added diffs to Ivan's changes in question in addition to your own revision (these two were the only troubling ones). But I agree with you for the most part (I'm not sure where the rivalry argument comes from though); this seems like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. When a user removes sourced content, there should be a valid reason; and the reasons listed in Ivan's edit summaries (as well as on the talk page) seemed to be back up by nothing but his own opinion. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 20:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the validation Erpert and I apologize on account of the substandard diffs added by me. User Ivan is perhaps most notably outlandishly claiming that "Uskuf's dictionary has nothing to do with modern Bosnian" when for example Svein Mønnesland, professor of Slavic languages at the University of Oslo and the leading Slavist in Norway, states the following in Norewegian:– I dag er det de politiske aspektene som gjør boken mest aktuell. Den viser at bosnisk språk har en lang tradisjon, sier Mønnesland. ("Today the politic aspects make the dictionary most topical. It shows that the Bosnian language has a long tradition, Mønnesland says")[162]. Note that the dictionary is written in the Bosniak Arebica which Ivan also considers to "have nothing to do with Bosnian" which was only imaginatively constructed recently we are told. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ow. This is messy, but it doesn't really rise all that much above the level of a content dispute, mainly because I don't believe either of you are generally acting in bad faith. Sure, we could censure IŠ for being abrasive, but then again I really don't see a "defamation initiative" in that diff so we could also censure you for blowing this out of proportion.

The move of pre-standardization history from the Bosnian article to the Serbo-Croatian article is consistent with the same being done to the articles about Croatian and Serbian. Granted, the question of whether the three language articles that use modern-day nomenclature should describe more than the standard languages - remains open. Nevertheless, the organic consensus that emerged over the last few years among the editors in good standing - that genetic linguistics is given priority over sociolinguistics, and that this language/group is called "Serbo-Croatian" on the English Wikipedia - stands. To actually resolve this problem, you need a Request for comment or something like that, not administrator intervention. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative, the individual articles should primarily touch upon the standards, but who is Ivan to draw a line for when Bosnian began its standardization? Croatian is claimed to have done so in the late 1500s whereas Ivan arbitrarily places that date for Bosnian to be in the start of the 20th century. He is chopping Bosnian along its foot ankles because he considers it an "imagination" without a natural process of standardization. I'm sure he would also claim that Bosniaks as a nation were invented only in 1993 during the Bosnian war. I've seen it too many times, it's mainstream Balkans. Feel free to copy-paste this to "comment request" but I experience his attitude and impudence to be quite severe. He expects to enforce his POV with impunity. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please invoke ARBMAC and ban this Praxis guy from editing Bosnian language-related articles? He's very conflictive, adds faulty sources that don't support the claims that he's making, and accuses everyone of bias when he is the one making political charges all the time and belittling interlocutors. Just take a look at Talk:Bosnian language. He has now reinstated the sentences I removed [163] - his source is a an obscure 1963 book unavailable on the Internet and written in Serbo-Croatian which he admitted he doesn't know. So basically it was randomly googled. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonfactual baseless countercharge. The source is not mine but part of longstanding content which Ivan is removing at will, and content which is attributable to RS [164]. Or is Ivan in fact claiming that Bosnian Cyrillic was not gradually replaced by Arebica amongst the Bosniaks? Speaking of bans, I think this "Ivan guy" could go with a broad topic ban. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of the written corpus of Bosančica was not written by Bosniaks but by Croats (Catholics). Arebica is attested in a very few manuscripts as was not at replacing bosančica - both co-existed and grew extinct in favor of Latin. The book you're linking doesn't support the claims your making. You don't speak Serbo-Croatian, are not familiar with native grammarians' treatment of the issues involved and cherry-pick your sources to support the nationalist Bosniak view which is just one POV. You're wasting everyone's time with your petty frustrations and it's getting annoying. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ivan, you really need to stop. No one is going to ban Praxis because the sourced information s/he added differs with how you personally feel. Just look at the edit summaries in the diffs that you made: "Charter of Kulin and Uskuf's dictionary have nothing to do with modern Bosnian". "Arebica and bosančica have nothing to do with modern Bosnian". Do you have sources to prove any of that? If not, then please give this tirade a rest and stop deleting reliably sourced content. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources are articles: Charter of Ban Kulin and Bosančica. Praxis is fabricating references in a language he doesn't understand and is attacking everyone who objects to his edits on political grounds. He is reporting me when he is the one making NPOV edits. It's obnoxious nationalist propaganda that has nothing to do with reality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"Obnoxious nationalist propaganda"? What are you even talking about? You're continuing to delete a lot of information without actually adding anything (with the exception of this) while leaving the same opinion-based edit summaries, so I'm coming to the conclusion that you just don't get it. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Somehow Ivan makes it that I am the nationalist around here, but claims the catholics of medieval Bosnia to be "Croats". The Bosnian Croat nation (formed along religious lines) was not established prior to the 19th century.[165] Referring to the medieval Catholic population of Bosnia as "Croat" is an anachronism and nationalist POV. That same medieval Bosnia was moreover not just Catholic, but also composed of the heretic Bosnian Church and eastern orthodox Christians. In reality, most of the bosancica (Bosnian Cyrillic) was written within the Bosnian Church. Ivan is looking to usurp the literary tradition of a highly dynamic medieval Bosnia as Catholic, and ultimately "Croat". All of his claims are thoroughly devoid of RS, as we're instead expected to settle with his opinion. As demonstrated, Ivan has challenged Bosnian and Bosniak history in response to what he calls the "nationalist Bosniak view" and "obnoxious nationalist propaganda" above, but in reality seeks to claim it as "Croat". Irredentism and hegemony at its best. I increasingly perceive Ivan as a tangible threat to the aims of Wikipedia, not least because his violations seem to pass with impunity. Quite frankly, Ivan has succeeded in disillusioning me from editing Wikipedia as he deprives it of civility, manners, RS, NPOV and what not. I have to grant him, however, of developing a very refined and sophisticated POV enforcement that is not always immediately discernible. He knows how to wrap up things and does not hesitate to use Wikipedia as a forum, though without ever posting RS. All he knows is to bash on other user's sources as "cherry-picked". Furthermore, according to his logic, one must be a native speaker to earn the right to contribute to the articles. All of this falls below my standards and dignity, and I won't have anymore of it. As a source of free knowledge, Wikipedia is nothing short of an amazing gift to mankind. Witnessing its corruption leaves a bad taste with me. I won't be trying this case any longer. I am handing it over to be closed/decided by whoever might be interested or concerned. Thank you for your help Erpert, I do appreciate it. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

PI, you really need to calm down and reset your bias detector, because it's gone off the deep end. I've read the discussion on the talk page, and IŠ has simply not done what you're accusing him of - he did not claim the entire medieval Bosnian heritage for the Croats; he told you that there are sources that do that, and that you can't also do the converse for the Bosniaks. Granted, there may well be biases involved, e.g. you could ask him to practice what he preaches regarding the terminology on some medieval Croatian article, but at the same time, you just claimed that "most" of the bosančica was written among the Bosnian Church faithful, whereas there's pretty much a consensus out there that its use by the Franciscans is in no way less relevant. Battling this out like this, what with all the repetitive talking points, is utterly meaningless and it does not contribute to the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh and if it needs saying, edits of glaringly retributive nature such as [166] and [167] and [168] are making you seem like a hypocrite because the mention of 1630s in the lead of the Bosnian language article still stands, together with other references to history in the article text...

In any case, any more effort spent without adopting a consistent, suitably nuanced approach for explaining the relationship between the modern standard languages and a historical background that is ascribed to them by sources - is a failure of the encyclopedia, and a path towards yet more edit wars and other assorted nonsense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Praxis, that really wasn't the point I was making. Maybe you and Ivan should take a break from editing the article for a while. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I accept the overall conclusions reached by the both of you and shall add them to my future conduct. However, let me end this by pointing out that it was Ivan's anachronistic nationalist assertion above that "Most of the written corpus of Bosančica was not written by Bosniaks but by Croats (Catholics)" that triggered such accusations. Those Catholics had nothing to do with the notion of a Croat nation and Bosniaks are every bit as much descended from medieval Bosnia as the Bosnian Catholics are. Granted, he knows for the most part how to argue his POV on plausible grounds, but the question is how much of it is sincere and not only a charade to conceal bias. Such comments as the one above compromise his disguise, as does unadulterated POV-pushing which dismisses the notion of a Bosnian language as "imagination".[169]. He also frequently invokes the right of the Croat nationalist scholarship to be heard. Geez louise, we already know that it seeks to claim Bosnia as "Croat". However, such hegemonic and irredentist scholarship has been discredited and refuted a long time ago. It has no place in proper scholarly discourse. Ivan, however, begs to differ. In such case, should we also start giving weight to Nazi biology in ethnic articles? It's time that Ivan starts putting his money where his mouth is as opposed to saying one thing and believing another. Finally, if it matters, Ivan thanked me for the "retributive" edits highlighted by Joy by sending me a "thank you" notification via the edit history. So I have to grant him some consistency there. Also, you cannot compare Kasic, which neither described himself (AFAIK) nor his language as "Croat", with Uskufi who describes himself as Bosniak and his language as Bosnian. There's a socio-linguistic difference her. Uskufi's dictionary is widely described in sources as a dictionary of the "Bosnian language" and Ivan's paragraph in the article ([170]) is inherently POV by describing such a view as Bosniak "fringe". This will have to be my final post in this matter since I am currently preoccupied. Thank you both. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You still seem to hold on to some of these very strict views that make you seem like you're more interested in advocacy rather than in the encyclopedia. Just like you can see a certain historical consistency and a trail of evidence in support of a Bosnian language, nation, etc, in the space occupied by the modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, much the same can be done for the Croatian case - it's not an either/or situation. The connections between the two territories and peoples are so numerous that it would be entirely ridiculous to completely turn a blind eye on the reasoning why all that Catholic population started to identify with a Croatian nation at the time of romantic nationalism. The way you're arguing one may get the impression that it was an invasion of jingoist revolutionaries. Yes, there certainly existed some jingoist revolutionaries, but focusing solely on them is short-sighted and meaningless. You should really just read the rest of that book by Robert Donia that you referenced earlier, and see the level of elaboration and nuance that a foreign author saw fit to convey about that entire story.

And, again, that claim of "imagionation" (sic) is not limited to Bosnian, it's fairly clear that he feels the same about all three. It's clearly insensitive, but it in in turn does not excuse this level of railing against Bartol Kašić and whatnot. This is battleground mentality and you need to shed it if you want others to take you seriously. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Joy, ethnicity is essentially a "philosophical/political construct" rather than heaven-sent. I agree with you that it's not either/or. But in Bosnia and Herzegovina there was a bloody war and while President Izetbegovic was unquestionably a “savvy politician” who was also corrupt, these characteristics were “even more true” of former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic and former Croatian President Franjo Tudjman.[171]. Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats did not operate on the same grounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sincere efforts to find a middle ground were more sparse amongst the latter two. But I get your point. What I don't get is how pointing out that Kasic probably did not have a developed sense of Croationhood is "railing". I actually think Ivan would agree with me. [172] Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 18:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the strict dependency on people saying they are Xians as the sole prerequisite to mentioning them in the article about the Xian language - is ridiculous in and of itself. If every secondary source that describes the history of Xian language mentions a person as a major influence, omitting it from our articles is being prescriptive rather than descriptive - which is against the point of an encyclopedia. This is why I said originally that there is a legitimate content dispute going on here - the consensus that genetic linguistics is the primary criterion for one set of factoids might not necessarily translate in a consensus about all sets of factoids in the topic area. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that nobody disputes that Kašić is Croatian, even though the grammar of his language is called Illyrian which was purely a regional term then. This is not the case with bosančica and Charter of Kulin. Croatian likewise didn't exist until 1990s as a separate "language" and was created by a decree. Wikipedia must both reflect what scholars and others (e.g. common people) claim, and the truth (i.e. reality). User:Praxis Icosahedron seems to be annoyed because he thinks I disproportionally target Bosniaks and Bosnians which I assure everyone is not the case. If you have specific complains use talk pages; I don't want to answer anything here because it will be unavailable later. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well it only gets archived, and that can be searched. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Penguins53

This user added some changes to Thomas the Apostle as well as plenty of other articles that are unsourced and unexplained: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Penguins53&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2014&month=-1 Penguins53 has already done plenty of the same today on the 18th of January 2014 and is about to start a reverting conflict in the Thomas article without a discussion. -- ♣Jerm♣729 23:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I simply added the Aramaic/Syriac words for Biblical figures; I'm sorry, but how is this disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Both editors have been warned for edit warring. Thomas the Apostle has a talk page Talk:Thomas the Apostle -- it should be used before seeking assistance from other editors; if necessary see the venues listed at WP:SEEKHELP for content disputes. NE Ent 00:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that I was aggressively using Twinkle wrongly, but this specific user was not just wrongly editing the article: Thomas the Apostle, but multiple articles have also been edit by this user today without an explanation or a source. Other editors have already undid this user's changes in multiple articles, and Penguins53 was about start edit conflicts by reverting their changes. This user did not have the proper justification to revert changes, nor has this user discussed or started a discussion for the changes. The warning was to keep this user from continuing edits until it was discussed. -- ♣Jerm♣729 00:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Jerm, I am also sorry. However, in the articles that I was editing, I was adding a category such as "Assyrian Turkish writers" or "Assyrian Iraqi writers." The Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people are all one, and the terms are used interchangeably. There was to be no need for sourcing when I was very simply making a category for the Syriac/Assyrian person at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Other editors (with, most likely, little to no knowledge of the Assyrian/Syriac people) were unnecessarily reverting my addition of a category of people who were Assyrian as writers. For an equivalence, if someone was ethnically Irish, I was adding a category of "Irish American writers" or "Irish Canadian writers" to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not worried about those other editors because some of those articles are not on my watch list, nor are those part of my category in that is Biblical articles. The only reason why you are involved in this situation because you edited a article I have on watch such as Thomas the Apostle. Edits such as language or language script input needs to be confirmed by others who know that particular field. Also, you did not source the edit, nor have you explained your edit in the Edit summary. I had suspicion with your contribution to Wikipedia, and you have done too many edits in one day without explaining it in the edit summary. -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I apologize. I should have put an edit summary. By the way, I do know that field. I speak Neo-Aramaic, and the Syriac script is used, not the Hebrew script. That was the reason I changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You may know that field, but it must also be confirmed by other registered users who also are in that field. However, if there is no one else known to confirm it, please provide a source because other will not trust the edit. -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for this incident. I will get a source. In regards to the large amount of edits I had in one day, it was because I had made a category: Assyrian writers from X country and I was adding people to the categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is an online Neo-Aramaic dictionary with the word Thomas, and how it is spelled in Aramaic, Toma/Tuma, which is ܬܐܘܡܐ. The Aramaic fonts may appear differently on the sites, but they are the same script with differences in Tav, Meem, and Alap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Just try to refrain from doing so many edits in such a short time -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For instance, you reverted my change on the page of "Babai the Great." Babai was a Syriac writer (the only Christians who speak Syriac were Assyrians);he was a member of the Church of the East (which is an Assyrian church). Babai was also a writer. Therefore, I had made a category "Assyrian writers" and added him to that category and you reverted it. I mean there was nothing to source here. You might have not known that Syriac/Assyrian people are one, but can I change it back now? Do you see what I meant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your now involved with multiple issues with other users. Why did you edit so much in such a short time? I got to get involved with the discussion because multiple users are now having issues about the same thing like your large sum of edits. -- ♣Jerm♣729 04:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) NE Ent already instructed you two to iron out the situation on the article's talk page; why haven't y'all done that yet? This really isn't a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, and apparently I'm a troll now because I made that suggestion. Not a good plan, Jerm (btw, you don't get to tell people where and how often they can edit). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You are not an administrator, nor are you improving the situation by placing suggestions for users in other discussions that don't involve you. You have instigated the situation that is by what trolling means: a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory in the community. So far you have not shown any legitimate reason to actually complain. -- ♣Jerm♣729 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I "asked" you to remove unnecessary comments, not "tell". Also, I am perfectly aware of NE Ent's message. -- ♣Jerm♣729 10:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There may indeed be an issue with User:Penguins53 .... however, the atrocious behaviour of User:Jerm729, and their misunderstanding of who and who may not comment on this board is blinding me from finding those issues. I'm almost hearing the whooshing sound of one of those Australian Aboriginal crooked throwing thingies. When you report something to an admin board, the least one can do is remain civil and on one's best behaviour ES&L 10:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Plain and simple: User:Penguins53 has been creating conflicts with multiple users and edit wars like in Thomas the Apostle which I was involved in. Unsourced and unexplained edits involving multiple discussions that I warned him of the large sum of edits. However, this user continued to ignore the warnings. I viewed the contribution of this user and found nothing but the same involving Syrian figures. I am also in another discussion involving the same situation but with multiple users who are complaining about the great amount of edits by: Penguins53. What really infuriated me was the lack of investigation if any at all by NE Ent as you can see above this discussion and assumed wrong. This entire discussion was not just involving one particular article, but many by Penguins53. I don't care if you call me "too aggressive", at least I'm trying to secure the articles on Wikipedia. -- ♣Jerm♣729 11:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, you're quite clearly not creating conflicts with multiple users ES&L 11:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

"I am also in another discussion involving the same situation but with multiple users who are complaining about the great amount of edits by: Penguins53". Looks like even administrators can't solve the problem by preventing User:Penguins53 from doing further damage — good day to you — ♣Jerm♣729 11:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

...ah, so now you're forum-shopping. You don't like the fact that your own behaviour is also being brought up (as advised at the top of this page), so your running off pouting to get satisfaction somewhere else. Bad idea. Yeah, Penguin's behaviour is not right ... but you're simply making it worse for yourself through your actions, and you're less likely to get the resolution you want because of it. It's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. So why not stop behaving improperly and trying to behave like someone that people want to try and help ES&L 11:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Penguin needs to carefully read WP:NOTDIC which explains that Wikipedia articles are not dictionary entries and do not need translations of the subject heading into numerous languages.--Charles (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is what concerned me most when I saw a string of edits from on biblical characters. He does seem here mainly to add Syrian or Assyrian in various ways to articles. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal - topic ban from categories

Having reviewed Penguin's edits and cat creation, it's a little obvious they are missing a few vital clues. They also have continued with categorization, even after posting here at ANI, and being advised they were doing things incorrectly. As protection, I'd like to propose a topic ban:

"User:Penguins53 is topic-banned from category creation, or categorizing any article for a period of 3 months. Penguins53 is also recommended to obtain mentoring, specifically in the area of proper categorization. This restriction will be logged at WP:RESTRICT. Any violations of this topic-ban will lead to blocks, as per standard escalation processes"

• Support as proposer ES&L 11:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support end the conflict -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Creation was made in good faith, and I'm not seeing any evidence any editor has discussed the creation of categories on editor's talk page. NE Ent 22:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Failure to assume good faith and who has clean hands here? 172.130.242.235 (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose NE Ent is correct -- and (with any luck) Penguins53 will understand why care is needed in this field (categorisation), and will avoid the mistakes made heretofore. If this comes up again after substantial additional issues, then that would be a different kettle of fish. Collect (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't understand the rationale behind this? Why does the creation of a category of ethnic writers to a specific countries result in a ban? There were many ethnically Assyrian (Syriac) writers and I thought it'd be helpful to categorize by the country. Now, I know that countries such as Turkey did not exist in 500 C.E.; however, it was the best way to categorize the writers. I stated in the page that the category referred to Assyrian writers who had lived in and/or were born in the territory that corresponds to modern-day Turkey. I think that's self-explanatory. I am sorry. I was just trying to help and added Assyrian writers to the category. I did not know this would create an argument. In regards to why others were discussing me, they were saying that I should not have added the Syriac translation of Biblical figures to their pages. Again, I thought that Syriac is both an historically and religiously sacred language so it'd be worthy to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

But when you were asked to stop and told why, you continued ... that's the problem ES&L 09:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Where? Diff? NE Ent 10:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose formal sanctions as way premature. This is a good faith content dispute. If there's some long term problem (not at all evident from the dearth of evidence above), then a WP:RfC/U should be held. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@ESL, I'm sorry. I honestly didn't think what I was doing was to cause this controversy. I'm sorry; I was trying to be helpful and make the writers easy to separate by country because there were a lot of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You contintued to change multiple articles despite the warnings from multiple users, but you suddenly stopped when I reported you here. Why? Also, when someone reverted your changes, you undid the revert to your version causing conflicts when someone would revert the changes back. Furthermore, You didn't discuss your changes anywhere despite the warnings until I reported you here, then you decided to discuss it. Again, Why? -- ♣Jerm♣729 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I should not have done what I did and should have stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – @NE Ent and Dougweller: – Is it kosher for an editor to change what he/she said after another user replied, to make it look like the reply was to something quite different? User:Jerm729's reply above, originally written at 01:05 today, was further modified at 01:33, 2 minutes before it was replied to by User:Penguins53. After that, User:Jerm729 made 3 additional modifications, including changing the order of phrases and adding new content that was not what User:Penguins53 replied to. (BTW: None of the 4 edits to "fix" the statement fixed the word "contintued" [sic], the 2nd word in the paragraph.)
  • Slice of edit history showing the pertinent edits: [173]
  • Before and After diff comparing replied-to version with 02:46 version: [174]
• How many times or ways does User:Penguins53 have to say "sorry"? It is really sad, that the only editor helping Penguins53 has been SineBot. 172.130.242.235 (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• No per WP:REDACT comments should not be altered after being replied to without some visual indication they were edited. Since the edit has been pointed out I don't think any further action needs to be done in this case though. NE Ent 12:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

One sentence did not make sense in my reply that would cause confusion. Everything is now appropriate. Nothing was added to change the meaning of the stratment. Original: “You contintued to change multiple articles despite the warnings from multiple users, and when someone reverted your changes, you undid the revert to your version. You didn't discuss your changes anywhere despite the warnings until I reported you here, then you decided to discuss it here. Why? Also, you stopped your continuous edits until I reported you here even after the warnings from users.”...as you can tell "Also, you stopped your continuous edits until I reported you here even after the warnings from users." was confusing my words so I simply moved it. -- ♣Jerm♣729 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

NE ENT, you haven't properly investigated the situation, and assume wrongfully. You say no one has bothered to discuss any topic to this user, yet the warnings in the user's talk page clearly guides the user to multiple options of discussion. And out of all the warnings, the user suddenly wanted to discuss after I placed - subst:ANI-notice - to his/her talk page. This user has to have some sort of punishment for causing havoc for multiple users in multiple articles. I don't know why you can't recognize the issue here, you want a user who has done so much in such short time to cause plenty of damage close to spamming and edit conflicts to have some sort of pass? What is the point really if your not going to stay on topic? We should just give every vandal and spammer a free pass even after plenty of warnings and hints of discussion. -- ♣Jerm♣729 14:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I won't be available for long, so I would like to end this depressing discussion within a two day time period. -- ♣Jerm♣729 15:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A new proposal

I recommend a new proposal that will satisfy and ease both sides of the conflict quicker. The proposal: Not to delete or ban the subject: User:Penguins53, but archive it. Also, to delete all "warnings" from User:Penguins53's talk page, and to assign the user to Wikiproject Syria for instruction and guidance. Furthermore, I will volunteer to help assist the user if wanted by he/she. Finally, a block from editing Wikipedia for a five-day period to fulfill the punishing side after assigning the user to Wikiproject Syria and delete all "warnings" from User:Penguins53's talk page. -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Any suggestions? -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • How about you just stop being so hyperactive in this ANI thread? The thread will just be archived then, which is a suitable outcome. The fact that the previous 6 posts in it were by you and went unreplied till now should have been clue enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to apologize then to everyone for waisting y'all's time on this thread and my obvious attacks. I'm ending my part on this discussion, and everyone else here can decide for what is right. I see now that the majority are against me. I deeply apologize specifically to you Penguins53 for such harsh aggressions and should have consulted with you before I sent a warning. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's okay, Jerm. I should have listened and stop and not kept editing. Penguins53 (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Penguins53

Mongols

Can somebody look into Khereid (talk · contribs) actions, he is blindly reverting my edits.[175], [176].

Khereid practically re-wrote the entire Mongols article. Tendentious editing and persistent POV-pushing, promoting fringe views, and using unreliable sources,[177], [178], [179], [180], [181] incivility and personal attacks[182], [183], blanking of sourced content.[184]

What can be done about the lack of neutral point of view in the article? Thanks. -- Tobby72 (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am Russian, so I better do not get involved into this particular dispute, but it looks indeed from the talk page that Khereid has difficulties understanding basic policies of Wikipedia. If there no action follows this request, try WP:DRN.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure what this is about, but I warned the user because among other things, s/he kept deleting Tobby72's comments on the talk page (I reverted as much as I could, but I might have missed something). In fact, Kherid was even told about this behavior before. (BTW, on the surface it might look as though Tobby and Kherid are involved in an edit war, but I think Tobby is safe because reinstating his/her legitimate comments is an exception to 3RR.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

He ignored the warning and removed other editors' comments again. I do not think he understands that this is against policy. Whatever the case, I think a senior editor needs to talk to him about WP guidelines and policies, especially because of the sheer quantity of changes he's making. Lathdrinor (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting the feeling that s/he understands the guidelines but s/he just doesn't care. And the warnings are pretty clear; I think a block is in order (even moreso than a mere topic ban). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

List of The Powerpuff Girls episodes

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

---

Is there a way to get this page protected? I have what appears to be a vandal IP changing source info and adding bogus airdates on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Right now there is a Powerpuff Girls marathon ongoing on Cartoon Network so I expect the page to be more visited. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotected for two weeks. I've reverted to the contents of 26 December; please look to see if I've removed anything that should have stayed. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks good and thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see a protection template on the article... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why not; perhaps the bot's down? The padlocks generally get added by bots, and I can't remember ever knowing what the code to add one was. It's generally not a big deal, but if you know the code and want to add it, go ahead. You made me wonder if I'd forgotten to protect it, but the page history shows that I semiprotected it until 2 February. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added a template for you. only (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2014 (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.

Self-promo/advertising by Tim Symonds

An editor I assume to be one Tim Symonds, a writer of self-published Sherlock Holmes pastiches, has abused Wikipedia to publish, advertise and promote his works. Here is a list of the accounts he has used:

• User:Tim_symonds
• 92.26.38.221
• 89.240.26.204
• 92.26.36.120
• 92.26.36.133

His edits to promote his self-published books all violate WP:SPIP, WP:NBOOK, and WP:NOTADVERTISING. I have tried to revert all his edits, not only to such pages as Non-canonical Sherlock Holmes works, but to the pages of historical figures, etc., he mentions in his books. Here are some of my reverts:

• Scotland Yard
• Einstein family
• Mollie Hardwick
• Battle of Maiwand
• Sexton Blake
• History of crime fiction
• Jezail

He even, at one point, added a self-described "17-page research essay on fate of Lieserl Einstein-Maric" to an article on the Einstein family. The user's disruptive editing was noted on User talk:Tim symonds and User talk:92.26.38.221; and I recently tried to warn him at User talk:92.26.36.133 and User talk:92.26.36.120. User:RockMagnetist also attempted to welcome and (re)apprise the user of how to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. None of this has seemed to work, thus I am here at the Administrators' noticeboard. The author appears to have a website (alberteinsteinmystery.wordpress.com) and an e-mail address ([email protected]), but I have not contacted him at this location. (I didn't know if that was kosher.) TuckerResearch (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:uw-spamblock}} This is blatant enough that I've blocked the username and both of the IP addresses that have edited this year. If you find any other IPs adding this type of thing, let me know at my talk or report it here. If you find any other accounts adding this type of thing, it will be time for a sockpuppet investigation. Since the guy's openly posted his email address, it's not against our policies to contact him with it, but I'd advise against it because it would be pointless in my mind. If you can imagine some benefit, go ahead. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, on 12 Jan 2014 I removed two of his ip 92.26.38.221 edits ([185], [186]) because he used fiction as sources for facts. When checking his other edit up to then ([187]), I noticed it was already removed. I then went to the publisher's website MX Publishing to check whether perhaps it should be included in our wp:List of self-publishing companies, I found that a Tim Symonds had written a few books, published at MX. I decided against adding the publisher to the list, but to keep an eye on this IP. I forgot to do just that, sorry for which. I also should have made a search for the string "Tim Symonds". Good job, Tuckerresearch. - DVdm (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

¡Gracias! TuckerResearch (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the matter is going to end here. I have a feeling we might end up filing a Sock investigation for this guy soon enough. He seems hungry for publicity, and might come back again. [Maybe as Moriarty]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Germany and Denis Bratland

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.

---

Closed by ϢereSpielChequers 12:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) works against some different German authors and deletes and reverts IPs from Germany. He is in my opinion a british nationalist who works against German topics. And he works with his Germany bashing camapagne over socketpuppetry "Europefan". With this trick he deletes different German authors who write all over German topics.

178.3.27.228 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

They do not seem to have any contributions on the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

They had the spelling wrong, which I have fixed. The I.P is a block evading sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. Flat Out let's discuss it 08:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Isn't DB American? Funny sort of British Nationalist; perhaps he is waiting for the redcoats to come back???? lol _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 110.174.147.166 and the Eye color article -- WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Personal attacks

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 110.174.147.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been repeatedly blocked for WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Personal attacks with regard to the Eye color article, its talk page and me: See the IP's talk page for background information, and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12#Ignorant & Unhelpful (and the section immediately after it) and User talk:Flyer22/Archive 12#Idiotic Sad Case for incidents specifically regarding me. The IP comes back to argue for the same WP:Original research material at the Eye color talk page every time his block expires, and the cycle repeats itself. For example, that cycle of WP:Original research and WP:Personal attacks is currently going on with that IP at the Eye color talk page. I know that talk pages are not usually WP:Semi-protected for long, and especially not to keep one editor from commenting, but I don't know what else can be done in this case to keep the IP from abusing that talk page in the way that he has continued to do...except for once again blocking him from editing (longer this time of course). Flyer22 (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

His last edit is basically a threat saying he'll continue his disruptive behaviour [aka fighting for what he thinks is right] no matter how many times he's been blocked. I think this guy deserves a Perma block. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Rsrikanth05. Thanks for commenting. Permanent blocks are not given to IP addresses, however (not for long anyway)...unless they are WP:Proxies. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Long term? Extremely long term? Six months? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those are given out to IPs. Flyer22 (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2014 (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.

Carriearchdale's "copyedit work"

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've noticed it first on 2 occassions, when Carriearchdale changed "1990s" to 1990's" (creating an error) and then "backstory" to "back story" (another error, backstory), and called it a copydit work done, removing the copyedit request tags that I've placed there. Back then I didn't realize it's the same person.

But now I saw Carriearchdale is doing it everywhere, either just removing the tag without doing any copyedit, or just doing just few cosmetic changes (like there yesterday, where editor requested "copy edit|for=conciseness, structure, removing essay-like tone", and instead got something entirely else done - a few spellings, and the tag was then removed. Or this case, where "proper formatting of titles, copyediting, other formatting" was requested, and NOTHING was done but the tag removed. There are many such instances.

It's a dozen or more of such "copyedits" a day, every day, and very often it's just a removal of the tag (which I noticed after Carriearchdale returned to the "1990s" article to just remove the tag, previously havingg did it also with a related article). A few no-copyedit "copyedit" edits of tag removal, just today: [188][189][190][191][192][193], and so on.

Needless to say, there's a lot of damage being done. Many, MANY articles are not being copyedited properly, and often even additional errors are inserted. Something's to be done with it, and I-don't-know-how-many articles that were "copyedited" by Carriearchdale. --Niemti (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I thing a bot-revert of everything might do a job. --Niemti (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you tried to discuss the matter with her before coming here. All I see from you on her talk page is one of those annoying notification templates. I looked at a handful of the edits and don't see any serious errors (a larger sample might well find some, but the error rate is apparently not extremely high). I see a couple instances of removing copyedit tags when the article might still have issues, but that's somewhat subjective and not a big deal anyway, as those tags are useless either way (if you care about the issue, WP:FIXIT, don't tag it). So I don't think this calls for a revert bot or an ANI just yet. I'd suggest starting with some polite feedback as the person appears to be a newbie. (Also: {{Copy edit}} has two words right there in the template name--so it can be written either way. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think "those tags are useless either way", request the tag template for deletion, "50.0.121.102". If hudnreds of people requested a copyedit, sometimes even with a detailed list of what they need there, they should have received just that instead of serial tag-removal with the edit summary of "copyedit" (occasionally also some random minor error corrections AND error additions). --Niemti (talk) 10:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying that your concerns are wrong, but this shouldn't be at ANI yet. The IP is correct, you've haven't tried to work it out on talk pages yet. You shouldn't really be taking it here unless those sorts of discussions aren't working. Judging how similar discussion are going on the user's talk page right now, and he's ending his comments with since "have a nice day", it hardly seems like the type of dispute that needs to be here yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it just needs to be all reverted. I just took a closer look at this example where editor requested "copy edit|for=conciseness, structure, removing essay-like tone", and instead got something entirely else done - a few spellings, and the tag was then removed. I was wrong, not even spelling was corrected - in fact Carriearchdale just randomly inserted additional ERRORS, again (monoculture to "mono culture", clearcutting to "clear cutting", leafcutter to "leaf cutter"), called it "copyedit", which is even worse than the usual "copyedit" (edits summary) of just removing the tag, and it's not a separate case. All those edits to so many articles (apparently hundreds) should be just summarily reverted ASAP. This widespread damage is the "incident" I reported, and that is the obvious remedy. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Per the top of this very page: Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass reversion (the nuclear option, totally unnecessary in this case) would be extremely bitey (as is this post) to a courteous newbie. I've left a note on their talk page. Miniapolis 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

In response to the IP I am quite surprised to see discussion here about my editing before the IP even spoke or commented to me on my own talk page.

Please be assured that I have been editing in good faith. I would never say I would never make a mistake. I surely would never agree that I have done any damage to Wikipedia. I am only trying to help improve Wikipedia in good faith. However, I have decided to take a step back and reflect on these comments. I hope everyone has a great day!!!

Carriearchdale (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (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.

Telexfree Article - 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.

---

I´m opening this section to report Vandalism and Disruptive Editions in Telexfree article.

The article have received several disruptive editions and vandalism during the last weeks from those IPs 177.39.88.4, 190.115.177.173, 24.128.169.55, 202.152.201.13 and few users (Kovyazinaa for example). Warnings have been sent by editors but the vandalism is not stopping, actually it is increasing. BrazilianTale (✉) 10:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request to the administrators to include the Telexfree article in the articles that you can edit only if logged in (NO ANONYMOUS EDITIONS). Thanks BrazilianTale (✉) 10:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, actioned. Please take future requests for page protection to wp:RPP. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 20 January 2014 (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.

CDisplay versus CDisplayEx

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.

---

Over at CDisplay slow edit war has flared up - partly fanned by my own input I accept - over the inclusion of the application CDisplayEx in the article.

User Hgourvest has been adding full information and an infobox about CDisplayEx to the article page[194][195][196][197][198], and an IP address has been removing it[199][200]. I agree with the IP address, so also removed the info. Hgourvest has since been readding the info despite requests to stop while we discuss it - and then I noticed that the author of CDIsplayEx is "Henri Gourvest" - and he confirmed that Hgourvest is one and the same. I figured I'd cut to the chase and create the CDisplayEx page, but when I went to do so saw that it had been deleted back in 2010.

Despite all my fun and games here on Wiki, I'm not sure what to do about an editor with a potential COI editing a page, and what to do about creating a page that has been previously deleted as non-notable. Hgourvest is also insisting that any removal of content is vandalism, and stating so in edit summaries. He also placed a vandalism template on the IP's talk page - which I thought inappropriate so removed.[201]

As an added comment, 212.51.183.14 which has edited the page once[202] to re-add the info geolocates to Paris[203] - based on quacking, I think that this is Hgourvest logged out - good faith says he's a new editor and didn't know it, poor faith says it was to avoid hitting 3RR.

My opinion is that there is nothing wrong with a single sentence about the application, but if it is to be added in such detail then it should be done so on its own page, not the CDisplay page.

Despite thinking that the page should be held at point of discussion - when I removed the info - I'll not be removing it again as I'm at 3RR, although including the IP edit, that puts Hgourvest over at 4RR.

While I agree that this is essentially a content dispute, it also encompasses COI editing, and advice on recreating deleted articles, so I ask for help here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the sequence of events and the conclusion. Restoring the deleted page, would solve this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hgourvest (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (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.

Jay-Z

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 image in the infobox of the Jay-Z article is a cat. Jay-Z is not a cat. Someone is trying to be funny. Please fix, I'm not sure how. Thanks. PS: I'm not notifying anyone as I don't know who to notify. EdChem (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone overwrote the image at Commons, I've reverted it. January (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

There's something resembling a legal threat in the edit summary of this edit to Gumball 3000 by IP 87.236.129.241, which reads "To all concerned: revisions made whilst clients and legal IP owner progress legal action on grounds of IP sabotage". It doesn't appear to be directed against anyone in particular. Is any action needed? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Point it out to the IP? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be best to just warn them. Epicgenius (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

‎Obozedalteima

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.

---

Can I get some attention on user ‎Obozedalteima (talk · contribs) who has used his account disruptively right off the bat and continues to do so incessantly despite numerous warnings. I have warned him for his edit warring and for his libel that he's posting on a blp talkpage. [204][205] He has since continued to edit war his tags and post libelous material on talkpages. He has been warned numerous times by many different users for the same offences, but continues the same behavior and ignores/deletes warnings. [206][207][208] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

No you can't, you better stop pushing propaganda all over, i gave dispute and Original research warning in soem articles, also gave examples on talk page, so you better stop deleting it, or you will get banned from wikipedia. Obozedalteima (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring, plus a threat. You've just put yourself in a tight situation there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't spoke to you, nor I'm interested in your opinion and Muslim propaganda and provocations on wikipedia. Obozedalteima (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Obozedalteima, you are on the verge of being blocked for being disruptive, per WP:NOTHERE. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can we get a quick block here for repeated insertions of [209]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jamie. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Obozedalteima reported by User:Ruby Murray .28Result: Blocked.29 Ruby Murray 16:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Propaganda? So now you've decided to resort to personal attacks? [I'm not a Muslim anyway]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2014 (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.

TelexFree article still under attack

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.

---

Even though the protection level of the TelexFree article has been increased, it is still under vandalism attack by MICHAEL JACKSON DO ALÉM and his two sockpuppets MICHAEL JACKSON DO ALÉM O RETORNO and MICHAEL JACKSON DO ALÉM A VINGANÇA. Maybe this user should be blocked and/or the protection level of the article should increase. Maurício Gomes MMN (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• All this was handled with speed and diplomacy by the intrepid admins Barek (aka MJ STILL RULES), John Reaves (aka JONAH O RETORNO) and Toddst1 (aka ADMINZILLA THE THRILLA). Drmies (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (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.

libyan civil war

see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libyan_Civil_War&diff=591597779&oldid=591597009 , one user inserted pov name "gaddafi regime" and called the original version of "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" as "pov name" i have notified the user(s) 90.132.43.11 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Check out what infobox has the Han Dynasty have. Other user refers WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING for this change. --112.206.31.89 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything? "Gaddafi regime" is a pov name istead of the more usefull "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" see also the disruption at National Transitional Council of Libya 90.129.77.14 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Jamahiriya is just a mock-up term used by the Libyan leader to describe his government. Using this term in search engines will not yield results related to the civil war and the Gaddafi regime adheres to WP:POVNAME and WP:POVNAMING. Discussion closed. --112.206.31.89 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Rashidun Caliphate, Roman Empire, and the Han Dynasty are not former "countries" (country in the modern sense) but they possess the infobox called "former country". Transiitonal governments like Bangladesh, France, Ethiopia, and Iran have those infoboxes. --112.206.31.89 (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"gaddafi regime" is already mentioned on the infobox which makes it redundant 90.129.77.14 (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are we having "Nazi Germany" everywhere, and not the Greater German Reich? Why are we using Burma and not the Republic of the Union of Myanmar? OMG POV NAMES. --Niemti (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Both of them should really be blocked for breaking WP:3RR...and since "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" is what has been there for a long time and is technically the official name, it should be in the infobox. Someone should start a discussion on the talk page, though, as it's really a content dispute. (The infobox on the NTC page stays no matter what, though.) Ansh666 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you comment, you should read this: WP:RECOGNIZABLE and only when to use official names WP:OFFICIALNAMES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.13.102 (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Both of those refer to article titles only. Ansh666 01:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Its not a "content dispute". Its just a plain and simple vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.206.13.102 (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

vandalism from you ofcourse 83.180.164.135 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've temporarily semiprotected both pages given the level of IP editwarring. Work out changes instead of just reverting back and forth please. Ansh is correct that at least one 3rr block would be justifiable here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Sock-puppetry on Clive Palmer and Palmer United Party

There is some pretty aggressive sock-puppetry going on in these two articles. I've semi-protected, and blocked the socks as they pop up, but keep an eye out for related topics because the vandal seems to be moving around quickly. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy move?

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

---

You guys tell me; I'm just putting up the link. Talk:Dictatorship_laws_in_Ukraine#Requested_move. Red Slash 03:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Mdann52talk to me! 14:05, 21 January 2014 (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:PLNR

User:PLNR makes disrupting edits, replacing text with strong non-neutral statements and disrupting citations to state the opposite of the original.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&diff=590274760&oldid=590273388
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&diff=591456134&oldid=591455654
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict&diff=591635282&oldid=591633882 --Wickey-nl (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I believe that this only highlights continues disrupting behavior by User:Wickey-nl. The first two edits here followed Wickey-nl revert [210] claim it is disruptive. So I broke it down into two bare bone parts, explaining each:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah–Hamas_conflict&diff=591455654&oldid=591411360
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fatah–Hamas_conflict&diff=next&oldid=591455654

On top of approaching Wickey-nl [211] to see if there is any further issues so we can deal with them. Which he basically ignored and instead of make constructive edit explaining his reason, he used the opportunity to accuse me at "propagandistic edits and distortion" [212] and continued with edit warring [213] per his accusation.

While here [214] Wickey-nl has made a major revision, without any summary or previous discussion. Which among other things include several new unsourced paragraphs with vague statement. When he was asked to break down to smaller explained chunks. He ignored it reverted to what he want, so far he also ignored request to explain his edit [215]

Similarly, here [216] Wickey-nl completely removed sourced information claiming it is Distorted, ignoring my request to expand on what exactly he found distorted, which he ignored.--PLNR (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You want to draw away to the Hamas article? You refuse to explain on the Talk pages. I am sure you deliberately edit clear words to change the essence of the text and diffuse with ambiguous wording. --Wickey-nl (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You had your chance to discuss content, but you decided to bring it here, so I am simply pointing out your lack of communication and bad faith edits, which result in edit warring.--PLNR (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ravi Zacharias

For several years, the Philosophy section of theologian Ravi Zacharias has included language to the effect that the subject's belief in the incompatibility of thermodynamics with evolution has won no support from the scientific community. This consensus position has endured, in various forms, through much discussion on the talk page. Recently, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheGreatIncognito, a single-purpose account, has edit-warred to remove the disclaimer. Attempts to address this on the talk page have been futile.

It seems clear that the intent here is to push the WP:FRINGE claim that evolution is inconsistent with thermodynamics. Great latitude should be shown in an encyclopedia article about religious persons, of course, but here we do not have a matter of belief, but rather one of either misunderstanding or misrepresenting science. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm a little on the fence here. While I agree that TheGreatIncognito shouldn't be edit warring, s/he does back up his/her added information with a source (how reliable that source is, I'm not sure; that's not my field). Also, the ANI seems to be going on at the same time as the discussion on the talk page; maybe it should stay there for right now? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that the discussion should stay there now that there's discussion. Perhaps the point of a posting here is to attract eyes to the situation without canvassing given that edit-warring was happening?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that TheGreatIncognito does not participate on the talk page, and apparently never has. The sole source adduced is (apparently) a letter to the editor of a trade magazine more than thirty years back. I haven't been read that article, but it's been frequently cited by WP:FRINGE creationists and the position is easily debunked, as a quick Google of "evolution second law of thermodynamics" will show. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Signature and incivil 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.

---

Hi. User Beyond My Ken has a misleading signature per WP:SIGPROB "Signatures that link to, but do not display, the user's username (for example by signing with a nickname, as in User:Nickname or Nickname) can be confusing for editors (particularly newcomers)." I've asked him to change it, but I've been met with incivil comments. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

In World War II, at the Battle of the Bulge, the 101st Airborne Division in Bastogne was surrounded by German troops, and when the German commander quite sensibly sent in a message suggesting that the surrounded American troops should surrender, his message was answered by the American commander with the simple reply "Nuts". (Which confused the German commander, and had to be translated.)
In this spirit, I say to Lugnuts, who really should have better things to do with his time, but often chooses instead to act as if WP:MOS is Holy Writ (especially if an edit changes an article that he's taken an WP:OWNership interest in): "Nerts". (That's "nuts" with a prototypical Brooklyn accent. Even though I'm not from Brooklyn, and don't live there now, I have great appreciation for the Brooklynite's outlook on life, and his suggestion that east is east and west is west, and if the train from Canarsie is late, I ain't never gonna get to work on time!)

Oh, well, sorry for the excess verbosity. Perhaps it is all better summed up in the words of the profit: "Take a hike!". Yours most humbly and sincerely, Don Alfredo Questo Ablegato Tanto Mucho; Talka to da don, he's a gonna make you a offer you cannota refuse, sure as as your uncle's a monkey 11:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)tbh it's a pretty fucking classic sig!!! Wow _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, the username policy does not forbid that, and indeed, the information on changing your username actually suggests that. WP:SIG simply says it might be confusing to other editors. As long as his signature links to either his userpage or usertalkpage (without other problems), then it's wholly within policy. ES&L 11:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Da ting is, counselor, dat Lugnuts knows exactly who I am, we've been butting heads since I first started editing film articles maybe 8 years ago, so dis AN/I complaint is really kinda bogus, just the Lugger tryin' to get me into trouble, because, after a fair piece of time, he and I have been disagreein' again (becuz he's still a MOS-stickler while I remain a MOS-tickler).

    What I mean to say is that Lignuts filed this report with the explicit intention to get me into trouble, not because he was in any way actually confused by my sig. That seems to be to be pretty darn bogus reason for a report. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, BMK, the schtick is actually rather annoying :-) If you think Lugnuts is targeting you, trying to drive you off specific articles or the project, file your RFC/U or provide us with a wider swath of diff's right here for the WP:BOOMERANG effect for a one-way WP:IB. Yeah, this ANI filing is improper, non-policy-based, seems to be related to a personal dislike, and can be suitably closed unless you want to provide the above. ES&L 11:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

One man's schtick is another man's ox being gored. I believe that when an editor files an "improper non-policy based" (your words) AN/I against another editor, there's a reasonable amount of leeway for the editor being targeted to bitch about it, especially if there's history between the editors (and this is Wikipedia, it's always likely that there's some kind of history somewhere). So, you can have your bitching bland and basic, like boiled potatoes buried beneath a brisket of beef, or you can have a little humor with it. Personally, I prefer a bit of levity, because, frankly, we all get much too serious about this project. I'm sorry if that's not to your taste, and assure you that if the Lugman doesn't press the issue, I don't plan to extend the schtick any farther. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

This is such a non-issue I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So Lugnuts has an issue with Beyond My Ken having a sig that displays 'BMK', but not with EatsShootsAndLeaves having a sig that displays 'ES&L'...? GiantSnowman 13:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the difference is that Lugnuts and ES&L haven't had a history of disagreements. You see, I go in and expand a film article - usually about an old film no one's really terribly interested in -- by 2, 5 or 10 times, and then Lugnuts or Clarityfiend or some other editor with little or no imagination take issue with some picayune formatting that I've done and edit war to remove it. They cite MOS, of course, never having understood that MOS is a guideline and not a policy and, as Arbcom has said several times, not worth edit warring over. So Lugnuts reports me here not because he's actually concerned about my signature, but because it's yet another way to hit back at me for not doing things his way.

I've learned to live with these things, with the help of psychotherapy and drugs, although it does, at times, make it unpleasant to edit here, and provokes me to avoid movie articles for a while to get away from them. Things like this are the secret, hidden truth about Wikipedia, and probably more significant in driving editors away that any other factor that's been proposed - editors such as Lugnuts and Clarityfiend are so totally dead certain that they're right, that they never consider the alternatives, and are never bothered when they drive editors away. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2014 (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.

Beyond My Ken personally attacking Lugnuts

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

---

There is a rather heated disagreement at the talk page of No Other Woman (1933 film) between Beyond My Ken and Clarityfiend. Clarityfiend put in a request for intervention at the WikiProject Film talk page, which Lugnuts saw and responded to. Lugnuts, who did nothing but request that BMK change his signature per WP:SIGPROB, is met with BMK saying "[sic] so I think you should go ... well, let's see, how do I put this in a way that's socially acceptable, yet won't be be misunderstood by folks, who are, you know, like yourself? ... Yes, I have it -- Go peel a banana!!" Very blatantly an insult and a personal attack on Lugnuts. This gets worse when BMK adds a subsection over Lugnuts's comments, which reads "Another cuntry heard from". Calling someone a "cuntry" is undeniable a personal attack as well. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Update: I realized a little late that this issue has been addressed above, but it pre-dates BMK's addition of the subsection title. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You've duplicated a similar, closed discussion - with a minor addition. So, he mis-spelled "country". What's the issue? ES&L 14:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Go peel a banana" is neither an insult nor a personal attack, it's a cutesy way of saying "go fuck yourself”. While this is rude and not conducive to a collegial environment, it is certainly not a personal attack. As far as “cuntry” goes, we can speculate as to BYK intentions all day, or we can move on and assume that it was an accident, or that it was on purpose and he will surely never do that again. To sum up: Petty squabbling. -- John Reaves 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I saw this from an unbiased, third-person perspective and it seemed like it needed to be addressed. I didn't notice the closed discussion when I created this one, so I apologize for that. And John Reaves, you're right, that I was speculating. But I have to ask, WP:NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." I'm not trying to argue or be snarky, but based on that sentence, if telling someone to go fuck themselves isn't a personal attack, how do we define one? I've never really dealt with this kind of issue before, so I'm fairly ignorant to it. Corvoe (speak to me) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Your requirement when you see an issue is to approach the party and try and resolve it prior to reporting to an admin board. If you find the answer unfulfilling, then weigh the possible alternatives, and report if needed. I don't see that you tried at all to personally resolve it ES&L 15:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Noted for the future. Thank you for bearing with me. I'll get the hang of it eventually. Corvoe (speak to me) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well whatever the right or wrong of the edits, signature etc (which I won't comment on) this is a pretty terrible edit log and User:Beyond My Ken has just earned themselves a 24 hour block from me for breaking the 3 revert rule. Dpmuk (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, nothing to see here

• Given that BMK has already been blocked by Dpmuk for editwarring, I think it would be wise for an uninvolved admin to close this thread before it spirals wildly out of control. The incivility is nasty, but it's not necessarily actionable. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting a block for User:Thesunshinesate

This user has been busy constituting nuisance and fighting everyone on wikipedia. he/She seems to be here for his/her own personal agenda and he/she has been making articles to be biased. As I see it, he/she is always removing anything 'Anti-Ghana' and it doesn't matter to him/her whether they are sourced or not. Here are the following reasons I think this user should be blocked.

• Personal attacks - he/She is always against people who reverts her propaganda posts and she results to personal attacks, name calling. etc on the user talkpages. You can see an example of that at the bottom of my talk page in this revision. That was just because I placed a warning on her talk page concerning his/her disruptive edits.

• Gross Incivility - he/She reverts edits with flimsy excuses and never discusses with other users, an example can be found with his/her various reverts on Ghana article history. he/She reverts anything antiGhana in the article even if they are appropriately sourced. he/she seems to be the only one against the contents. Various warnings has been placed on his/her talkpage, but he/she is never ready to discuss the concerned article/content. Instead he/she removes such warnings instantly and instigates a fight on the users' talkpages. You can see the various warnings placed on her talkpage (including mine) by clicking on the history of the talkpage.

• Edit Warring: he/she has been reverting a particular content like since forever on the Ghana article. Other users keep readding the content but he/she keeps removing it. This is the Content. Please note that the other IP addresses reverting the same content belongs to him/her as the edit summaries are similar to the one he/she gives. He/she considers it "An anti government rant". I don't think this content should be removed as well as it is well sourced and I believed both the 'good' and 'bad' should be included on Wikipedia to achieve NPOV. Another example is the one she just started on the article Cinema of Nigeria. Note that this user has also broken the WP:3RR.

Thanks--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This user and his friend (Versace1608|talk) are fishing around to block me (He wrote to someone to have me blocked) They have tagged teamed on me for no reason. Jamie Tubers has made himself the authority on many articles and no one can dare to make an edit with him reverting. He has filled the Cinema of Nigeria with bias claims and invalid sourced from gossip and entertainment mags as his source of reference. He also game on the Ghana page

and reverted a claim has been disputed since 2013 me and several others have worked very hard on the article to make it neutral If you look at my edits I have not removed anything anti- Ghana like he claim ..claiming international accounts of corruption with no proof and adding references from entertainment sites in an anti government rant is not something that is suppose to be in an wiki article.

Those sources are not even approved based on wikis standards, this editor and his friend can not bully people for making edits just because they don't like it. He is calling my edits propaganda yet he has done nothing but glorify the pages he edit. I am not from west Africa and many of the other editors that I have worked on the Ghana page with are not either. I have nothing to gain. Yet the articles he has worked on for Nigeria is filled nothing but claims from unverifiable sources their edits need to be looked into. he edit that I reverted in the Cinema of Nigeria has sources from an online African gossip entertainment magazine. He and his friend Versace1608|talk are coming after me because I told them to get true sources Thesunshinesate (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

People should not gang up to stop others from contributing..wikipedia is an open forum I am not going to be bullied and threaten by these two editors and I don't think their propaganda based edits should be allowedThesunshinesate (talk)

Irrelevant discussions: containing personal attacks from the accused as well

:::*LOL, you need to calm down. No one is out to get you. You are infact still displaying a reason why you should be blocked. I just checked the content you have been removing from Ghana to see if I was mistaking. lol, I never knew Business Guide Newspaper, Ghana web, Vibe Ghana et al are gossip and entertainment websites (excuse the pun). And the topic you were removing from Cinema of Nigeria is an entertainment related topic, it's appropriate to get sources from reliable entertainment websites. Besides, don't transfer aggression on me, people have been readding the contents before I noticed it myself and I warned you. Checking your talkpage history, I saw various other wikipedians have warned you about the same edit warring and some other disruptive edits. That is the major reason I had to report you.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC) No wikipedians have "warned" me about the edit. there have been disputes over it since it was added to the article. This is not some game. if you were not out to "get me" you and your friend (Versace1608|talk) wouldn't be fishing around to try to get me blocked all because I told you to get true sources. Wikipedia is not a blog its an encyclopedia so NO those sources mentioned there not valid sources for an encyclopedic article especially since it evolved claims of impeaching the current president. Ghanaweb is a user based online site any member can write an article and post it there. Also maybe you do not understand but Wiki articles are suppose to be neutral. That is why I removed those unwarranted bias claims. Also it is an article about the Country not a political party. What was you reason for reverting the edit in the first place. If anyone needs to be blocked I think it's you. I have looked through all the articles you work on and it's the same sources from online blogs and gossip magazine. You comment up there just proves my point you have an ethnocentric agenda for Nigerian articles and you think I am Ghanaian so just because I told you to get true sources to back your claims you are trying to get me blocked. Based on how you used this [[217]] source for your article on the Cinema of Nigeria as well as all the articles you have created on I do not think you understand what is valid source is.Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I do not have anything to say to you or your friend (Versace1608|talk) the admin he went to to try to get me blocked told him that. that is not how wikipedia work. You can try to paint me as the bad guy all you want but the truth about your edits and how you two are trying to get me blocked is right there. I have said all I have to say the admins will look into it. Thesunshinesate (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC) @Thesunshinesate: Lol. Davidwr is not an administrator. I was only asking him to contact an administrator he knows to speed up your block. Just so you know, this page is the administrator noticeboard, so everything you say here will be read by administrators. You can't be reason with, and your attitude towards others needs an overhaul. Maybe when you get block, you will change your attitude and approach. versace1608 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC) When did you ever try to "reason" with me or even try to discuss something with me. All you ever did was threaten me. What part do you play in all of this anyway. It's all because I told your friend there to provide valid sources and yes I am very well admins can see everything I say here. Thank you for coming here to confess that you did go around to look for someone to block me. If this was really about my edits why go about it in such a shady way? you two are going around making propaganda based edits and articles concerning Nigeria and the only reason you have tag teamed on me is because when I called out the bias claims in the Cinema on Nigeria article you saw that I had contributed on the Ghana page and you decided to launch this attack on me. Again thank you for coming here to confess. I am glad you proved my point. like I said I've stated my claims and I have stated the explanation for my edits, I will leave it to the adminsThesunshinesate (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC) ::* @Thesunshinesate: Just like you said, Wikipedia isn't anybody's father's parlour. If you are looking for a place where your opinion rules, feel free to start ThesunshineSate Encyclopedia. You need to learn how to relate with other editors. Everybody readding your alerged 'antigovernment ranting' can't be wronged at the same time. And the sources are valid enough for the article. BTW, I don't care if you are Ghanaian or Somalian. I am part of WikiProject Africa; I am to ensure Neutral point of view on African articles and watch out for people like you editing to suit their tastes. I have also contributed extensively to articles and people add negative Content everytime, I don't remove them. Once they are well sourced, I'm fine.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC) :::*When people warn you, you are suppose to explain the reason you did what you are being warned for, not start personal attacks. You really can't be reasoned with. I've known you just for the past 24 hours and really......I don't know! I give up on you, for administrators to investigate your account and see your edits. Do you know I've had intense issues with the User you are calling 'my friend'? You eed to stop these sentiments and focus on what is.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC) What is my opinion? The fact that those sources you use do not meet Wikipedia standards or the fact that section added to the Ghana page was not from a credible sources? you mention it was well sourced? Yet the sources you mention Ghanaweb and the others do not meet the criteria. Have you seen Wikipedia's policy on references and sources? If you have then tell me what I have done wrong. Also you say want neutrality on articles but you are reverting edits to a claims that is specifically an attack against that country's ruling political party and talks of impeaching the presidents without any proof yet and you are trying to get me blocked because I said it shouldn't be there because the claims are unwarranted. And you turn around to mention you want neutrality in articles. If any of you truly wanted to talk to me or discus with me you could have. The frist thing you did was sent me a warning and a treat. You never asked to engage in a dialogue with me. Stop making this about the Ghana page when its not. You and your friend there are trying to get be blocked because I called you out on those propaganda based edits on the Nigerian articles that you make Thesunshinesate (talk) 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC) I am not going to argue with you, you brought me here to try to get me blocked for no apparent reason other than the fact that I said get true sorces for your claimsThesunshinesate (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC) :*Ghanweb is a reliable news source. You are the one who needs to check wikipedia's policy. And let's even assume to agree Ghana Web is not reliable. Is Ghana web the only reference cited? For crying out loud there is a newspaper source that published the claim. And I wasn't the one who added any of the content you are exhibiting propaganda on.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC) @Jamie Tubers: Thesunshinesate can't be reason with. I don't have time to go back and forth with him/her. Thesunshinesate won't stop at nothing to justify his/her wrong doings. To make things worse, he/she has the nerve to insult you on your talk page, and then say that we are "ganging" up on him/her. smh. I personally feel that Thesunshinesate shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. For your information Thesunshinesate, Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. If you love censored information, I suggest you go elsewhere. versace1608 (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC) Can you all stop arguing long enough to let some other folks comment on your dispute? This is just a continuation of the bickering I see on your user talk pages. Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. Also while I only very quickly skimmed through the discussion, this is not a good place to debate whether something is a RS. Try WP:RSN if discussion on the article talk page fails or use some other form of WP:Dispute resolution as appropriate like an WP:RFC. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple edit warring complaints belong at WP:AN/EW not here and don't need anywhere near the level of discussion you're involved in here. BTW while there may be enough edit warring for a block I didn't see any clear cut 3rr violation. They are at the limit now but their previous revert before now to ths Ghana article was well outside the 24 hour window. Nil Einne (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not concerned about his/her edits or want to prove anything concerning their reliability, he/She can discuss that with the other contributors on the articles (If he/she will). I only noticed he/she is busy edit warring and always attacking anybody who warns him/her about it. That's the reason I reported the user. --Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• It was Thesunshinesate that raised useless and irrelevant issues claiming someone is out to get him/her or something. Good, you also noticed the edit warring was evidently very much. And what about the personal attacks he/she is always giving anyone who notifies or even tries to advise her on the edits?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR was evidently broken too. this edit, this and this were all made within 24 hours--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, that's three reverts. Where is the fourth revert that constitutes a 3RR violation? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay. And the personal attacks and abuses?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

An editor can raise whatever they want, there's no need to respond to them if they are irrelevant to the discussion particularly when your comments are further irrelevant to the discussion. In other words, saying 'the other editor started it' is never a winning argument. And they are indeed irrelevant to this discussion, the reliability of the sources is no excuse for edit warring and should be established somewhere besides ANI (note that my message was directed at all primary participants of this discussion). As for the personal attacks, I had a brief look and their comments do seem problematic but it's not something I can be bothered looking in to. Consider this an example of the problems when you engage in long, irrelevant, argumentation on ANI before anyone gets a look in. Even if there are some legitimate complaints, by the time anyone knows what they are many are not going to bother to look in to them. Nil Einne (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Jamie Tubers, Nil Einne gives you very good advice about ANI posting, but you did right to take the problem here. I agree with you that Thesunshinesate is confrontational and very sure they're right at all times (for instance here, where they clearly don't know what the policy says). As is illustrated by their talkpage and even by their input in this thread, which shows much assumption of bad faith. (I must say, when people talk about their opponents being a "tag team", it rings a warning bell for me.) Admins and others are watching now, and Thesunshinesate has been warned on their page. I can only see two outcomes of that: either they change their approach to editing and their attitude to other contributors, or they get blocked pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC). <Addition: Plus I've just noticed that their comments on User talk:Jamie Tubers have been even worse, with some classic template abuse (a 4th-level "harassment" template, which is ridiculous). Bishonen | talk 12:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC).>

• I just went through the contributions of the user and considering the claims of 'many' contributions, I had to conclude the user must have been editing anonymously as well. I went through the Ghana page and I saw that the previous disruptive reversions were made by anonymous IP addresses, then this user comes up to continue the reversions when the page got protected. This is really suspicious and a clear sign of bad faith. I'm very sure the following IP Addresses were used by this user (there may be more): 216.165.95.64, 69.120.255.161, 216.165.95.66, 24.190.23.37 and 69.120.215.121. I came to this conclusion because they have things in common with this User: the IPs made that same revert on the pages this user is involved in, the other contributions on those IPs (mostly disruptive) are similar/same with the topics this user edits and there are lists of warnings on the talk pages of those IPs (especially the first one) regarding the edits. I have reasons to believe this user infact only uses this account for protected pages, but regularly edits anonymously. I may be wrong though, as I'm aware IP addresses may be shared.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You make good points, Jamie, though it's an exaggeration to say that the name account is only used when articles are semiprotected; it has edited several non-protected articles in the last couple of days. However, 216.165.95.64, the one with all the talkpage complaints going back to 2008 without a break, and several blocks, certainly quacks like a duck, especially if we consider the edit summaries. 216.165.95.64 writes "remove npov political attack attacks against current rpresident does not belong in encyclopedic article; and when the article has been semiprotected, Thesunshinesate echoes "revert NPOV anti govment rant with has no place in article". (Note especially the use of "NPOV" when presumably "POV" is meant, a signature for this user.) I was just going to block that IP for three months, when I noticed that Alison, a checkuser blocked the same IP in 2008 as part of a sockfarm. Alison, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at them now, in relation to Thesunshinesate and the other IPs. Their brother 216.165.95.66 doesn't have any similar bad history, and the other IPs you mention, Jamie, have IMO likely enough also been used by the same individual — they revert similar information, and geolocate to the same area — but they're dynamic, and haven't been used much, nor very recently (they're probably being used by someone else by now). Anyway, I hope we hear from Alison. If she's not editing, I will block the duck in a day or so. Bishonen | talk 16:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC).

Mass removals of content similar to what is being discussed here have been happening since last December. There have also been multiple registered users that have removed content that portrays the government of Ghana in a negative light, including, in chronological order, Citizen gh (talk · contribs), Exdogbaste (talk · contribs), and Medicineman84 (talk · contribs). However, Medicineman84 registered way back in 2007, and has made many constructive contributions. It is possible that there is both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry taking place. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 18:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you asked me, I think the four accounts belong to the same person.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your research, Jamie and Sam. I'm feeling a little out of my depth with this possible sockfarm. I've contacted another checkuser as well as Alison, who doesn't seem to be online right now, but if the worst comes to the worst, I suppose one of us will have to file an SPI report (groan). Bishonen | talk 11:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC).

• Interim report: a checkuser is looking at it. Watch this space. Bishonen | talk 16:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC).
  • Oh, I'm watching! this is SO exciting! Drmies (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's like a TV show isn't it?Thesunshinesate (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm looking into this right now, but need a bit of time. It's the wee hours of the morning here. I'll report back within about 12 hours ... - Alison ^❤ 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, it looks like Thesunshinesate (talk · contribs) is not using multiple accounts at this time. They are doing a small amount of logging out while editing but it looks like it could be attributed to simply forgetting to log in, then subsequently doing so. I'm AGFing on that one. There are shared IPs involved, and I don't think the abuse here, such that it is, warrants linking accounts to IPs, per policy. Citizen gh (talk · contribs) and Exdogbaste (talk · contribs) are both  Stale and Medicineman84 (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to anyone else - Alison ^❤ 20:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It amazes me how Jamie Tuber has created this witch hunt against me all because I called him out on his ethnocentric edits and has even crossed out the things he wrote and cataloged the conversations "Irrelevant discussions: containing personal attacks from the accused as well". I guess it is easy to divert attention to someone else and conjure up a conspiracy against a bunch of other unrelated people all to deflect attention and make him not look like the "bad guy". It's funny he and his supporters say I am assuming "bad faith" yet that's all they have done to me. One false accusation after the other. It's a pity Wikipedia has turned into this, thank you for doing investigation without any bias or preconceived notions Alison. That is all I have to say here.Thesunshinesate (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thesunshinesate, the fact that a checkuser has found you not to be using multiple accounts (at this time, as she puts it) doesn't mean that the criticism of your edit warring, incivility and aggressive editing is miraculously no longer valid. Jamie Tubers did right to bring those issues to ANI, compare my comment above. Since you have just removed all the pertinent advice and warnings on your page with the comment "clearing junk from my talk page", I'll repeat myself to make sure the situation is clear: you need to change your approach to editing and your attitude to other contributors, or you'll be blocked soon. Bishonen | talk 13:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

• I guess those remarks weren't treats. Thesunshinestate, Bishonen is absolutely correct. Please play by the rules, and edit and comment in a civil manner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Genre Warrior Andrewbf

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.

---

Andrewbf (t·c)
The user Andrewbf is long-time genre warrior who has been warned repeatedly about WP:GWAR and has ignored all warnings and input from other editors. Never once has explained genre changes or tried to gain consensus. Does not provide sources to support changes. All attempts to communicate with this user have been completely disregarded, and this can't keep going on. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)/04:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

@XXSNUGGUMSXX:, you need to provide the differences or links to show the user has been GWARing and that attempts to ask for an explanation have turned to deaf ears. Give the admins something to work on. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Here are samples: [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225]. User has received notices on talk page from myself [226] [227] [228], @STATicVapor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrewbf&oldid=600561062] [229] [230], @Jim1138: [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236], @Lightsout: [237] [238] [239], @Etheldavis: [240], @Flat Out: [241], and IP 183.171.179.131 [242] regarding these unexplained/unsourced changes. Every single attempt so far has gotten no response and user has not stopped even a 31-hour block from admin @Elockid:. As a matter of fact, Andrew quickly resumed genre warring after the block expired. Admin @Diannaa: has left a notice [243] on the user's page, though I'm not sure how effective it will be given the user's dismissal of warnings. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I put one more "final warning" on his talk page and will monitor. Editing has stopped for now. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that, and thank you. It wouldn't surprise me to see Andrew resume GWAR'ing, though..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have put this in my calendar and will monitor his edits. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed you blocked Andrew for one week. This should be more effective than the 31-hour block, which didn't affect his ways at all. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2014 (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:A50000 at Soviet Union

The only edits that A50000 (talk · contribs) has performed this year have been to repeatedly edit war over the labeling of the subject of Soviet Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as either a "socialist state" (the current form) or as a "communist state" (the form he keeps restoring) [244] [245] [246]. After the March 20 (at least in my timezone) edit, I informed him on his talk page that he should raise the issue on the talk page but he seems to have ignored that and made another edit in the past 24 hours to restore his preferred version. These have been his only actions on Wikipedia in what is essentially a year, and he has been blocked for disrupting articles relating to communism and socialism in the past. He only seems to respond in the edit summaries and has apparently paid no heed to the message that I left him on his user talk page. Based on this current disruption and past disruption, I believe that A50000 should be topic banned from topics relating to communism, broadly construed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• This is a single-purpose account, whose purpose I cannot clearly discern (their comments in edit summaries and on talk pages are a bit cryptic, though one gets a clear-enough hint here and here) but whose methods are not acceptable. Sources, if they are ever provided, are terrible, and many of the talk page comments (like this) combine borderline trolling with personal attacks. A topic ban is a possibility, but given the soapboxy, unsourced, disruptive, edit-warriorlike edits made by this user, an indefinte block (not infinite, of course) is the best option. I'd love to hear some more opinions, but that's what I think I'm going to do unless I am swayed otherwise. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  I was trying to be generous with my proposal, but an indef block probably would serve the same purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  Yep. "Problem" is, they stopped editing. Let's keep this in the backs of our minds. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

  You spoke too soon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can't block for a remark like that on a talk page. If it moves into article space that's different. Drmies (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced info about relatives

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.

---

Ongoing problems with User:Bcd3174 (previously known as "Charlescorm") who has a history of promotional editing and is repeatedly adding unsourced information to List of Lebanese by net worth. In particular he is repeatedly adding information about his (dead) relatives (i.e. Charles Corm) [247][248][249][250][251], despite it being repeatedly removed by myself and other editors. I stumbled across List of Lebanese by net worth, found the information to be unsourced and very suspect and have attempted to improve it. Bcd3174 seems unwilling to accept that the information there needs to (at least) be verifiable. They have been warned on a number of occasions on their Talk page[252] and the issues have been repeatedly explained on the article's Talk page but their behaviour hasn't subsequently changed at all. It's perplexing! Sionk (talk) 10:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Seconding Sionk's concerns; the editor is essentially a single purpose account editing articles related to Charles Corm, and despite many requests to read and adhere to WP:V and WP:RS, and advice concerning original research in articles, they don't seem to quite understand that it is not ok to add unsourced information. Maybe more advice and pointers from other editors who have been uninvolved with them before could make them understand what the issue is. --bonadea contributions talk 13:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

--Bcd3174 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)This is BS! I spent ages researching and editing the article of "Richest Lebanese in the world". I have spent ages researching who are really the richest Lebanese in the world. It so happens that my GRANDFATHER was one (if not THE one!) of the richest men in Lebanon. After passing away, his wealth was divided among his 2 sons (my father and uncle). Ask anybody Lebanese about the Corm family and they will tell you that we are billionaires (not that I care that much at all; there are much more important things in life than money; this article just happens to cover THAT topic). So what?! Am I supposed to be ashamed to have a rich family? Am I supposed to apologize to Sionk and Bonadea who know NOTHING about Lebanese wealth (actually integrating in the list the names of people who don't even exist! I.e. Maya Papaya and co...)?! Maybe they just can't reconcile the fact that I am an honest and meticulous editor but also the son of a billionaire?! To show my good faith, I sent them the following message a few days ago: @Bonadea and Sionk. As I messaged you both, can we please bury the hatchet. We are NOT enemies and I harbor no other intention than making this list as ACCURATE as possible (just like you)! That means that I apologize for past coarse language. It was only a reaction to having all my hard work deleted under really lame arguments (with all due respect). And you should appreciate the (educated) work I put into this page. I happen to know Lebanese wealth inside out. It doesn't work according to Forbes lists or other BS lists that are known to be notoriously incomplete (when not downright WRONG). There are AT LEAST 5 Lebanese billionaires living in Africa that are not included in Forbes and co. nor the list I compiled. Why? Because these guys' fortune, well above 1 billion USD, is unknown. It could be 1, it could be 10. Their assets are "undercover". Also, and contrary to you Anglo-Saxon thinking, it is common practice in the Middle East to talk about FAMILIES. Forbes MENA (the regional version of Forbes) recently released its list of "RICHEST" and it was a list of... MENA's RICHEST FAMILIES!!! That's the way it works around here: FAMILY WEALTH! Because nobody, including Forbes (!) and hence I trust you will agree neither of you too, can or will ever be able to breakdown the wealth of individual family members. Again, this is how it works around here and if even FORBES approaches the "issue" that way, I trust that you guys will have the humbleness to respect that approach too. Getting to Corm, he was the exclusive agent of Ford Motor Cars for the entire Middle East. Everybody in Lebanon knows the Corms are worth billions. But they are a discreet family who have no interest in being in Forbes (which in turn has no way of measuring their fortune hence does not list them). Now either you want to make this page ACCURATE AND FAIR, either you want to just propagate s* intelligence and information, creating a snowball effect that just reinforces Forbes and co. s* lists. Also Bonadea and with all due respect, your date of death logic is BS! Either you consider a man dead and hence don't include him or his family in the list either you do (again, please read above my part on FAMILY WEALTH). But I don't think it is your prerogative to decide what length of death is acceptable or not! If you insist in removing Corm, then you MUST remove Safra and Hayek. If you don't, you have no consistency. And consistency is the key to credibility. And credibility is EXACTLY what Wikipedia lacks. So if your plan is to KILL Wikipedia (whose death I am convinced is around the corner as nobody I know trusts a word coming from Wikipedia, they just use it as a quick info "fix" on subjects of little importance to them), continue applying DOUBLE STANDARDS the way you do. I just HATE double standards. They are just about the biggest impediments to OBJECTIVE reporting. Over and out...

Their reaction to this kind message and invitation to COOPERATE with me was to simply REPORT me on this page! Again, I am NOT going to apologize or retract because I am working on a list where one of the listees happens to be my grandfather! And if you force me to do so, you (I don't even know who I am talking to) would be going AGAINST every single principle Wikipedia stands for! Over and out...'

It is really very simple. There is a single standard: All information must be sourced. Information that is not sourced can be challenged. When unsourced information is challenged, the burden of proof rests on the person who wants to add the information. Once again: the fact that "everybody in [group x]" knows something is not a source. Nobody is attacking you, nobody is asking for an apology from you. We are only asking for sources.

In addition, the reason sionk added this report here was not your message (which I would not have described as "kind", and which ascribed incorrect characteristics to me - I am not Anglo-Saxon) but the fact that you have persisted in restoring your ancestor to the page, without waiting for consensus on the talk page, and without reliable sources. You have been cut a lot of slack, and treated with a lot of courtesy despite not always being quite civil yourself [253], [254] (I'm not sure whether your characterisation of me as "nothing but rude, aggressive and conceited towards [you]" refers to this, this, or this). --bonadea contributions talk 06:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

--Bcd3174 07:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)If I was ever rude, I truly APOLOGIZE. It was never my intention. Please read my comments above. I extend to you all a hand of PEACE so that we collaborate instead of fighting. I have started my hunt for sources for this article. Not ONLY for my grandfather but for ALL the people on that list. Just give me some time and help out IF you want to make this page relevant and by extension Wikipedia a trusted source of information.

--Bcd3174 10:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)@Bonadea and @Sionk. Let us then seek dispute resolution since you seem on a mission to DELETE whatever I post, whether backed by sources of not. This is OBVIOUSLY personal and personal differences have no room on Wikipedia! You should know that better than me...

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.

Reporting User:Lighthouse01

Lighthouse01 (talk · contribs) is currently involved in an edit war on Serbo-Croatian, and is making POV edits (of the usual kind, in this article). I had a look at their editing history and it seems that they've been making similar edits to other articles, like [255]. This seems like WP:OWN-like behaviour, which is confirmed by these edit, in which they made rather offensive and racist remarks (in the edit summary in the first): [256],[257]. CodeCat (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This also looks like a violation of WP:SOAP and WP:NPA. I'm worried that this editor is here with a pretty strong nationalist agenda that is not going to allow them to properly collaborate with other editors. -- Atama頭 20:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, people for thinking that. Actually my country is surrounded by nationalists, and my edits seem nationalistic. But they're not. Lighthouse01 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The user tried to delete this report [258] (note the edit summary), and has put more personal attacks on their talk page [259]. They also contacted me on my talk page, which was civil at least, but rather hypocritical considering the edit summaries they've been leaving. I find their behaviour very contradictory to be sure... they apologise while spewing insults and personal attacks elsewhere. CodeCat (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Destructive editing by TheRedPenOfDoom

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.

---

Uh, ANI isn't DR and I can't see this ending with a positive outcome for anyone. RFC/U is a better venue. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) Yet again, Red Pen washes up on the shores of ANI. This, for those unfamiliar, is the most deletionist of deletionists. Half an article wiped as one, always with the letter of policy (usually WP:BURDEN) to support them. Yet this is a profoundly negative contributor (and I'm far from alone in holding this view). Look at the contribs history - a sea of red (big reds too, taking 5k off an article in one bite is commonplace) and remarkably lacking in any sort of positive contribution. 50k+ edits and 8 article creations. This is an editor solely interested in serious admin bizniz, and with zero thought for contributing to an encyclopedia. Mostly they limit themselves to trivial crap, fortunately. They rarely approach a serious article and have yet to demonstrate any subject knowledge in any particular field. Although they do have a nasty little sideline in going after articles whose contributors disagree with them, see Mr Whoppit. I post this today because today's deletion targets started to get close to robotics articles, a subject where they might get to leave lasting harm behind. We see whegs tagged as a dicdef, a favourite tactic for working up to deletion. Then LAURON, a German walking robot, gets half its volume and most of its six generations deleted, but not all of them – making the article a rather pointless travesty, yet not having the balls to take it to AfD with an audience. Rhex is another similar robot, probably the best known robot using whegs, and again its demolished without rhyme or reason. The external links are removed because Boston Dynamics who built it have 404'ed a page in a reorg (Google has it as top link for "Boston Dynamics Rhex", which is hardly robot science to rediscover). Then the content is removed as unsourced. Most importantly, hexapod (as the broad topic-level article) gets cut in half and all sources removed as "they are not reliable sources they are commercial promotional sites". That's sites like Carnegie Mellon, Berkeley and JPL. I reverted these deletions. Of course I was edit-warred to delete them again in moments. BRD is just something for the little people. What is going on, what is going on with this project and what is going on with TheRedPenOfDoom? I do not believe (and certainly hope not) that Red Pen's repeated actions have the support of the community as a whole. We have always had articles that are less than perfect, we have WP:IMPERFECT and we have guidance in place for how those concerned, interested or simply so inclined can progress articles forwards to improve them. These are better guidelines than Red Pen's simple "scorched earth" policy on everything he touches. This is particularly so when he either doesn't know who JPL or Boston Dynamics are, or lies to misrepresent the content hes deleting (and just read his past history for plenty of examples of such). This project, and the state it has reached, was not achieved by editors who acted as Red Pen is doing. Is this the behaviour we want for the future? For if so, it's time to start abandoning a lot of past policies and kicking out a lot of old editors, myself included, who are simply incompatible with this brave new world of "authoring by deletion" and dogmatic simplicity over knowledge. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I have to disagree with this. TRPOD is a valuable contributer, I don't think he's perfect but I've had dealings with him on a few issues related to Bollywood stuff and my impression is that he does a lot of work that is difficult and often ignored precisely because people just give up because of promotionalism and such. There needs to be a balance between inclusionist and deletionists, sometimes quality is improved much like with trees by pruning what doesn't work. Sometimes though an abundance of information is desired too. I think it's more of a philosophical differences in approaches. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC) BRD isn't philosophy. Red Pen is perhaps the editor most convinced of his own perfection and least open to discourse about article content. I don't know anything about Bollywood and I can't comment on that (and we surely do see a lot of spam) – but when he pops up in a field I do understand, like the major RS-worthy players in the field of robotics, or even whether the Daily Telegraph is an unreliable tabloid or not, then I recognise when he's talking crap. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I'm not 100% what's happening here so no comment on the validity, it may well be, I'm just vouching for my dealings with him. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC) TRPoD is a valuable contributor. If Andy Dingley were to leave due to TRPoD's editing, I would have a hard time not considering that another valuable contribution. Removing material that is not derived from reliable sources and eradicating original research from articles is a good thing. Objecting to the removal of unsourced material is a bad thing. It really is that simple, Andy, and if you have objections to it, I would suggest that you do something else for a hobby.—Kww(talk) 04:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I have to agree the editor's sole reason for existence seems to be negation, the name, probably a sock, if my five decades on earth mean anything experiencewise, speaks for itself, even if one doesn't pat attention to the behavior. The complainant should bring up some diffs, they will justify action. Just complaining doesn't, unfortunately. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC) <ec x2>*Deleting material which isn't controversial but is unsourced would drop the total text of the encyclopedia by 90%. And thankfully, doing so isn't required or even strongly suggested by policy. If TRPOD believes that material is false or has a basis for suspecting that the material is wrong, that's one thing. But looking at the removal at LAURON, it's a terrible call and he is edit warring rather than discussion. Sure, be bold, but when reverted discuss. That's what WP:BRD is about. I'm not a fan of this editor in any case, but crap like that is just indefensible. (In particular calling 20 years of academic research a product list implies a huge lack of understanding of the topic. So huge I think WP:COMPETENCE applies.) Hobit (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hobit, you've been here long enough to understand WP:BURDEN. Once the material was challenged due to being unsourced, it is the responsibility of the person restoring the material to provide the citations. There are no exceptions to that policy. None whatsoever. Your opinion of the removal or the quality of the challenge is irrelevant: once removed for lack of sourcing, it can only be returned with inline citations.—Kww(talk) 04:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Read the rest of WP:BURDEN please--there is a balancing act here. "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[3] If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." If TRPoD stated that they couldn't source the material, fine. But they didn't. Also notice that sourced material was removed with a justification that implies a massive lack of understanding of the topic (as if they didn't read it in fact). I know well enough that you and I won't come to agreement on this topic. But the fact is the vast majority of Wikipedia is unsourced and the vast majority of that material is correct. Deleting useful things because no one has gotten around to sourcing it when you've no reason to believe the material is wrong is a horrible idea. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hobit, you cannot just add unsourced material per WP:OR. Whether the "vast majority" of Wikipedia is unsourced is a something else (I also seriously doubt that much of it is unsourced), correct material or not. Kww hit the nail right on the head about unsourced material being challenged. I would listen to him, he knows exactly what he's talking about. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC) All of that is true, Hobit, and serves as a reason to caution TRPoD. Your restoration of the material is prohibited, however: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". TRPoD has challenged the material: his challenge is unambiguous. WP:V is policy, WP:BRD is an essay: it cannot override policy. If the material is so clearly and obviously correct and so clearly and obviously valuable, then it should be trivially easy for you or another editor to provide the inline citations that are mandated by policy.—Kww(talk) 04:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I don't really want to have this discussion in two places. But could you please read WP:BURDEN again and acknowledge that the person removing the material has obligations also? In addition, could you justify removing the sourced material (and cite)? Hobit (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Fine, I'll restrict my comments to here from now on: the sole inline citation removed was to a YouTube video, not normally considered a reliable source. The obligations on the person removing the material are suggestions only, while the obligations on the person restoring the material are an absolute and unequivocal mandate.—Kww(talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Here's an example of very constructive editing on the part of TheRedPenOfDoom: Beverly Hills Caviar Automated Boutique - promotional content replaced with encyclopedic content, and citations placed appropriately. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC) I don't really see the point of the edits on LAURON. "Not a product catalogue" doesn't apply here as this robot is not a product for sale in a catalog. Unsourced material should be deleted if it is contested--but let it be contested validly. If it is spammy, not neutrally written, contentious, likely untruthful, sure-- but was that the case here? Drmies (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Hobit, there are obligations for both the remover and the adder. As the adder, you need to support additions with reliable sources. As a remover, one would have to do so if the material is not supported by a reliable source. Not every source is reliable. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) If the encyclopedia only valued contributions with a positive byte size then this place would be a swarm of trivia and bad anecdotal narratives. Thank God, or TRPoD or whatever, that we have editors who run the encyclopedia through some kind of filter so we can churn out quality over quantity.--v/r - TP 05:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC) The OP's complaints should be dealt with as individual incidents through normal channels if they have merit. RPoD does excellent work deleting large swathes of absolutely unacceptable material in many places. See e.g. the history of James Rosemond. I haven't looked at the specific complaints of OP, but really, there's no *general* case to be made that there's something wrong with RPoD's editing. And who knew that I'd end my editing today agreeing completely with TParis, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Well hey now, I'm an agreeable fellow! Sometimes... :) --v/r - TP 05:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC) How many baseless and inaccurate accusations can be made against an editor before WP:BOOMERANG comes into play? Reyk YO! 06:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this in passing having been invited to look at a different section on ANI. I am not clear why this has been collapsed? My experience with User:TheRedPenOfDoom is related to one incident only here, but the following edit behavior and lack of communication which accompanied it indicates to me a double problem. Is there a reason why apparently continued problematic editing and (lack of) communication should not be addressed? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Could we at least have some response from User:TheRedPenOfDoom before closing this? Such as for example an undertaking not to blank and redirect articles that clearly meet WP:GNG without using AFD as the rest of the editing community do. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can't compel a person to post on ANI. If TRPOD feels that a discussion closed as unactionable does not require his input, then that's fair enough. Reyk _YO! 11:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I am most certainly NOT going to agree that taking an article that clearly meets WP:GNG to AfD is appropriate, because if it clearly meets GNG it probably shouldn't be taken to AfD. I am not going to agree that redirecting a bad or unsourced subject to a more valid topic is inappropriate and AfD is better because Wikipedia:ATD#Alternatives_to_deletion says otherwise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, alternatively how would you feel about a simple ban on deleting and redirecting articles? There are visible cases, such as the one I linked, where you did delete and redirect an article which met WP:GNG, so how should the community treat with an editor who is unwilling to recognize that in cited cases they made a mistake on WP:GNG. It's okay to make mistakes, if that was the 1 in 100 you got wrong then hopefully that can be demonstrated. Could you perhaps estimate, roughly, how many articles you blank and redirect in a given 30 days. For example. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So, when was the contest held that awarded the "most deletionist of deletionists" tiara, and why was I not invited? Tarc (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the invitation as promotional spam. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Oof, Nancy Kerrigan'ed right out of competition. Tarc (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

All is fair in love and deletion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks to Torchiest for their efforts in trying to take the LAURON article forwards. This is not assisted though by edit-warring from Kww here, simply trying to disrupt the constructive efforts of another editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't confuse enforcement of policy with edit-warring, Andy. Whatever you may think of TRPoD, he has challenged the material, and, per WP:RS and WP:BURDEN, inline citations are now mandatory to support the material that he removed. Not little notes about how citations would be nice, but actual inline citations. Note that while Torchiest initially failed to comply with policy, he has now complied with policy, rendering this discussion moot. That doesn't make your participation in this less disruptive: do not intentionally violate WP:RS in the future, as it will probably lead to you being blocked.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a second. "WP:RS in the future, as it will probably lead to you being blocked" - User:Kww, I hope you will not be blocking anyone. I only now recognise your name as being the editor who was working together with RedPenofDoom to delete Bible translations into the languages of China which you blanked and redirected as "redundant topic". Since you have made no contributions to that article, it may well be pure coincidence, but might appear that you are taking a special interest in the deletions of RedPenofDoom. May I ask have there been other incidents where RedPenofDooms blanks and redirects and articles, is challenged and you follow up by blanking and redirecting the article again? Perhaps you could indicate if you are or are not a wholly uninvolved party to RedPenofDoom's editing? In ictu oculi (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you are a disgrace as an admin.

Your editing is almost entirely unconstructive. It oscillates between tag-team edit-warring with you and Red Pen to delete swathes of articles when improvement is called for, not rapid blanking, and then as here (and again, all too frequently as Red Pen's pet admin) using threats of imminent blocks against other editors. As I recall, the first time you threatened me like this it was for adding RS to a topic you had already decided needed to go.

As to your clear attack above, "If Andy Dingley were to leave due to TRPoD's editing, I would have a hard time not considering that another valuable contribution. " and giving your view that driving me off the project would be a valuable contribution, then if you'd said that of any other editor I'd have dragged you off to ANI for that alone.

Your actions here have been those of wikilawyering and disruption contrary to the goals of the encyclopedia and harmful to it. When an editor, Torchiest, has the time and inclination to do what is needed here and to start improving the very issues you complain of, your reaction was to edit-war against them and to start threatening.

Kww, you are a disgrace as an admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to take the focus of your own WP:BOOMERANG problem by lashing out at others. You have shown a constant disregard for the need for sourcing, and this case, where you brought an issue to ANI after having violated WP:RS, is simply an example. As for Torchiest's edits, I retained those that were policy compliant and removed those that were not. Hardly disruptive: it's exactly what you would expect an admin to do with respect to an article where administrative assistance had been requested and clearcut, unambiguous violations of policy were occurring.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that TRPOD and Kww are disruptive editors -I think they act in good faith. Still it is also true that they team up often (my experience is mostly in List of unusual deaths) and that especially TRPOD can have a stubborn attitude that makes collaboration very difficult. They tend to engage in a "I am right and you are all morons" attitude. A softer and more open to compromise approach by both editors would be welcome.--cyclopia^speak! 17:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Just wanted to say that I somewhat take issue with the suggestion that I failed to comply with policy. I was in the process of complying with policy, and indicated I would be adding more sources. I assumed I would be allowed time to source the remaining parts, since it seemed clear that such sources existed and could be found based on the progress I'd already made. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know what issue you could take, Torchiest: the challenge was clear in the history, and the policy clearly calls for citations, not tags as placeholders. I didn't accuse you of being disruptive or ill-intentioned, just pointed out that your initial edits were not in compliance with policy. In the long run, you did exactly what is expected: instead of screaming that since sources should be easy to find and running to noticeboards, you found those sources and included them in the article, complete with policy-compliant citations. Thank you.—Kww(talk) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I`d say that his edits are a sea of red, but they are justifiable (He is removing spam and vandalism, etc. ) Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 17:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Happy Attack Dog, on a review of RedPenofDoom's edits over the past week there is certainly some spam and vandalism being removed, that should be recognised, perhaps 1/2, perhaps up to 2/3 of RedPenofDoom's edits, but the question is (1) what exactly of this content on the German robot consitutes "spam and vandalism"?, (2) when an edit is challenged/reverted do we encourage edit warring as the way to proceed? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2014 (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:TekkenJinKazama

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

---

For the past 24 hours, this user has been harassing me about an article I'm not even involved with. He wants me to do something about the Ra.One article, wherein he insists that the film is in English. I have told him time and time again that I have never seen the film, so I have no say on what languages were used on it. My only issue with him was his constant vandalism of Shaolin Soccer, claiming that the English dub of the U.S. version is the official language. - Areaseven (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2014 (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.

Naghmehetaati

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, perhaps someone who speaks Persian, have a word with Naghmehetaati to see whether it's possible to get them to stop posting walls of text in Persian on Talk:Hassan Rouhani. I removed several of their posts and left a message at User talk:Naghmehetaati but without success. Some of the comments appear to have been directed at Hassan Rouhani himself and others seem to treat the page as a forum. They probably mean well but they don't seem to understand the purpose of the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I used Google Translate to put a note on their talk page. The text is almost certainly distorted in some way, but perhaps it might be enough to get the idea across. BMK (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If the editor is unable to communicate in English, then that falls under WP:COMPETENCY. There is a reason why there is a different project for each language. If I went to the Persian Wikipedia and started leaving messages in English everywhere (and only English) I'd expect to be blocked too. If the editor is able and willing to communicate in English then there won't be a need for a block, so I suggest giving them a chance first. -- Atama頭 22:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As always, WP:SPEAKENGLISH applies... Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Naghmehetaati (talk · contribs) just made another two talk-page posts: diff and diff. Each is an Arabic (I think) post that appears to be some kind of opinion of no relevance to Wikipedia. They are easy to revert, but firmer action may be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not Arabic. It uses Pe (Persian letter). Sean.hoyland - talk 09:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• No response on their usertalk after several days of continued and ongoing posting in Persian on talkpages (a really long one here). I've indeffed until such time as they say something on talk to explain what they're trying to do, but my own feeling isn't that it's to help build an encyclopedia. If it turns out to be, and that the competence to do so is there, unblock them by all means. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 4 April 2014 (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.

...and they're back as Special:Contributions/Naghmehetaati_1 Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked this account. PhilKnight (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

77.97.151.145 and Talk:Sega Genesis

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 have a word with 77.97.151.145 (talk · contribs) and their contributions to this talk page, which consist entirely of intermittent abusive messages about renaming Sega Genesis to Mega Drive, ([260], [261], [262]) a discussion that has been done to death so much it has a prominent entry in WP:LAME. Cheers. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, can an administrator remove these edit summaries the user posted as highly offensive: here and here ? Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2014 (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.

Inappropriate public slur by WilyD on another editor's character at RfD

At this RfD discussion, WilyD (talk · contribs) has publicly and completely unfairly accused another editor, Gorobay (talk · contribs), of "making racist slurs". The accusation is unfair because the other editor nominated a redirect in Macedonian to the article Work ethic with the rationale "not especially Macedonian" amongst a batch of similar nominations for cross-lingual redirects, with similar rationales in each case.

I removed the comment and replaced it with {{redacted}} (which I now notice is meant to be subst'ed — my mistake), as I consider making public accusations of that nature about an innocent editor as being grossly inappropriate. However, I noted at the time that I was willing to assume good faith as to the comment's origin: namely that WilyD misunderstood the nomination (as Gorobay was clearly stating that our article "Work ethic" is not tied to a Macedonian title, not talking about the Macedonian people). Which I must also say is stretching AGF to its limit, because WilyD has also replied to several of those other nominations without making the same error. However, WilyD subsequently restored the accusation. I removed it again, only for WilyD to restore it again (and in the process delete my additional comment noting the re-removal).

I think that my action in removing this grotesque and uncalled-for public slur on the character of another editor was entirely justified under WP:TPO, and that WilyD is acting entirely inappropriately in trying to force its inclusion in the page. I would appreciate hearing some opinions about whether I'm right or wrong. — Scott • talk 11:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me he's taking the piss. Anyway, where did you attempt to discuss it with him? — lfdder 11:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be where I replied to his comment on the page, and he replied to it with an edit summary, and I replied with a comment on the page again, which he deleted while replying with an edit summary. That's discussion enough for me. — Scott • talk 11:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

While I don't particularly think it's Gorobay's intention to write something that comes across as racist, rather, merely sloppiness, it's also pretty unambiguous that writing "Work ethic is not especially Macedonian" carries a lot of racist baggage, and isn't appropriate. I haven't made the same statement on other nominations don't carry quite the same problem (though I think you could make a legitimate case that trying to make en.wiki less usable, rather than more useable, for readers with moderate English skills is ethnically insensitive, which is relevant to the background here). Intent is not really taken as critical, rather, when one accidentally makes a racist statement, they should retract or modify it, rather than complain about being called out. I would be willing to redact that comment if Gorobay changed his nomination statement to something not carrying this kind of racist baggage. WilyD 13:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is obviously not a racist statement, you're intentionally misinterpreting it, and misquoting him to make it sound more like racism is shameful. If you are going to double down and claim it is, then let's handle it this way: if you falsely accuse someone of making racist statements again, you'll be blocked from editing, the same as any non-admin would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Oh puh-leeeze. What Gorobay wrote was entirely obvious and clear, and reading that ethnic slur into it takes a really, really twisted approach. Seriously, WilyD, you are seeing phantoms here. And if you were aware that Gorobay (evidently) didn't intend to mean what you think could be understood from it, the right thing for you to say would still not have been "stay away from making racist slurs", but something like "by the way, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but your statement could be misread as an ethnic slur; could you please re-word it?". I very strongly recommend you go there now and reword it along those lines, because the way you phrased it, you are in fact imputing racist intent to him, and that is a personal attack, on your part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WilyD, I initially read this expecting to agree with you but I think we can chalk this up to a misunderstanding. Scott should have talked it over with you instead of directly redacting your comment and Gorobay could have picked a different phrasing, but I don't think this was anything more than an unintended double entendre. I agree with Future Perfect here (and also do think that Gorobay should revise his comment). NW (Talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:TPO doesn't require you to talk over anything for a comment as inappropriate as the one that I removed (which is still visible, by the way), and reading the rest of Gorobay's nominations in context makes it quite clear that his comment is in no need of revision. — Scott • talk 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Fut.Perf. and NW here. If Wily had concerns about the phrasing of a statement which they understood but felt could be misintepreted, they should have carefully approached Gorobay about it rather than making an accusation of racism when it's clear none was intended. If Scott had concerns about Wily's accusation, they should have approached Wily about it, at least before coming to ANI.

If Scott or Wily are going to claim they should not have had to do this because of whatever policy, guideline, let's consider the outcomes here. If Wily is genuinely concerned that the statement would be misread and people may consider to be intentionally racist, then the far better outcome is for this statement to be quickly reworded without a fuss. What isn't a desirable outcome is for a big controversy and illwill all around, for more people to read it and for the person who made the statement to possibly be reluctant to change it because of their anger about an unfair accusation. Having a quite polite discussion with someone is far more likely to achieve the first outcome, and doing what Wily did is far more likely to achieve the second outcome which is where we are now. (Although to be clear, I'm not saying Gorobay is relucant to change it because of this. I have no idea if they feel that way or are even aware of this controversy. I'm just saying it's possible that would happen and I understand why they would feel that way).

We can say more or less the same thing to Scott. The fact of the matter is whatever may or may not have been required, the comment is still visible and has been exposed to even more people via ANI, so it's unclear how this helps Gorobay in any way. While obviously I can't guarantee, Wily would have behaved better if approached via their talk page, the way things happened here isn't surprising considering the way Scott approached things. This includes the fact that people here at ANI, while generally disagreeing with Wily, are also confused why Scott didn't talk to Wily first (which someone with the experience of Scott must know is often the first question at ANI when applicable).

Incidentally, I actually partially agree with Wily that it would be far better if the comment is reworded. While it's not intriscly a racist statement and it's clear Gorobay didn't mean anything by it and I don't think it was sloppy for Gorobay to word it so, there is a risk it will be misread. People may read the statement without reading the other nominations on the page and so not see the statement in context. In fact, for people unfamiliar with en.wikipedia redirect guidelines and norms, if they only read that statement and not the followups, they may not understand the deletion proposal at all which may further add to that risk.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

which is often the first question at ANI - pfft. Please. Like I make a habit of dragging people to this noxious drama hole.

It doesn't matter that WilyD's loathsome accusation has been quoted here, because anyone with two brain cells to knock together can see that it makes as much sense as a chocolate teapot. And regarding it being still visible at its original location - unless someone here gives me a damn good reason not to, I'm going to remove it again really soon. Once again, as WP:TPO permits. If WilyD puts it back, then it appears that Floquenbeam is prepared to hand out a block, and that's fine with me.

And as for this: People may read the statement without reading the other nominations on the page - no. No they won't. — Scott • talk 09:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, someone better put a lid on this now there's still time. — lfdder 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you look at all of Gorobay's nom's for AFD? Across the board (just about ) he's used "Not especially (insert race ) " or "not (insert race) enough ". Had it happened just once, ok, I wouldn't call it racist, but as a pattern ? I'd say it does look racist, and WillyD was right to say something about it, because that's just what it looks like. As racism has no place in wikipedia, he would then be right to keep that out of the AFD nomination, so no, I'd hope he wouldn't be blocked over that.

Should he have spoken to Gorobay? Absolutely! But should he blocked for removing what really looks like a racist message out of AFD ? No way.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

April Fools was yesterday. — lfdder 13:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I responded to a request, and now the requestor tells me I have "no consensus"

User:Timeshift9 asked me (on my talk page) to make edits to Full results of the South Australian state election, 2010 and Full results of the South Australian state election, 2014. So, in good faith, I made them.
User:Timeshift9 then said I had no consensus to make such edits, and now seems to want to engage in an edit war.
You are probably not surprised to learn that I'm unimpressed by his response. And you are also probably not surprised that as I went to considerable effort (note: considerable) to make the changes he requested, I am quite pissed off. PARTICULARLY as I could have just ignored the request, or even politely responded: "No thanks."
But I didn't. I took him at face value, assumed good faith, and made the requested edits.
So, please advise where I should go from here. Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like the other editor asked you to change article A to follow the example of article B, and you changed the layout of both article A and article B. Apparently the changes you made were different from the ones he had in mind. There's nothing wrong with that: having asked you to do something doesn't preclude him from having further opinions. I suggest getting opinions on the layout from additional editors interested in Australian elections. --Amble (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. However, you haven't explained why this gives the requestor licence to claim "no consensus", and that seems to be the basis of the requestors' (un justified) justification. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That just means he doesn't agree with the changes you made. There are two of you who are interested so far, and you don't agree on what formatting is best. If the two of you discuss and come to some agreement, that will be consensus. If you bring in other editors interested in Australian elections and they generally support one format or another, that could also constitute a consensus. As long as there are two of you and you don't agree, it seems fair to say that there's no consensus. --Amble (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Potential abuse of power

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.

---

Spartaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is mass deleting the joke AFD nominations that happen every year, simply because they don't like them. Almost every red link on this page is due to them. Editors have tried to talk to them about it, but they continue to claim that the nonsense is "disruption". However, doesn't WP:FOOLS say that jokes only need to be kept where casual readers won't see them? Not only is AFD a place where casual readers don't go, every page I've seen has been tagged as "humorous" so they are clearly identifiable as jokes. The page also says "As long as you follow these rules, feel free to have some fun on April Fools' Day. There is consensus against a complete ban of jokes on April Fools'." So it seems that these joke AFD nominations are not considered disruptive, and do not break any rules. It would seem that Spartaz is simply abusing his power to delete stuff they don't like. To conclude, it is perfectly all right to have some fun here on April 1, and one admin disliking it doesn't change that. NealCruco (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• You're joking, right? Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if he's not, I am not either.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not necessarily. Spartaz is being a bit heavy-handed here. In fact, one could argue that deleting TenPoundHammer's user page is actually disruptive, unlike the joke AfDs Spartaz is determined to censor. Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, you didn't respond to my question, so I'm going to block you for being incommunicado. Just remember, indefinite is not infinite. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, while Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1 is kind of funny (and deleted by RHaworth, who last laughed when Benny Hill was still on TV), though not as funny as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 1, it's a joke that wears thin pretty quickly. I mean, who's going to comment on such a metametametametaMfD? Drmies (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• If Spartaz doesn't find these jokes funny, why did he delete TPH's userpage? Was he doing it to be POINTy? Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• He is in violation the official April 1 policy  :( . Count Iblis (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  That's not official policy. Please find the real policy and see if Spartaz is indeed in violation (he might be). Northern Antarctica (₵) 18:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  WP:Rules for Fools shows the current consensus. For anything else on Wikipedia, it's considered bad behaviour to act against established consensus. I don't see why this should be any different. CodeCat (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• To be honest, I agree. If there is consensus that jokes should be ok, it doesn't seem proper for an admin who doesn't like it to start deleting things and ruin it for everyone else. CodeCat (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Weeeeell, I can't believe I'm jumping to Spartaz's defense here, but "ruin it for everyone else"? That's hardly what's going on here, and there are still plenty of jokes around. Just look in Category:Pokemon. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Joking is serious business - it must not be dis'd. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

where the joke doesn't mess up what the poor innocent reader of articles sees, anyway. That way lies things like this NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I am not joking. I am being completely serious. There is consensus that April Fools' Day jokes are OK on Wikipedia, as long as they are kept out of the mainspace and properly tagged. The pages I've seen that Spartaz hasn't yet deleted satisfy both of these conditions. He, therefore, has no right to delete them. Doing so is an abuse of power. You can't just delete stuff you don't like. NealCruco (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• User:DrmiesMeh. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I note that Wikipedia:April_1_guidelines and Wikipedia:Rules_for_Fools give 100% opposite and contradictory advice from each other. Likely leading to some of this confusion (Perhaps one of them is itself a meta joke?) In any case, I would suggest one of them be deleted so we at least have a consistent set of guidelines/policy for how these jokes should work.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am almost positive that Wikipedia:April_1_guidelines is a joke and I have removed the {{policy}} template and added a {{humor}} template. GB fan 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing disruptive there then? :rolleyes: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I was confused by that as well. I agree that there should be one single page where all guidelines and such are collected. CodeCat (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• I've submitted a merge request at Wikipedia talk:April Fools#Merge Wikipedia:Rules for Fools and Wikipedia:April 1 guidelines into this. CodeCat (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Just as there is no policy that guarantees the right to April Fools jokes, there is also no policy preventing admins from dealing with the banality as they see fit (by either closing the AfD or deleting it). ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a policy to stop admins deleting joke XfDs, but one that might allow it. They can be speedily kept though. Dark Sun (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• • (EC) Just as a point of order [263] I deleted 'one AFD - which was for Stephen Colbert as it was clearly disruptive and borderline blpvio (seriously, if anyone can't see why this particular AFD was a bad idea they shouldn't be editing here). Beyond that I only deleted 8 MFDs - including one particularly amusing one that was designed to induce users to accidentally log out so that presumably everyone can have a big chuckle when the victims then edit with their ip address exposed. I restored one of the pages I deleted as it was a link page for the jokes. I also deleted TPHs user page since they had asked for it to be deleted at MFD. Before anyone argues that this was POINTy, I would suggest that it was no more disruptive then putting it up for MFD in the first place and I did restore it the moment TPH asked. So yeah, BIG FAT HAIRY DEAL I'm a big meanie party-pooper who should be desysoppsed for my terrible crimes. Alternatively we can all piss off and do something useful instead of wasting time with this nonsense. I might take this more seriously if the original complainant had more then 94 edits in two years and had actually bothered to engage me on the subject on my talk page. Maybe that bit of courtesy and rules following only applies to admins? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• I don't really like this line, taken from a discussion on Spartaz's talk page: "If you don't like the cap don't behave like a child." Tons of kids edit Wikipedia, myself included, and it isn't fair to discriminate based on age. I think it's ok to have one day a year when we can joke around and have some fun. While I understand that some may not participate, it's not as if Wikipedia is going to implode from a few jokes. -Newyorkadam (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

• It's unbecoming for an admin to be dismissive and rude like that. It's also unbecoming for an admin to delete a page simply because he or she doesn't like the page. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I deleted them because it was disruptive not because I didn't like them. But then, since you haven't engaged with me to discuss my reasoning I guess its easier to use your super mindreading skill to make judgements about my motivations. I accept I could have used a better edit summary when I removed two MFD tags from live pages because they were also disruptive I'm still astonished that so much heat and light is being generated here over pretty much nothing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• When you unilaterally delete something because you deem it disruptive, you should expect to be held accountable for your actions. I don't mind that you removed MfD tags from live pages and that isn't the issue being here. The issue is that you may have overstepped the boundaries of your authority, especially in deleting TPH's user page (which is downright POINTy and probably more disruptive than the MfDs you deleted). Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe I have and maybe I haven't, but don't assume you know what my motivations are without first talking to me and this nice little Kangeroo court isn't the place to have that discussion is it? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Is this level of condescension necessary, Spartaz? Connormah (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At least as necessary as this discussion is. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where there's condensation, the grass gets wit. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good. NAEG. I LOLed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I support Spartaz's deletions, as well as the condescension. For subsequent April Fools days, I'd support a policy whereby you get blocked for the remainder of the day if you create a joke XFD that is not funny, as determined by a neutral administrator. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 21:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You say "that is not funny" like there's any other kind. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Scottywong, I support the proposal to let admins decide joke XFD's, provided the admin is really, really, truly neutral. For determination whether joke XFDs are in fact funny, the admin must be so neutral that they neither have nor lack a sense of humor. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• How about a rule that April Fools' jokes are OK as long as they're (a) funny (b) imaginative (c) not disruptive and (d) no-one's done them before? That should pretty much ensure that 99.9% don't happen. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• April Fools' Jokes would be much funnier if some people didn't run around screaming that they weren't funny and draining all the fun of the day. Northern Antarctica (₵) 21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• They would certainly be a lot funnier if (a) any of them were funny and/or hadn't been done dozens of times before, and (b) some of them weren't rank fucking stupidity like AfDing BLPs or inducing editors to log out and reveal their IPs. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• OK, one more remark, courtesy of Bongomatic, and now available at Template:Not funny. No need to subst. Drmies (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

For each unfunny joke that has never been told, there are a hundred other jokes that were hilarious when they were never told. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2014 (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:Primus1x

Primus1x has engaged in an edit war on Gundam Build Fighters by copying and pasting plot summary information from Gundam.info. He even admitted to plagiarism on this quote on my Talk page:

This is a false-accusation. I have made no claim whatsoever that I wrote the synopses myself, it is the work of whoever writes GundamInfo's descriptions for each episode. And if you have a problem with the way that they write, you take it up with them not me. Even if you believe you can write better, it would be unofficial and fan-made regardless. These are the official synopses do not remove them in favour of fan-written and inaccurate synopses for which the only source is watching the primary source; the entire series, and thus conform less to Wikipedia's guidelines regarding sources. --Primus1x (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

He's also hinted at a personal attack based on the tone of his writing. - Areaseven (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I've put an explanation of copyright law on his talk page along with a warning not to do this any more. Thank you for reporting this problem, Areaseven. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of this...

I have made no claim whatsoever that I have written the synopses myself, I instead applaud whoever wrote them.--Primus1x (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is he admitting to plagiarism, he's being very big-headed about it. - Areaseven (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just bluntly tell him that he is not allowed to copy and paste anything. And just post links to his edits to your user talk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you even read his Talk page? I already warned him twice about plagiarism, yet he still doesn't get it. - Areaseven (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reminds me of user:Primetime who had a major issue with understanding copy paste. Blackmane (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits have stopped for now. Any further copyright violations will result in an immediate indef block. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Katieh5584

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.

---

Note: archive top by User:King of Hearts was WP:BOOMERANG. Doctornickel will be blocked if he makes another frivolous deletion request. I'm reopening this thread because I have something pending re this user; please don't archive it until I have time to post. Bishonen | talk 22:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

I've had a problem with User:Katieh5584. This user posted a comment on my talk page saying that i "vandalized" the article Henrik Norby when all I did was put a request for proposed deletion on it. The reason for the proposed deletion request was that the person was un-notable. Doctornickel (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You also put a deletion template on Dolly Parton, claiming she wasn't notable.Katieh5584 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

She's right. He did[264]. I don't know whether to laugh or just shake my head!  :) — This lousy T-shirt — (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Doctornickel is clearly making disruptive edits, which a quick glance of their contributions and talkpage will confirm. I hope that boomerang doesn't smack you in your face. Shame. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

On the reported issue, Katieh5584 has apologized for the errant warning, so no administrative action is necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• • It isn't often I say this, but Doctornickel simply needs to be indef blocked, now. I don't have time to block and follow up as I'm walking out the door, but his edits need a complete nuking. Look at the contribs. Call it CIR or trolling, I don't care which, but my money is on trolling. Tons of PRODs for reasons that are obviously invalid, etc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've reopened this closed thread because I found something. Looking around Doctornickel's disruptive carousel of moves and redirects (I must be losing it, I couldn't even understand what was going on in these three edits, all made in the same minute), I saw the suggestive trail of a previous account, Nascarman1 (talk · contribs). Nascarman had exactly the same interests and habits as Doctornickel, and made many of the very same creations and redirects in the mere 8 hours back in January before he was blocked by Bbb23. He left a trail of disruption, in that short time, that must have cost a good deal of time to clean up. After arguing about his block, Nascarman posted this last comment on his page: i will be creating a new account on a different computer at a different location with a different IP address. I have removed everything from this talk page, if anything is added than it will be deleted until I get my new account and start fresh. I am NOT going to tell anyone what my new account is and it is going to be a relaunch.

I think it's obvious that he did what he said he would, create a new account, whose contributions show the very same interests and idiosyncrasies, the same frantic bursts of speed, etc. I've indeffed Doctornickel per WP:DUCK. I'm sort of unhappy about it, noting the pathos of his userpage: "I am a good editor" (compare "it is going to be a relaunch"). :-( My theory, Dennis, is that the user is not trying to harm Wikipedia, but is so far from WP:COMPETENCE that it's completely no go, Wikipedia not being therapy. And of course there's the block evasion. Bishonen | talk 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

Excellent sleuthing on the sock call. Obviously, I support the block (and respect why you wanted to delay). I had researched enough to know this was an extraordinary case, I just didn't know it was a repeat performance. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:34, 4 April 2014 (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:Nicolescherzingerfan removing/changing material without explanations

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

---

User:Nicolescherzingerfan is constantly removing material from articles without explanations in edit summaries. I have warned him/her three times in a row to not remove content from Wikipedia without explaining why ([265], [266], [267]), but the user ignores them. The user changed an infobox picture without discussion on the article's talk page, changed perfectly summarized text without edit summary, removed album information without edit summary, removed a section picture without edit summary, changed an infobox picture again without discussion on that article's talk page, and even changed an infobox without any consensus. If these warnings do not continue to work, maybe a block will.--IPadPerson (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2014 (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.

Anti-Russian partisan behaviour in Russians in Estonia

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.

---

Users Sander Säde and Nug have been jealously guarding the article Russians in Estonia whitewashing any claims of discrimination by NGOs. Conflict started when I removed what I found WP:label and added claims of discrimination, both my edits were reverted and both users even refuse to add a POV tag to the contested section.--Kathovo talk 11:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The users just restored the verified fact you had removed and deleted the biased claim you inserted. The details are available in Talk:Russians in Estonia. Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Who deemed Amnesty International biased? Obviously I'm contesting the neutrality of that section, so what is your reason for removing the POV tag?--Kathovo talk

WP:DETAG Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV.
— WP:TAGGING#Disputes over tags

--Kathovo talk 12:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? My "jealous guarding" seems to be when I reverted your weird unexplained editorializing, [268]. Prior to that, my last edit to that article was in the summer of 2009... Also, it seems you missed a huge banner saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page" when starting this topic. --Sander Säde 12:47, 2 April 2014 (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.

85.69.198.194 and disruptive editing on Tao Lin

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.

---

After recently removing a section from the Tao Lin article that was only sourced by a personal blog and a 4chan archive, I was reverted by 85.69.198.194. Assuming good faith, I once more reverted the edit, making it clear the sources were non-notable. The IP then once more reverted the edit with the summary "Lin's internet presence is not to be neglected, even by BDSM lovers" (which I believe is in reference to my userpage). Their most recent edit appears to be an insertion of a 4chan in-joke with the summary "Link of a Tao Lin reading". I would assume it's safe to say this person is not here to build an encyclopedia, though I suppose that is up to administrative decision. felt_friend 19:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Final warning issued. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 2 April 2014 (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.