Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Stefanomione and "Terminology of..." categories

In spite of opposition expressed at this ongoing CfD, User:Stefanomione continues to create more "Terminology of..." categories, this one just moments ago. He continues to remove pre-existing categories on Jungian and Freudian psychology in favour of his new creations. I recommend a block on further category creation until we determine what consensus is, including here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Five years ago, I created Category:Terminology by ideology, which got promptly a CfD - result: still standing ... pity my talk page hasn't any records of that. In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments. But I agree here and will refrain until the conclusion of the discussion. Stefanomione (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Terminology by ideology is exactly the sort of category that Stefanomione delights in churning out. It has never been through cfd (see its history) and IMO would be unlikely to survive. Perhaps an admin with access to deleted (or renamed) categories could produce a list of Stefanomione's deleted category creations. (There were several cfd discussions on S's creations in mid-2011 such as Novels by parameter.) Oculi (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My point is: I don't work at these cat until the matter is settled on the discussion page. (And indeed many of my categories were renamed/deleted (I guess 1/5, 2650 still standing), but that's not the point here). Anyway, it's impossible to create, I think, without revisions/renamings. Stefanomione (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I should point out that following his comments above, User:Stefanomione continues to depopulate Category:Freudian psychology. The affected articles are essays, not books, and appear to have been correctly categorized. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some time before you posted this comment, I created Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud ... you caught me in a work of progress .... Stefanomione (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've noticed Stefanomione's primary editing contribution is the creation of categories. While this is an important part of Wikipedia, I've also noticed an unacceptably large number of those categories are inappropriate and subsequently brought to CfD (look at his talk page!). I would recommend some kind of community sanction where any new category this user proposes must be discussed first, perhaps at WP:CATP. This would cut down on the massive strain this user puts on other editors trying to clean up after him. After all, it's much easier to create a category than to delete it, so this minor filter would dramatically improve the quality of the categories he produces. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at Category:Freudian psychology, and it's not clear to me exactly which articles should be in it and which shouldn't. I noticed Stefanomione's removal of the category from articles and thought it was rather strange, but I didn't revert him, since I assumed he must have some kind of reason for doing it. Before reverting him, it would be helpful to discuss exactly what the purpose of the category is, as that doesn't seem fully clear (at least it's not clear to me). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • A few hours ago, while depopulating Category:Freudian psychology,I created Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis and Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud. This made the category less confusing (it contained/contains Books/Essays/Terminology/Institutions/People/Criticists/Criticism/Related topics/ ... The Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud - which I created earlier today and is not tagged as CfD - helps, I think, to bring a rapid access to theories really conceived by Sigmund Freud himself. Stefanomione (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Axem Titanium's proposal for a restriction on the creation by Stefanomione of new categories. There is too much work by editors in cleaning after their creation, and Stefanomione seems to be showing contempt for efforts to seek consensus. For example, Stefanomione was notified at 14:36, 25 February that Category:Terminology by author was being taken to CfD, yet still went ahead and created the subcat Category:Terminology of Carl Jung at 23:29, 25 February 2012. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not the discussion ultimately endorses the category; what matters is that when the issue has been contested and is under discussion, a responsible collaborative holder will hold back and see what consensus emerges.
  And yes, Stefanomione did know about the CFD discussion: zie made over 50 edits in the period between the CFD notification and the creation of the second category, so the talk page notice will have been drawn to hir attention in the usual way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said, you just caught me in a work of progress: around the same time, I created and populated Category:Psychoanalytic studies, Category:Books about psychoanalysis, Category:Essays by Sigmund Freud and Category:Terminology of Sigmund Freud, none of them CfD. Wikipedia is not "too much work", it is a work in progress. Stefanomione (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There is the problem in a nutshell. You were in the process of creating a structure, and even when you knew that the existence of the whole structure was being challenged, you went ahead anyway. That's plain disruptive. The proper way to behave is that editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD, but when that boldness is challenged we stop and discuss. You simply don't seem able to grasp this, which is why I support blocking you from category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have just put up another in a long series of category renames based on the works of Stefanomione. I understand he is well intentioned, but those of us on CFD have had to do more work to fix his mistakes than for any other editor, by far. Sadly, while he remains polite and cheery, Stefanomione doesn't seem to get why these convoluted category names and rabbit holes he creates are so vexing to other editors. I see nothing negative in Stefanomione's attitude, but after a couple hundred category renames, some sort of process needs to be put in place to stem the tide. If a category creation restriction were put in place, I am sure there are editors on CFD who would be willing to check any list of categories Stefanomione wants to create before he creates them and explain whether they are likely to fly.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd volunteer to be one such 'pre-checker', if a block was in place. I wouldn't want to be the only one, to be sure, given the sheer volume, but I'd be one. Stefanomione has recently stated that he sees CfD as the place to figure out what categories should be about, seemingly as a substitute for actually considering main articles before cat creation. Mike's way would be much less work for the rest of us, in the end. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• I share the concerns voiced above. Stefanomione's success average when creating categories is way too low. He claims only 1/5 of his creations get deleted but if that's the true number, it should be noted that no editor comes even close to that level of errors and it is a significant strain on CfD. Moreover, he doesn't always seem to take criticism on board. I think a discuss first/create later approach would be best and would allow Stefanomione to continue working in the area he likes but would lower the error-rate to something acceptable. Note that this would also be a net benefit in terms of time for Stefanomione: I think he has spent a depressingly vast amount of time building now-deleted categories that others would have advised against creating. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support the idea that he should talk first, create after consensus. And his statement above "In many cases, I think, creating more provides the best arguments." - If you're told stop, and discuss per WP:BRD, the answer isn't to continue on. If you don't understand or agree with the policies of it, here's another reason not to: that can get you blocked. And I might add, you all are fortunate. My experience with the editor had been that they ignore talk page queries until "forced" to comment, such as at cfd (or here, for that matter). I also think that the editor should be banned from using any automated tools related to categories. Maybe having to do things more manually will help with the stop and discuss process. If this was a bot user, I think the bot would have been blocked by now. - jc37 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • • Some "charts" that are quite accurate (based on my watchlist, not my talkpage): 2650 categories still standing, 210 renamed, 180 flatly deleted (of these, 16 created again by another editor). Those renamed categories are mainly ill-named structures (the content-grouping itself not being discussed), like illustrated by Mike Selinker. So, naming things appears not to be my best talent (I intend to ask for more advice here before creating new categories - I would like to do this on a volontary basis). I agree, 6,1 % (2650/164) of my category-production is problematic and I intend to "lower that error-rate to something acceptable" by spending more time (talkpages, ...) on the namegiving. I would like to keep the automated tools. Stefanomione (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Why do you need automated tools to have discussions with other editors on talk pages? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Those statistics are kinda horrifying. Stefanominome has created no less than 180 categories which have been deleted, and doesn't see a problem? Another 210 renamed, and again no problem? Really?
  This is a contemptuous attitude to the time of other editors, who would also like to be doing other things on Wikipedia rather than tidying up after this editor. A total of 390 categories changed at CFD. Let's assume that there was some grouping of the CFDs, and generously assume an average of 5 categories per discussion; that means that Stefanomione's categories have been the subject of 80 CFD discussions. Each one of those discussions involves a lot of work by the nominator (a group nom is a lot of work to set up), more contributions from editors who participate in the CFDs, and then a closing admin has pass the instructions to the CFD bot. After that, watchlists get beaten up as every individual article is edited by the bot.
  Enough already. Time to require this editor to gain consensus before category creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stefanomione's numbers suggest a 15% error rate, not 6.1%. But more importantly, the other 85% are not pristine. There are many places he has created categories where I have looked at them and thought, "Wow, this is going to be a nightmare to sort out," and just haven't had the time to nominate them. So just because we haven't put more than400 categories of his through the discussion process is no reason to believe the other categories are safe from problems. Now, here's the good news: When given direction, Stefanomione is more than happy to do the work himself. So once the creation ban is in place, it seems possible to imagine that he would be very helpful dealing with the issues that he has created.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 85 % not pristine ? Could you give some examples ? What I see: the 1800 categories I created in 2005-2010 still expanded and completed with subcategories - Only four of them put on CfRenaming in 2011-2012, despite the incredible crowd intelligence of the wikipedians. Anyway, it's true, Mike: I'm eager to do the reparation-work myself. Stefanomione (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • A first step might be ones with the word "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books, etc.) in the name. That's all a huge mess. And more than a few violate MoS guidelines for naming. British word usage on television season vs series vs. show for example has a longtime consensus. I look at just how much there is and just haven't dealt with it yet just due to the tagging alone. - jc37 17:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
        • What Jc37 said. My name appears more than 100 times on your talk page due to automatic notifications of discussions, almost all of which have resulted in changes. I'm trying to get you to change your behavior before it appears 100 more times.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
          • (ec) As Mike knows, we've already spent quite a bit of time at CfD delineating the media/creative works confusion, generally with unanimous support. I thought we had the 'use of the "works" or "media" (or more specific like films, books"' problem cleared up. It sounds to me like Jc37 is also criticizing what the categories have become, post-Stefanomione, rather than what he created? Jc, is that right? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • What Mike S. said, exactly. It's not about what they've become after. See what we have in the category system is (as noted on my talk page) a "commonality of consistency based upon prior consensus". And a category's name, even more than how it is subcatted into an existing tree of cats, is of profound importance when trying to figure out what we're looking at. Categories are all about navigation. and the names should be clear so that any editor (tm) should feel confident placing the category on a specific page. And to further that navigation, we have multifaceted sets of category trees, of varying kinds. Limited only by the software itself, and previous consensus on style and choice. So what I'm getting at is at the start, these cats are named badly, and trees designed into a mess. And at CfD the sections of these huge trees are having separate discussions, so we have ended up with varying results. It is art? visual art? fine art? Should we use media? media by type? medium? works? Should we have X based on Y categories? T (sorted) by Z? And how specific should they be? An author and his works? or just the author or just his works? how vague or specific? Which terminology should we use? How should we disambiguate the names? Are they too broad or too narrow in inclusion criteria (the name itself being the criteria)? Is any of this described in an article somewhere explaining and sourcing this? And finally, how much of this is flatly WP:OR, and has nothing to do with scholarly interest? And I've only barely scratched the surface of this mess. This isn't the only mess in categories, but it's becoming more and more a big one. And Stefanomione's lack of discussion beforehand tied with automated tool usage, makes this very quickly into a king sized mess that continues to grow very fast daily. As I said above, I think that if this was a bot, the bot would have been blocked by now, and the bot owner asked to explain the edits, and to proactively seek community consensus before such future edits. Else their bot privileges may be indefinitely suspended and the bot indefinitely blocked. And yes, there are many examples in this page's archives supporting this assertion. - jc37 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Per Jc37, this is a big mess and getting bigger. Before Stefanomione gets to create any more categories, even by prior discussion, zie should first work with other editors to review the huge number of categories created so far. That will be a big task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been wondering what to do about this user's category creations for a long time now. A very high percentage of them have to be renamed or deleted, and this has consistently been the case for a long time now. I essentially agree with what other users have written above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone who puts that big a strain on CFD resources probably should be on an editing restriction. Agree with the community sanction mentioned above. --Kbdank71 05:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Based on the above discussion, I think we have clear consensus for this community sanction. Do any administrators/bureaucrats here know how to disable HotCat for a particular user? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• As we discuss this, he's resumed category creation. I don't have a particular problem with his latest created category, but he's clearly not interested in waiting for the results of this discussion before resuming. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to ban from automatically modifying categories

From what I have been given to understand, while proposed, the community in the past decided that blocking an editor was better than adding a functionality to the software to block an editor from using a gadget. Basically, if they've been asked to stop, and they don't, it warrants a block.

With that in mind, I am proposing, based upon the discussion above, and other such discussions, that:

a.) User:Stefanomione be banned from using any gadgets or other automated tools (hotcat in particular) to modify categories in any way. This includes, but is not limited only to, creating a category page, adding pages to a category, changing a page from one category to another, etc.

This restriction may be lifted in the future IF Stefanomione has shown to be consistently following the second restriction (b, below) over a decent period of time, absolutely no less than 3 months (with at least 6 months being preferrable).

b.) Also that if any (presumably manually done, per the restriction above) category creation or modification done by Stefanomione is contested, he must stop and discuss, gaining a consensus before continuing, per WP:BRD.

Violation of these restrictions may result in being blocked. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - jc37 19:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption has gone on too long, and this is a good solution which falls short of an outright ban. It gives Stefanomione a chance to learn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with these restrictions and with the principle that after a reasonable period of time he be eligible to have it considered whether they should be lifted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure what the value is of a:) The single biggest issue with Stefanomione has been poorly conceptualizing or structuring categories. Taking away Hotcat (if such a thing is possible) won't affect that in the slightest, and will only slow him down a tiny bit, if at all. b.) seems to me to be the meat of the thing. Does "contested" mean it has to come to another CfD? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Contested simply means another editor opposes. Similar to how the word is used when saying: a contested PROD. - jc37 00:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• You're kidding, right? I can guarantee that an 85% retention rate is better than the content of the edits of just about anyone on this page - myself included. Wikipedia is a work in progress. It will constantly need revising and revisiting. I'm not seeing very much discussion with this user about concerns; I can't even tell from the discussion above what issue people are having with his categories other than "we don't like them". It should be no surprise that if the overwhelming majority of an editor's contributions is to a small area of the project, then the overwhelming revision rate will also be in that small area of the project. I do note, however, that most of the categories for February 26, which are linked at his page, aren't actually listed on the February 26 CFD log. This is a serious error, and needs to be rectified if there is a plan to CFD the category (i.e., starting over for the full discussion period). Perhaps someone had problems with automated tools? Risker (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  No I'm not kidding. And if you did look in even the editor's talk page history you might have seen more problems. And this doesn't include other discussions elsewhere. And 85% retention rate? What? The issue here is that there is just so much, and he doesn't stop (even now) that it's a lot of work for others to deal with it. As I am looking over the editor's contributions, there is a lot which should be reverted/deleted, if only based upon prior consensus. That said, I won't debate it with you. You are entitled to your opinion, of course. - jc37 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointing. I can personally think of at least four administrators who have made much, much more significant errors in categorization who got a pleasant query on their user talk, worked it out with the person who raised the issue, and together they came up with a solution that was better for the project. If I can think of that many people, and I hardly pay attention to categorization, then I think I have grounds to say that it's not numbers, it's that the user isn't being communicated with. Risker (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Risker, you say you "hardly pay attention to categorization," and that much is obvious. If you went to CfD and typed "Stefanomione" in the search field, you would see many dozens of attempts to discuss this with Stefanomione. In addition, all the February 26 are listed on that CfD page; they're all just grouped into one discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Not very much discussion? The vast majority of this user's talk page are notices about categories created by them up for discussion at cfd. It's clear they don't get it. --Kbdank71 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion? Those are templated notices that indicate someone's made a decision without even bothering to talk to the user beforehand. I'm not seeing "Stefaniome, please stop for a few minutes and explain to me why you're creating these categories." In fact, I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years. The time for that conversation is before tagging something for deletion. It would be a different story if someone could show repeated evidence of trying to discuss without receiving any response, but that does not appear to be the case here. Risker (talk) 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussions are at Categories for discussion. I don't see anything wrong or irregular about that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

With regards to "I don't see a single discussion like that on his entire talk page which goes back years.", there is this discussion from August: last post. Not terribly recent, granted, but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that the discussions subsequent to that have been held at CFD - I certainly don't think Stefanomie would have been unaware of other editors' sentiments regarding this. Begoon ^talk 03:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You suggest that the only suitable place to discuss a concern with a created category is at CfD. I very much disagree. If you have a problem with a category that a user has created, our dispute resolution process dictates that your first stop is to discuss it with the editor. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It could be that Risker is unaware that CfD hasn't stood for "categories for Deletion" for quite some time (years, actually). Categories at CfD are posted for just that. discussion. (Category talk pages are rather typically under-watched) Results at CfD are varied, and are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. - jc37 00:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm quite aware of that. What I'm saying is that there is no valid reason to fail to discuss this directly with the editor before taking a category to that page. The first stop in any disagreement is discussion with the user, not a noticeboard of any kind. Risker (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so now that it's been shown that many users have tried to discuss this problem directly with the editor, on his talk page no less, do you have any valid objections to this? --Kbdank71 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Jc37's proposal. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The amount of unnecessary work being created for others is unacceptable. I do see attempts to discuss this with Stefaniome in the past, on his talk page and history, and at the CFD discussions. It can be hard to navigate the talk page and history because of the number of notices. @Risker: the 26th Feb nominations seem to be combined somewhat, at this discussion - that fooled me when I initially followed the talk page links, too. Begoon ^talk 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As I mentioned before, I think WP:CATP is a nice place to have centralized discussions of this nature before category creation happens. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think a ban on his editing privileges will help him understand what is right and what is wrong. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 01:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

We do not block editors as a teaching mechanism, particularly when the vast majority of their work is useful. We teach them, and talk to them. We don't do that at CfD, we do that one-to-one; only if that has been unsuccessful should this issue ever come up. Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. We are clearly beyond merely suggesting to Stefanomione that he change his behavior. This seems a regrettable but necessary solution.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for changing your original statement here, Mike Selinker. You have consistently said that the only place you've discussed this is at CfD; I note no other edits by you to this editor's page other than to place CfD notices. Can you explain why you have failed to have a discussion directly with the editor? Risker (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I moved my statement to further up the page. It is baffling to me that you are suggesting that I have not had a discussion with this editor when I have had dozens of discussions with him, just not on his page. Especially when CGingold, Good Ol'Factory, Elen of the Roads, and Shawn in Montreal have had those discussions with him on his page. And of course, I didn't propose this notice, so I'm not sure why you think my actions invalidate this proposal. You seem well intentioned, but you also seem to have no idea what you're talking about in this case. Please feel free to prove me wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral/Weak Oppose I've watched Stef for a few years and admit he can be fairly uncommunicative, but well intentioned. I like the idea of restrictions, but I would prefer it incorporate some aspect of mentorship/education. Also, I disagree with the idea that hotcat is an automated tool. It's a semi-automated tool that requires review of every edit with it. I would be fine with just the second condition applying to all of his actions (semi-automated or otherwise) and requiring him to "fix" any contested actions that result in an opposite finding in the resulting discussion. MBisanz ^talk 15:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, in light of User_talk:Giano_II/archive_3#Architects_of_the_Sicilian_Baroque, I'll oppose. Could we find a bilingual editor to engage him in his native tongue? I believe User:Snowolf is fluent in Italian. MBisanz ^talk 15:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Original section header: "Bad Wikipedia habits hurt editing. Don't like an edit? Call them a sock! I don't like Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, they must be socks of each other! Hitler then would be leader of the USSR!"

I usually just read Wikipedia. Every time I edit a little, incivility causes me to leave. I have decided to edit but again I see that it is hopeless. As administrators, you should try to put an end to this Wikipedia nonsense.

Problems include: 1. If people don't like an editor, just call them a sock. Some sez guy, who is a sock of GrouchoPython, called me a sock just because I made some useful suggestions that he didn't like.

2. I made some very good suggestions to the Obama article but there is a knee jerk reaction to revert them, not even discuss them. Then the discussion is hidden in a collapsable box. What kind of hospitality is that? It borders on incivility.

2a. These suggestions include not jumping back and forth from year to year in the intro. For example, the last version talked about Obama in college and law school, jumps to Senate then jumps back to law school and jumps back to a House run (in between law school and his senate run). If this were a school paper, that section would get an F yet this is called a Featured Article. Get real and at least consider my good suggestions and discuss them.

2b. Obamacare is not mentioned at all. Even if you hate the word, thousands of articles have it, not the formal name. So a brief mention of the word "obamacare" should be mentioned. In that section, there is detailed accounts on the date it was passed by the House and Senate. Well, that has nothing to do with the biography of Obama. Yet some important changes are omitted. (FYI, the 1099 requirement, the Medicaid co-pay proposal, the free birth control requirement recently enacted).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Let's have administrators reading this try to solve the incivility problem, the false sock accusation problem, and possible ways to have good suggestions, like mine, considered and discussed not just reverted and responded with sock accusations. After all, we are trying to write a good encyclopedia, not a bad amateur blog!

On the other hand, I've read WP enough that I know that people like to be cruel and do bad things. Therefore, you can edit Wikipedia yourself. I will just read it and not fight an uphill battle to do good. Midemer (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a specific issue that requires an administrator? That's what this board is for. If you have an issue with the content of an article, discuss it on the article's talk page. If there is a content dispute that cannot get resolved on the article's talk page, take it to WP:DRN for content dispute resolution. If you have a broad policy concern, raise it at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). But this appears to be wrong noticeboard for your issue - it does not make policy, and it is not for solving content disputes. Singularity42 (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's up to the community to decide whether your suggestions are good. Of course you think they are, but that's not how Wikipedia works. Also, invoking Godwin's Law instantly in the topic header? Tsk, tsk... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

READ GODWIN'S LAW. It says arguments will result in comparing one side's beliefs with the belief's of Hitler or Nazis. No, I did not say that other editors are Hitler or have similar beliefs. I am not Hitler and do not have Nazi beliefs. Midemer (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger, I agree. The community should decide. However, it is incivility to squash discussion as has been done. Collapsing discussion into a box, essentially censoring and closing it is bad. Then falsely accusing sockpuppetry.

Administrators should put a stop to this incivility, threatening blocking, if necessary.

You see, the knee jerk reaction in WP is to say "Bushranger and Singularity42, you two sort of agree so you are socks of each other". How would you like to be accused of that?

WP needs to think of a better way. As for me, I will let the bullies and the clowns have their way. I've made good suggestions and smart people would discuss this, even if it is not adopted. Best of luck to Amateur Wikipedia, I mean, English Wikipedia. Midemer (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing you can do to help is to avoid characterizing a content dispute as vandalism, as you did here [1]. Your edit summary was the opposite of AGF. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I said it was an accident, that this editor deleted a lot of other stuff. That editor's edit summary said he was concerned about one little word but deleted a lot of stuff, maybe because he used twinkle. Midemer (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Without a specific incident or specific complaint about a particular editor, you are simply making too broad a complaint here. It isn't that nobody cares, just that there are steps one takes and in the correct way and location. This sounds like it might well just be a content dispute which can be directed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard where you can bring up this situation for the community to discuss. If you have a problem with a specifc editor or editors you should then bring it here. You must show good faith in others by not overreaching in your complaint and sounding like you are just mad because they are not letting your contributions stand. This happens often in the more controversial articles. I suggest cooling down and resetting you frame of mind and then deciding if you have a content dispute or a probelm with individual behavior.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment I smell a troll. First, is this tasty edit summary. He then goes on to state that he thought it might have been a 'friendly joke'. For what it's worth. Ishdarian 02:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This user has 78 edits in almost 5 years. Only 26 of those 78 were to articles. See [2].--Bbb23 (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I filed a SPI report here. The similarities are obvious. I have a bad internet connection right now(in and out), so please excuse the mistakes. Dave Dial (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:DD2k has a history of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit. DD2K makes no attempt to discuss edits, which is the way WP is supposed to be. I looked at DD2K's talk page and he falsely accused User:Jack Paterno of being a sock. I say falsely accused because there is no CU data that shows he is a sock. DD2K just yells loud enough until someone thinks "if it is said many times, it must be true." If this is WP, I want no part of WP. Congratulations, you have just chased away a good editor with good ideas. Midemer (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to assume good faith about the OP here. To me it looks like someone who wants to contribute, but chose a very bad place to start (articles are prominent political figures are very tricky) and then was greeted with contempt. Midemer, I encourage you stay around and help build Wikipedia. For your own sake, I encourage you to stay away from Obama, Romney, Santorum, etc. articles until you've gained experience. Dealing with these articles is a complete headache even for experienced editors, as they are constantly edited (both in good faith and otherwise) by people with a POV who may or may not be aware of their own bias. If you feel you must contribute to these articles, I suggest you use the talk page to discuss potential changes by expressing your opinions in the most straightforward way possible (i.e with zero reference to other people's perceived biases). --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Two key things from my very own user page:

1. Who are all these socks (essay)
2. First rule of Sockpuppet Accusations: Put up or shut up. Either file your case, or STFU

Yup (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I admit that my sympathy for people who complain about the Incivilities! Done! To! Them!, using uncivil terms to do so, is limited. As is often the case, the OP believes he writes with the voices of angels, and while there is no reason on the limited information supplied to presume he is anything other than a brilliant political commentator, the nature of a consensus-driven encyclopedia is that sometimes you will wind up on the minority side, whereupon your only option is to lose gracefully and move on. Unless the OP is alleging his attempts at discussion are being censored off the pertinent talk pages - which of course would be a serious violation - this isn't a matter for AN/I. If (as appears more likely to be the case) no one's paying attention to the OP's POV, there's nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines requiring editors to do so in writing. Ravenswing 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Firstly Congratulations! to the clue-full editor who re-factored the Header, thus contributing to a calmer discussion at this page. This ought to be done as a matter of course, if necessary.

Secondly, Bad Wikipedia Habits do result in inferior articles. This editor has made a legitimate comment that editors who shoot from the hip with accusations of sock-puppetry are being un-civil, and doing a dis-service to en.Wikipedia. This sort of tactic employed to "win" content disputes is, um, despicable. And too prevalent, see above.

Can we please work on, and concentrate in a focused way on improving articles, and only on improving articles, not on attacking strangers? NewbyG ( talk) 18:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That would, indeed, be nice, and if the OP has any specific complaints about the behavior of specific editors (backed up, hopefully, by specific diffs and/or the specific articles in question), as he has been repeated exhorted to do, no doubt any such allegations will receive the proper scrutiny. With only two dozen edits in articlespace over five years, though, you'll no doubt forgive people for skepticism that the OP has indeed met with a recurring pattern of hostility against his edits. Ravenswing 23:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Interaction ban DarknessShines TopGun

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently the community decided that an interaction ban between Users DarknesShines and TopGun was an appropriate course of action. I hereby request that an uninvolved administrator review the following history of possible gaming the system.

Users notified of interaction ban Top Gun at 11:54, 24 February 2012, Darkness Shines at 11:54, 24 February 2012.

Both users are extensively and acrimoniously involved in an RFC. I request that both users be banned from the RFC.

DBigXRay makes his/her first edit at this heated RFC.Revision as of 14:17, 24 February 2012.

DBXR awards User:DS a barnstar at 04:37, 25 February 2012.

User:TG nominates for deletion one of the few articles that User:DBXR has created.

User:DS joins TG's apparently bad faith nomination for deletion (whether the article should be deleted or not) here.

A Sock Puppet investigation on user [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DBigXray|DBigXray] seems to indicate there have been some more SPI's, so that can be looked into also, but additional requests for sock puppet investigations have been added.[3]

I request that User:TopGun be blocked for a period of time for gaming the system for the deletion nomination, and I request both users, User:TopGun, and User:DarknessShines, be blocked for evading their interaction bans.

I request that both users be banned from participating in the RFC. They are using it to continue their bad interactions with each other. If there really are underlying issues they will not be resolved with either one of them commenting.

I request that both users be banned from nominations for deletion of any articles that either user or associates have worked on, maybe any AFDs at all. I request that both users be banned from interacting on an AFD that the other has nominated or participated in. Maybe any AFDs at all.

I have no good faith left to assume with these users. This is a waste of everyone's time.

Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've in no way violated the interaction ban. I saw a post about a school on the help desk [4] (where I reply regularly), and I nominated the school article for deletion as it did not have any reliable sources. There was no interaction with DS. I had some debate with another user DBigXray about the sources where I discussed with him the sources of the article in much detail without heating up the discussion on my side. Although DS joined in to that discussion, I made no replies to him and did not mention him. I did include the sources he provided in my analysis which did not lead to any interaction either. I'll also note that this is the only AfD I've nominated as of yet (and it was never edited by DS) and any reasonable editor will say that this nomination was not out of normal... this report is baseless. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with TopGun that my report is entirely baseless. I should have included that in the initial wording. If this was the only AfD TopGun has ever made, and as the only AfD nominated, not out of order at all, then he should not have used his "only AfD nominated as of yet," for an article by someone interacting with DarknessShines. I stand by all my requests above. Pseudofusulina (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

None of my replies in the Afd are heated or to DS, but to the creator DBigXray. And they are around the policies and sources. Fortunately for me, DbigXray himself specifies that I got to the article through his comment on the help desk. So this is not at all about DS. He is the one who entered there without any previous edits, and I could not have anticipated that. Still I did not interact. And my ban is with DS, not with any arbitrary person who interacts with him. About the RFC, I don't think DS made any comment there, only I did on the references posted there by some one else... are you even checking what you are posting? --lTopGunl (talk) 02:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support banning the wrongdoer

(as my name has been taken above) i would give an explanation The above user Topgun was wikihounding me, following my comment on help desk he nominated the article for deletion at once. and then he opened 3 Sockpuppet cases against me the 3 IPS in question are

1. 125.63.115.13 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
2. 122.252.231.7 seems to be some alumni feel free to check
3. 180.149.53.194 is my IP when i forgot to login , i noticed it and at the next moment logged in and signed[5]

IopGun seems to be motivated against me, as the editor TopGun had many cases of disputes with me in past and had tried to get be blocked numerous times i can give all the evidence if needed be --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is following your contributions, thanks for clarifying that I came to the article after replying you at the helpdesk. This is not hounding and the nomination was on its own merits. I've filed the SPI per the reasons given there. Any content disputes I had with this editor are long idle/resolved. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yes TopGun has been hounding me since my return to editing and following my comments on RFC on indians in afghanistan
• another point to be noted is the editor TopGun had tried almost all possible ways of getting me blocked and falied miserably in each and every attempt. perhaps these Cases against me are to deface my comments on talk pages or mislead admins from his own wrong doings ,--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 02:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I started (requested) that RFC, for everyone's information. This can not be considered hounding by any approach. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

While I was actually trying to help this user on how to find sources, this is the comment I get in reply [6]. And then wikireader appears out of nowhere (really suspicious now), who always makes a comment on me instead of content like the current one. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Another wrong and misleading attempt . see the timestamp of wikireader's comment . it was earlier than my comment. exactly opposite to what you claim above --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That was in reference to the nomination, not your last comment. I specified when I referred to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yet another misleading and wrong comment. Topgun clearly gives the link of the comment he is talking about --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 03:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I'm seriously loosing my patience with this. Are you all serious? Pseudofusulina - how is it a violation of a topic ban for TopGun to interact with a user he is not banned from interacting with? All of you get off ANI and find something better to do, you're wasting everyone's time. When there is a real interaction ban violation between the users that are banned from interacting with each other, than you can come back. The rest of this RFC nonsense isn't ANI's problem.--v/r - TP 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are interacting on each others' AFDs. If you don't edit in their area, you don't get the delight of going to a page where both have edited, where they come up with an AFD for the others' article (currently DS), or they are trying to save an article the other has AFDed (TG). Since they cannot be kept away from each other even with a ban, I'll just leave their space (wikipedia) to them. An interaction ban that doesn't include blocking the interacting users from gaming the systems is a joke. Everywhere they do this, they are piling this nonsense on wikipedia, if it isn't dealt with now at AN/I, that's where it will go, all over the Pakistan articles, RFCs, AFDs, talk pages. However, I can solve that by giving up on editing. I don't edit that much anyhow, and retention of editors isn't an issue, more come along all the time. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an interaction ban with each other not a ban from editing or discussing content with any one at all... can't be more clearer than TP. You dragged us to ANI. Come back when you have a diff where I or DS reply to each other, mention each other or comment on each other. I can not simply leave any topic I was already editing just because DS entered the discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

They are under an interaction ban. That doesn't mean they get "First come first serve" privillages because the other is already involved. They are not to address each other directly or indirectly nor comment on each other's behavior or actions. This report is completely unfounded.--v/r - TP 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ban violation

• On a side note, I'll like to report a clear (one-sided) ban violation from DS to which I've made no response:

This was an article to which I was hounded to leading to an interaction ban at ANI. DS has now nominated [7] this article (to which I was a major contributor) for deletion to further escalate as per the article talk page note he made before the ban to me and acknowledging it there now. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot comment on Pseudof's speculations, but as far as the AfD nominated by DS on Pak Watan is concerned (an article which TopGun contributed to and of which there is evidence at Talk:Pak Watan that DS has gone there uninvited before), this is outrageous and inexcusable stuff from Darkness Shines. I think this one's a no-brainer where gaming the system may apply (nominating an article for a deletion discussion, while having knowledge that the article is of interest to another user with whom there is an interaction ban). I will again reiterate my suggestion that a topic ban on Darkness Shines on all Pakistan-related articles (or at the very least, Pakistan-related articles which are of interest to TopGun and where DS has barged in unwelcome) should be in order. Mar4d (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - DS said that the nomination would likely happen several days before the iban. Mar4d and TopGun have been emailing each other. Neither of these things are wrong, but in the interests of clarity ... - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment DoOnce the interaction ban was placed, both players needed to stop treating the entire wikipedia community as if we are morons and cannot see they are gaming the system to circumvent the ban and that neither one intends to leave the other alone, community ban or not. So, I missed this game play by DS, catching only TG's. I'm more interested in keeping TG in line because of his editing contributions in an area I see as needing work. OK, I didn't spend 5 hours getting correct every detail of their bad faith interactions to circumvent the ban. OK they were both guilty of gaming and violating the ban, rather than only one gaming. Don't nominate each others' articles for AfD, don't comment on each others' AfDs, don't participate in AfDs at all, don't interact with each other. Who isn't tired of this? Pseudofusulina (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not violate the ban even remotely, you need to read WP:IBAN. Don't imply a cascading IBAN by yourself. Read TP's comment to your bad report above. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would recommend Pseudofusulina read WP:IBAN. I gave notice 10 days before nominating that article that it would go to AFD if sources were not found[8] I believe this is ample time to prove the terms notability and whether or not it is what the article says it is. I hounded nobody to that article, I got there from the what links here on the article of the made up word Pakophilia as can be seen from my removal of the temrHere And I got to the made up term after following it from Here. There are no IBAN violations here at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment While DarknessShines did indicate an intent to AfD before the interaction ban, nominating it after the ban was placed is, in my opinion, a violation of the ban. However, perhaps a warning would be better at this point rather than a block. TopGun's deletion nomination is, at best, pointy. A warning there would do as well. But, I do support banning both editors from the RfC in question. Their views are clear and their further comments are only muddying the issue. --regentspark (comment) 12:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I formally supported my interaction ban with DS so that we don't interact any more (which means I don't want to), and I requested for that RFC to be initiated, so I'm a key participant. There have also been no interactions there or anywhere else... I think that is enough to get a good faith? As far the RFC itself is concerned, there are some serious referencing issues which I pointed out... purely content dispute. About this Afd with ban violation, I think it should be outright closed/reverted like any other edits of a ban violation and made sure this doesn't happen again. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

View by Xavexgoem and countless others on 02:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DD2K needs to be blocked for incivility and attacking

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. Accuser's own edit summary attacks are almost beyond the pale.  Frank  |  talk  04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at his edits. He is a POV-pusher.

He falsely accused me of sockpuppetry of being editors I've never heard of. I have been reading WP for years.

When you don't like an edit (even though mine are well thought through) and then you falsely accuse people of sockpuppetry, you are being incivil and should be banned. If DD2K were a grown-up, he would discuss things like saying "I disagree with your suggestions and think the edit should be like this....".

Only an incivil person or juvenile would think "I don't like him.....he is bad....he is a sock." If everyone was this way, we'd look at President Assad of Syria and think "he is bad" and then make a complaint to WP saying "Assad is a sock, ban him".

To disagree with an edit and, instead of discussing it, to say to the other person is a sock is bad behavior and should result in DD2K being blocked. As far as I know, this Gaydenver editor (whom DD2K falsely accuses me of being a sock) never edited about the Obama 1099 issue (which makes Obama look good...I admit I am an Obama fan) or made suggestions to make the introduction of the article (lede) chronological instead of jumping back and forth in time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DD2K disagrees with an edit, does not discuss it, but makes false sockpuppet accusations. For this incivility, he should be blocked. At least block him 72 hours pending SP investigations. Midemer (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see on the talk page of DD2K that he wrote a sarcastic edit summary of "For Pete's Sake", did not discuss things, then after the person tried to discuss things with him (user:Jack Paterno), successfully got that person blocked permanently. He falsely accused him of being a sock and there is no CU data to support this assertion. This shows that DD2K has a record of falsely accusing people of being socks when he disagrees with an edit (and makes no attempt to discuss). This kind of behavior is very destructive and harmful to WP. DD2K should be blocked to prevent further disruption of this kind. If he is not, I predict DD2K will keep on doing this as he has done before. I see he did it in Nov 2011, is doing it in Feb 2012, and keeps on....This is disruption. Midemer (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The checkuser has responded. I am not a sock. This other sock person is, according to posts, an employee of the City of Denver. I am in Los Angeles. DD2K, in an archived CU request of Gaydenver, also accused User:UT Professor, an employee of the University of Texas (Austin?). This shows that DD2K is really grabbing at straws. He must be blocked for massive disruption extending over years. Midemer (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Midemer, the clerk (not checkuser) said nothing of the sort. He simply pointed out the technical impossibility of proving you are a sock at the moment. Regardless, there's no merit to your complaint. You came to the Barack Obama article and made some changes. When those changes were reverted, you went to the talk page and insisted your version was better in the complete absence of sources, in addition to insulting everyone who edits the article. If you find yourself incapable of assuming good faith, especially of those who disagree with you, you should avoid content disputes, or perhaps avoid Wikipedia entirely. I can't fault DD2K for assuming bad faith on someone who acts like a troll. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that is false. I made some suggestions. I did not constantly revert and insist on editing the same thing. DD2K is the one who should be blocked since he has falsely accused people on multiple occasions, whenever he doesn't like an edit. I looked at his talk page. He reverted someone's edit and instead of explaining it just wrote "For Pete's Sake" as an edit summary. He later became more sadistic and just falsely accused the person of being a sock. That kind of disruption should cause DD2K to be blocked.

Someguy1221, you and I are discussing things now. This is the way it should be. I don't just start accusing you of being DD2K's sock and get you blocked. See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me, and a disruptive editor, like DD2K. Midemer (talk) 04:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) You didn't provide any links and it's not clear from your contrib history (or DD2K) but if a checkuser (and possibly a clerk) felt there was a legitimate case to consider and ran a checkuser request, then it's hard to imagine DD2K did anything blockable, unless they lied about evidence. Checkuser requests aren't used for fishing and by and large will only be run of the checkuser feels there is a valid reason to do so. The feeling of another user that there is valid reason does not significantly affect that decision. In other words, the fact that DD2K may have been wrong here doesn't indicate they are being disruptive. BTW, you have failed to notify Midemer of the discussion as the orange box clearly says you should, I have done so for you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading it...but wasn't Midemer the editor that started this discussion? - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right I got confused and checked the wrong person. Apologies to Midemer for incorrect claim. Well the part about Midemer not notifying Midemer was technically correct, but there's no requirement to notify yourself that you initiated an ANI discussion.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found the checkuser request now. Gaydenver apparently has a history of one sockpuppetry so saying someone is a sockpuppet of Gaydenver is itself hardly disruptive. Continously accusing people of being a sockpuppet (even if the person you connect them to is a sockpuppet) without evidence may be. The checkuser request was declined because the Gaydenver case is stale so that's not relevant here. (Note as I said above if the checkuser request is actually run, that likely means there was sufficient evidence.) I make no comment on the evidence presented, but you'd need more then one case for this to come close to being blockable. The headers of this page, other then telling you to notify people you discuss also discuss ways you can attempt to resolve problems with another party like a RFC or WQA. From what Someguy1221 has said who appears to have looked in to the case more, I suggest you be aware of WP:Boomerang before trying to pursue any problems with DD2K again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment). Hello, Midemer, this is Shirt "Mr always nice to everybody and never says anything in the slightest bit snarky" 58. You wrote:See, that is the difference between a civil editor, like me... You are either delusional or a troll.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Shirt, if you were an admin, would you block indefinitely? (Just throwing this out there for the purpose of discussion--finding "a way forward".) Drmies (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Drmies, if I were an WP:ADMIN, I would immediately recuse myself from any sysop action as WP:INVOLVED, come back as an editor, strike the comment as a personal attack, apologise to the editor, and talk to them about how to improve the project.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

tpg on obama:talk

Will someone please revert [9]? There's nothing in WP:FORUM or WP:TPG that supports an involved editor hatting or stuffing comments they don't like into an archive. Note: I did remove some comments that we totally off topic per TPG. Nobody Ent 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, somehow the Obama page slipped off my watchlist. Is Gaydenver back as yet another sock? Tarc (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See the above section, and the one two above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If somebody thinks that a) unsourced claims, b) offensive rants, and c) personal opinions do not violate WP:FORUM, go ahead and revert. Might become precedent though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if it's not supported by a specific wording (although as you say, it does allow the complete removal of OT comments), I have seen in place archiving, quick archiving etc being used be in a particularly active talk page like that concerning a controversial recent event. Whether it was needed here I'm not going to comment but since I don't feel there's a good reason to keep the comments, I'm reluctant to revert. Incidentally why did you want an administrator to do the reverting? Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an admin; I'm 1rr and would rather have another editor make the revert in the spirit of consensus. Nobody Ent 20:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess my point wasn't obvious. I meant since this is at ANI, it seems you must be requesting the help of an admin and if not, what is this doing at ANI? Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The danger of archiving is that it can be abused very easily. Don't like an opinion, particularly if it is very good....remove it either by reverting or archiving. This is very evil. Obama is a liberal and is against book burning. I am against book burning. Fox News fans love book burning.

EXECURTIVE SUMMARY Administrators should be aware that disruptive users will quickly revert talk page comments, put them in a hat (collapse them), or quickly archive them. If they do this, that is very disruptive and can start fights. Because it is disruptive, users who do these things should be blocked immediately. DD2K is a user that does this. He's not the only one. Midemer (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Midemer (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've given Midemer a time-out for this edit. I am open to comment if anybody thinks I am being too harsh, but it seemed to me like a classic WP:POINT violation. --John (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Aaaaaaa wedontdotimeoutblockomgwtfbbq. Good block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest Midemer stop bringing up DD2K in to every single discussion as it's starting to sound like harassment. Although DD2K may have done the initial archiving, the reversion NotEnt was asking us to remove was not done by them. And I note they really failed to notify DD2K having checked the right contrib history this time. I don't feel the previous notification of discussion is sufficient since this is a different topic. However I'm not going to bother with the notification since it seems unnecessary given that Midemer was quickly blocked and no one else is interested in discussion DD2K in yet another thread. Nil Einne (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Frankly after looking at his comments I'm thinking a longer block is going to be needed until Midemer is capable of comprehending that Wikipedia is a collegial, collaborative environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Move of "Health" --> "Human Health"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Moved back by Barek. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article formerly entitled Health has been moved to Human Health by Autoarbitaster. I can find no consensus for this move (it does not appear to have been discussed at all). I have no idea whether this is an advisable change. However, there appear to be a number of other problems with it. Chief among is that the new title does not follow the policy for Article title format in that it does not use lower case after the first word. There also appear to be (many) problems with redirects and disambiguation. I recommend that this change be reverted until there has been discussion of the intent of this move and general agreement that it is a good way to go. Sunray (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I stupidly (albeit trying to help) created a section to discuss on the article's talk page...but with a suggestion in my post to "change" the article to the way it already was (sheesh, been one of those nights). Anyway, I struck my comment, but the section is there if anyone really has some further suggestions for the changing the title/redirects etc. since that's where the discussion should take place if so. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I know that this has been marked as "resolved" but I thought I would give some advice for any future such "incidents". When someone makes a move such as this "without discussion", it's called a bold edit and the best way to handle it, if there's an objection, is to simply move it back and invite the mover to discuss the move, no harm no foul. It only becomes an "incident" if the mover refuses to discuss the issue constantly repeating the action and/or blows a gasket. Only then should one consider "reporting" the action to one of the noticeboards such as WP:DRN. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also fine to take it here if someone is deliberately redirect-scorching by moving pages and editing the subsequent redirect to prevent it being moved back, but otherwise what Ron Ritzman says. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

"Redirect scorching", eh? *files away term for later use* - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacob Bronowski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have deleted his name from the list of Senior Wranglers (Mathemtics Tripos, Cambridge University) as such rankings were abolished in 1910, when he would have been 2 years old. I have corrected the entry and don't know who did it. They won't be back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.171.149 (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article has a long list of "Senior Wranglers since 1910", so a) you are wrong, and b) Why delete just this one name, rather than the whole section? And in any case, this is not a matter for AN?I, since no admin action is appropriate or requested. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive IP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

31.47.9.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This anonymous user continues with exact the editing pattern he/she has been repeatedly warned of. He/she adds unsourced material (diff), even to BLPs (diff, diff), and disrupts by re-reverting when getting reverted (hist). The user's talk page is full of warnings and even a final warning. --RJFF (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. Mfield (Oi!) 18:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeffrey Lichtman (edit talk links history)

Can somebody take a look at this article? Assadson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeadetly reverting good-faith edits and mislabeling them as vandalism, and keeps inserting apparent non-neutral material and original research. Also, Assadson might be a sockpuppet of DiltonDoiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Klilidiplomus+Talk 19:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A newly registered editor, User:RexRoth1, has entered the fray, his only edit to being to revert my last rollback. I've posted a 3RR warning on Assadson's page, and to satisfy WP:ANEW, opened a topic on the Lichtman Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is RexRoth1 is now editing on behalf of Assaadson based on the timing of my 3RR warning. I don't normally accuse editors of sock puppetry without opening a report, but, in this case, both editors should be blocked, regardless of the sock puppetry issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked them both, irrelevantly of the SPI issue they are both in flagrant violation of 3RR. Mfield (Oi!) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a safe bet that they will continue to open new accounts as soon as they are blocked. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If they both come back as themselves after the 24-hour block, I will file an SPI report. As for any future new accounts, one possibility is an SPI report, and another is semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I've already semied the page for a fortnight. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Salvio, one less thing to deal with.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

User:78.101.214.226—Possible legal threat

This user appears to have made a legal threat in this edit summary. It also looks like a possible impersonation of the Wikimedia Foundation. Thought it best to report to you folks. NTox · talk 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the user was making a broad reference to things like abuse response, and what happens to people who vandalize. I see "Thanks Jurisdiction Wikipedia" in the summary, but I don't think he was trying to imply that he was part of WMF at all in the summary. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I looked over the contribs and saw him reporting a vandal to AIV. He seems to simply be trying to revert vandalism. 72.137.97.65 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think you may be right. Nevertheless, I was troubled by the legal comment and thought it best that someone more experienced take a look. Looks like it's been taken care of. NTox · talk 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

YehudaMizrahi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

YehudaMizrahi is a persistent POV-pusher. He repeatedly makes the same changes at Palestinian people and Palestinian Christians, despite the fact that the sources cited in the article do not support his POV. He removes material from Ofra Haza without explanation. When confronted, he has insulted both RolandR and me (ben zonah means "son of a whore").

When he has been warned about edit-warring, YehudaMizrahi often logs out and continues to edit anonymously. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/YehudaMedinaMizrahi/Archive for more information.

Would somebody please review the relevant history and take appropriate action against YehudaMizrah? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The material this editor, using several IPs, frequently removes from Ofra Haza is the fact that she is of Yemeni origin, and plays Yemeni-influenced music. This editor has also removed the word "Yemeni" (or in some cases replaced it with the Hebrew version, "Teimani") from many food articles, including Malawach, Jachnun, Skhug and others; and has disruptively edited many dance articles, including Yemenite step, Hora (dance), Flamenco , Huayño and many more. These have been reverted by many different editors, few of whom have noticed the disruptive editing in other areas. I have reported him twice for sockpuppetry. Although my reports have been recognised as accurate and justified, no action has been taken because this editor's editing pattern involves spates of activity using a main account and several IPs (all registered in Hamilton, Ontario), followed by periods of inactivity. So, by the time reports are examined, the editor is not actually editing. But the overall pattern is both tendentious and disruptive, and the incivility towards both Malik and myself in itself deserves sanction. RolandR (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just invoked WP:NOTHERE and indeffed YehudaMizrahi (talk · contribs) for tendentious editing. If any admin thinks I was too heavy-handed, feel free to tweak the block settings. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So administrator Salvio giuliano blocked an editor participating in one of our most contentious topic areas who:

(1) repeatedly uses non-English phrases to call other editors "son of a whore", "wanker",

(2) uses non-English and English phrases to tell other editors "kiss my ass", and "go fuck yourself"

(3) logs out to continue, under various IP's, a long-term campaign to remove the word "Yemeni" from multiple articles.

WP:NOTHERE seems an accurate assessment: A good call on the block, imo.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Malik Shabazz & User:RolandR - Biased users not allowing sourced information but allowing non-sourced information from others

Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I have contributed a lot of information on youtube articles that User:Malik Shabazz has even decided to keep. At first he allowed one of my source on but after 2 months he took it away, since I was concerned I put my source again and he responded by already threatening me that he is going to block me. He is very rude and pushy.

As for User:RolandR, he leaves the Ofra Haza article without sources, he has allowed non-sourced sentences in Ofra Haza's article, but when I put a sentence on Ofra Haza's Teimanim background with sources, he took it off and right away he messaged me threatening me in a rude way that he was going to block me. All I'm doing is trying to contribute to wikipedia, he is also accusing me of other things which are not true. He has issues and his articles are clearly biased since he is allowing non-sourced information. For anyone who is concerned, please do check out the Ofra Haza article. I already reported these users. Please do report these people for a non-bias wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YehudaMizrahi (talk • contribs) 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This and this are unacceptable. His reactions were downright civil compared to your's. If gentile Christians were present as well (which the first source indicated), it's unbalanced to limit it to only Jewish Christians, so Malik is correct to have reverted you and asked you to stop.

Calling someone Malaka (see Malakas, folks) is also totally unacceptable. As for this, is is indeed our business, because it is unacceptable to use different addresses for sockpuppetry here. As for claiming that he's allowing uncited material, the first source in the article says "Ms. Haza proudly asserted her background as a Yemenite Jew." Another also says "Ofra Haza was born on November 19, 1957 in the Hatikvah quarter of Tel Aviv to parents who had immigrated from Yemen". Your claim that the Yemeni bit is totally inaccurate. Furthermore, your attempted change reverted here cites a source which again says Haza was one of nine children born to parents who had emigrated from Yemen" and at no point does the word "Teimanim" appear anywhere in the source you cite.

In short, not only were Malik and RolandR right to revert you and let you know that you will be blocked if you keep it up, you were wrong to misuse sources, make various personal attacks, and claim that they were the ones causing sourcing problems.

I recommend backing off, or an admin would be completely justified in blocking you after one more screw up. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not only from Ofra Haza that this user and his many sockpuppets is removing the word "Yemeni", but also from many more, including Bo'az Ma'uda, Malawach, Israeli folk dancing, Achinoam Nini, Jachnun], Yemenite step and several others. This slow-moving tendentious editing is extremely disruptive, and is wasting the time of very many editors. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange socking and edit warring

This strange edit warring discussed here a couple of weeks ago has reared its head again. Revertorium (talk · contribs) and several IPs in the 69.171.160 range are edit warring, with Revertorium claiming that the IPs are socks of the banned user Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs). Anyone know anything about this? Should we block both? (see also WT:PLANTS#Orchid_wars) SmartSE (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked them both for 24 hours (IP 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)) as they were being disruptive. If anyone knows anything about this though, please unblock/lengthen blocks as necessary. SmartSE (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

A knee-jerk block without any investigation? Bad move. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it was preventative, not a punishment per WP:BLOCK. SmartSE (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed as each other:

• Revertorium (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Won'tBeBackAHAHAHA (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• IsThisReallyWhatWeWant? (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• JeffMerkey'sGhost (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

As such, I have made Revertorium's block indefinite. --MuZemike 00:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This accusation is blatantly false. Several admins know exactly which banned user loves to accuse me of socking, and I'd say that is who is behind the specific edits from the 69.171.160.0/24 range. My guess is that the named socks above are User:Vigilant. My guesses and 50 cents will buy you a coke. I keep this account as a sort-of doppelganger now (with very rare exceptions like this edit), and I edit regularly now under a new account; names have long-since been disclosed to the WP Functionaries. Pfagerburg (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Where the hell do you find a Coke for 50 cents these days? --NellieBly (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

On one day in 2003 you could get it for a nickel. [10] - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for clarifying what was going on. I don't anyone any of us at WP:PLANTS would have suspected a banned user faking a revert war with himself. Circéus (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, this exact thing happens surprisingly (disturbingly?) often... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Two different banned users. One using the IP range noted above, the other using Vigilant, Revertorium, etc. Both edit-warring against each other. Over the past year, I have been accused, without any evidence, of socking from many different accounts (one of which was a poor attempt at impersonation) and IP address by one of those banned users, which is why I chose to step in and refute this time. It seems like everywhere he goes, he sees socks that absolutely must be me, but he is sadly mistaken. I will now go back to my regular (and long ago properly disclosed to the Functionaries) account now, and leave this one as a doppelganger again.

As for 50 cents for Coke, well, it was 50 cents when I started using that saying back in the early 90's. I haven't made it keep up with inflation, because "that and a buck twenty-five will buy you a Coke" just doesn't have the same ring to it. Pfagerburg (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've rangeblocked the 69.171.160.xx range again from six months. There was some discussion at WT:PLANTS, but it was agreed that it was probably a sensible course of action. Then the following conversation happened. It's pretty pointless as the range has been blocked, why is "Can'tWehaveADialog?" harping on it further? I mean, he's obviously not defending the IPs/users concerned. Can we get a IP check and if possible also a IP block on that one? I have an eery feeling that trolling of a sort is at play here, but as I mentioned to someone in private, I haven't really done enforcement for years now (the mop didn't turn out to be something I normally deal all that well with). Circéus (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was going to ask someone to do that! SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WT:PLANTS

Can we talk about this in just this one section without the banhammer falling immediately?

These are the IPs that have been used from the 69.171.160.* range to edit WP:PLANT articles, almost exclusively orchid articles:

Note also the common thread with Military Brat and anti mormon stuff intermixed with plant articles.

• 69.171.160.6 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.7 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.15 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.21 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.24 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.26 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.28 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.32 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.34 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.35 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.42 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.43 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.48 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.51 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.58 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.63 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.83 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.85 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.92 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.94 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.96 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.98 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.114 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.116 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.120 (talk · contribs) With military brat as well, making the link even stronger
• 69.171.160.134 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.144 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.150 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.151 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.152 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.153 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.157 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.164 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.165 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.168 (talk · contribs) Plus WP:ANI, "I am NOT Merkey" stuff
• 69.171.160.174 (talk · contribs) Plus Utah stuff where Merkey used to live
• 69.171.160.181 (talk · contribs) Not orchid, but still under WP:PLANT
• 69.171.160.183 (talk · contribs) Plus Bisexual erasure, Merkey's been on a "I'm bisexual" thing lately
• 69.171.160.186 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.187 (talk · contribs) Plus anti mormon stuff
• 69.171.160.192 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.194 (talk · contribs) Pus ANI stuff
• 69.171.160.200 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.201 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.209 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.210 (talk · contribs) Cactus
• 69.171.160.216 (talk · contribs) Ginseng
• 69.171.160.218 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.227 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.231 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.237 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.238 (talk · contribs)
• 69.171.160.239 (talk · contribs) With military brat as well
• 69.171.160.242 (talk · contribs) Poppy
• 69.171.160.247 (talk · contribs)

IPs in the same range editing topics near and dear to Merkey's heart:

• 69.171.160.13 (talk · contribs) Edited anti-Mormon stuff, another Merkey strong hold
• 69.171.160.52 (talk · contribs) Linux, Pamela Jones(groklaw.net), etc
• 69.171.160.55 (talk · contribs) Anti-Mormon stuff
• 69.171.160.65 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.75 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.78 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.91 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.93 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.104 (talk · contribs) anti mormon
• 69.171.160.109 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.111 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.126 (talk · contribs) Pamela jones
• 69.171.160.127 (talk · contribs) Solera Networks a previous Merkey Employer
• 69.171.160.139 (talk · contribs) Solera Networks
• 69.171.160.141 (talk · contribs) Military brat, PTSD stuff
• 69.171.160.166 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.148 (talk · contribs) Pamela Jones
• 69.171.160.161 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.175 (talk · contribs) Making sock puppet allegations against someone
• 69.171.160.178 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.180 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.199 (talk · contribs) Military brat and grief stuff
• 69.171.160.202 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.207 (talk · contribs) Pamela Jones
• 69.171.160.219 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.224 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.232 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.234 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.235 (talk · contribs) Military brat
• 69.171.160.255 (talk · contribs) Military brat

Take a look at the evidence compiled here. Jeff Merkey has gone to great lengths to insert (probably) copyrighted text into many articles using a wide array of IP addresses to mask his work.

Can we talk about this here and ANI without getting out the ban hammer?

Please note that there is text directly below the edit window that reads, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. "

Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think introducing yourself first would be the polite thing to do? What's this all about? Who the heck is Merkey in the first place. Using his name is not enough justification for mass reverts. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 05:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[11] Merkey's history. Poke around. Tons of sockpuppets, indef'd at lesast 20 times, legal threats, calling people's work, crazy stuff about gays and Mormons, the works. Also, [12] search for Merkey.

He has effectively polluted your orchid articles by adding tons of edits with no citations/sources over a wide range of IP addresses. Do what you will. Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Obsidian, this user is another sockpuppet of User:Revertorium and User:It'sJeffMerkeyYouFools from the Orchid Wars discussion above.--Tom Hulse (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you not read the section heading? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You're kidding right? Lol. You want to have a "dialog" about how Jeff is using sockpuppets and is editing while banned... while you use sockpuppets and edit while banned? You can't see how ridiculous your postings are? I for one one would like to thank you for the free entertainment. This is better than a soap opera, lol. ;) --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one inserting thousands of edits of dubious copyright status into hundreds of articles on Wikipedia? Can't *you* see the difference? Can'tWehaveADialog? (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Mindjuicer and false accusations of sockpuppetry

Mindjuicer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently topic banned from alt med articles per the thread towards the top of AN/I right now. He has taken to making false accusations of sockpuppetry against myself, User:SummerPhD and User:Famousdog on his talk page. I warned him here that this can be construed as harassment and explained that all three of us are established editors that edit many pages. He removed my message without responding and has left the accusations on his talk page. I'm not asking to have the user blocked, rather I would like these accusations to either be stricken or taken to WP:SPI and then stricken when it's confirmed that there is no socking. I will notify the user of this discussion momentarily. N^oformation ^Talk 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the user has been notified but removed the notification here. N^oformation ^Talk 02:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I wasn't going to bother SPIing you as I'm leaving WP for good but it seems you don't know when to stop. --Mindjuicer (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're leaving then blank your talk page and go. As long as you're still here and there are false accusations about me and other editors then it's something that has to be dealt with, sorry. N^oformation ^Talk 02:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that there are "suspicions of sock puppetry" and WP:SPI is "a centralized forum regarding suspicions of sock puppetry", I'm not sure I can see any reason one of us (or should that be "one of me"?) cannot dispose of this by starting a thread there with MJ's accusation. Other than the complete waste of an investigator's time (which I'd imagine would be brief), I'd have no objection. Otherwise, whatever. MJ is, purportedly, gone. Problem, purportedly, solved. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for block review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User Jehochman has blocked an IP editor for 48 hours, for a matter which was precipitated by user:jehochman, who is thus involved. 48 hours seems excessive. Indeed the block seems punitive, without further sensible explanation. NewbyG ( talk) 02:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be extremely helpful if you could link to the blocker, the blockee, and diff the precipitating event(s). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, broadband is playing up. See talk page for IP editor 90.179.235.249 . Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 03:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Convenience links: Jehochman (talk · contribs), 90.179.235.249 (talk · contribs). I've also notified both editors, which you hadn't done. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you complaining about? The IP was disruptive, as explained in my block message, and then posted two unblock requests that were both were declined. Jehochman ^Talk 04:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not pursue this particular thread, Newbyguesses. Nothing good will come of it, and I understand that there is justifiable frustration over this matter that is not being adequately addressed. I am also frustrated; but I'm not about to open a thread like this when I know that the thread is completely doomed. Things will work themselves out - it'll be okay. Cheers... Doc talk 04:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please visit my talk page and explain concerns, calmly, with context, and any relevant evidence. Best practice is to attempt a discussion rather that coming straight here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I see no evidence of an "involvement" that would suggest that Jehochman could not rationally or objectively make an administrator's decision. Drmies (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heh - well, I guess it's all in how you read the first paragraph of this. Perhaps the vague language should be "hammered out"? I see more misunderstandings on "involved" than perhaps any other policy point - especially among administrators. Doc talk 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• All too often "involvement" is invoked to attempt to de-legitimize even simple blocks. It seems pretty obvious to me that the IP was plenty disruptive. And what about Tiderolls' denying the unblock request? Or we going to review every block on ANI? Drmies (talk) 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Heck no! I said that NBG should not pursue this here - close the thread. Doc talk 04:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's been my observation that the area between cries of "Involved!" and cries of "Drive-by adminning!" is disturbingly narrow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're forgetting "admin abuse". Doc talk 04:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Not that I hvew the faintest idea what going on here, but if the suggestion is that the thread be closed not because there is no case to answer, but because "justice won't be done" than that seems a poor precedent. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ahh, a thirty-second review suggests to me that this is a block that could stand review. Not saying of course that I'm prejudging, just that this appears messy enough that it bears review. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It does need review, and you are correct that I suggested closing it only because I felt that it had no chance to be taken seriously, and not because it had no merit. Doc talk 05:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• re:Doc's comment on admin abuse. Personally, even admins. get tired of being abused. If you cut us, do we not bleed? ... sigh ... — Ched :  ?  06:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've said many times that cries of "admin abuse" mean that an admin is indeed being abused. Doc talk 07:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

if the IP agrees to and acts to stop attacking other editors, and stops encouraging others to violate policy, I can shorten their block to time served. Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Diffs, please, for the attacks and encouragements for others to violate policy? (I note how harsh we are to complainants who make claims such as that without evidence.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If Jehochman doesn't mind me finding the diffs for him, here they are: Clear PA on North8000 and S Marshall: "You and S Marshall are either trolling or incapable of clear judgement" [13] [14]. The encouragment to violate policy is sketchier, but I presume the comments here [15] [16] are what's being referred to, in relation to the discussion preceding them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Let us not forget this one a disruptive user logged out to edit as an IP. User:Jehochman 13:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Newby, you are involved in the WP:V dispute on the same side as te IP, aren't you. How is your participation here not merely an extension of that same battle? (Same comment applies to anybody else who spilled over from that dispute to here.) Jehochman ^Talk 12:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have encouraged the user to discuss their differences with Jehochman, on the IP's talk page. I too had questions about this block here. I would note that the arguable PA, noted by Bushranger, took place in the context of dispute resolution, and it did not inflame that discussion, at all, nor was it even noted upon by the third party DR mediators - there should be some leeway for users in that context to layout their differences. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This IP followed me to a totally unrelated page and told a user I had just unblocked to disregard my advice about how to remain unblock. That was disruptive and downright cruel to the other user, because it was goading him to get blocked again. When I checked the edit history and saw that the IP had made personal attacks against other editors; the balance of weight was that the IP needed to be blocked. My prior comment about the IP (which probably motivated the IP to hound me) did not factor into the equation at all because at the time I did not recognize that this IP and that IP were the same one. IP numbers aren't memorable like usernames. If the IP renounces personal attacks, hounding and disrupting, they can be unblocked early. Otherwise, the block expires after another day. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Were you talking to me? I am not on any "side" here user:Jehochman. And, it appears we do have the luxury of discussing this for another day, and then it's all over. Yet you rushed to unblock (with a manufactured consensus) another memorable user who had been fairly blocked.

These inconsistencies are the reason I have braved the wrath of this page, not any "side", as if that is what you want to think. And I do not want "blood on the floor" , I know what a trial it must be especially here for admins to face accusations that are way unfair, and have to bear it. No, I don't want that at all, and for me, believe, it ain't about winning, just seeing some fairness done, and efficient process. NewbyG ( talk) 14:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think I understand better. I hope J and the IP can work it out, as I have encouraged the IP to do. The IP should be reflective. I am sure J will listen to you with a sincere and generous purpose. Hopefully you will do the same. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, sorry if I'm not terribly informed on this yet, but is "disregard [Jehochman] advice" what was meant by "encouraging others to violate policy"? I'm a bit thick, so can I have an explicit answer on that? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The problem was the next diff, a nasty bit of antisemitic incitement to a user who already had problems with antisemitic POV pushing: [17] I even cited this diff in my block message [18] so that the user would understand why they had been blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole of that diff is

"And you are right, many articles have strong Jewish bias, especially those about the history of Israel. Most of them cite the old testament as a reliable source and describe elements of Jewish religion as if they were facts. That would not be acceptable anywhere else."

I do not believe that that quote can be reasonably defined as promoting hatred toward Jews. I feel as though I'm asking the same question several times, but I'm not seeing how that is "encouraging others to violate policy"? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe what's meant is that diff, in context with the rest of the discussion it was added as a response to, was considered incitement. (I haven't had the time to look through the discussion to opine if it actually is or not, but I think that's what's being said here.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Ding, ding, ding, you win the prize. Jehochman ^Talk 07:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous contention. Even in context, this is simply a matter of bullying an IP user, because it is so easy to do. I still think that is a shameful thing to do. NewbyG ( talk) 09:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• The good faith editor, the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 has been blocked unfairly, and since 03:00 yesterday, that is 24 hours too long, that is 40 hours too long. The sham sockpuppet investigation is concluded.

  User:Jehochman, I calll upon you to exhibit some clue in this matter, and unblock the Czech IP 90.179.235.249. Fix your foolish mistake.

  Should you not care to, then we must await further comment here, and discern a consensus, on the block of the good-faith editor the Czech IP 90.179.235.249 which you wrongly enacted, IMHO Thank you-- NewbyG ( talk) 16:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Noozgroop

For a whole year, Noozgroop (talk · contribs) has been violating the Manual of Style of Wikipedia (MOS). The MOS says: "Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a substantial reason". The MOS rule s/he has been changing is the MOS:NUM (WP:ORDINAL), which states: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". I know that many people prefer to write "16" rather than "sixteen", but the MOS accepts both uses, and unless there is a real reason to make a change, challenging the style of an article, with no valid reasons, is kinda disrupting ("The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style"). Considering that since February 2011 Noozgroop has been warned many times about the same—User talk:Noozgroop#February 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#Edit warring, User talk:Noozgroop#Regarding your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#July 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011, User talk:Noozgroop#October 2011 2, User talk:Noozgroop#Your edits, User talk:Noozgroop#November 2011 and User talk:Noozgroop#February 2012—and that he has very low (or no) interest to communicate with other people, I don't know what else can be done with this person. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! That toolserver is a killer. No talking to anyone? We do have bots, and they can be shut off when needed. Human editors must attempt to communicate at a basic level. Doc talk 08:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I've issued a 48-hour attention-getting block (hopefully it'll be long enough that they notice it). EyeSerene^talk 10:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Serious problem with an admin and POV pushing

Hello: I am having serious problem with User:Sitush and his friends who are admins. Please see this diff:[19] specficially note the comments of James Frietag, Giles Tillotson, Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler. Sitush and his friends want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad" and any contrary opinion from Phd's and professors from top american schools are rejected by this bunch. They edit war and threaten to ban me. Please help. Ror Is King (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've started a discussion at the article's talk page, that's good.. but it was only minutes ago.. perhaps you should give discussion a chance first before coming to AN/I so quickly with a content dispute? We have many other venues of dispute resolution you can take advantage of. -- œ^™ 08:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been having a problem with this bunch for weeks now. They all collude and want to push a single POV that Tod was "bad". On the other hand Phd Scholars Richard Saran, Norm Ziegler, Tillotson (ex director of Royal Asiatic Society) and Frietag's (faculty at ithaca college: http://faculty.ithaca.edu/jfreitag/) comments are deleted as if Sitush and his friends are the only authority. And admins Qwy and Boing support his POV pushing and have threatened to ban me multiple number of times. I fail to understand why I am not allowed to quote from above authors in the Criticism section of James Tod. Ror Is King (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't specific enough; I did tell Ror is King that xe should pursue dispute resolution if xe wanted to make those changes. As I mentioned on the talk page, that article was just promoted to Featured Article status last week. No less than 10 people participated in the FA discussion, and others commented on the article's talk page. No other editor found Ror's concerns to be compelling. We can certainly discuss the issue, though right now there appears (to me) to be a strong consensus against it. Also, it's relevant to note that many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India, so I don't think they qualify as "Sitush and his friends". Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you questions on what you find wrong with Saran and Ziegler here [20] and what you find wrong with Tillotson. You don't respond. Only thing you do is edit war and threaten to ban me. Since when has citing well refereed authors on wikipedia become a crime? Ror Is King (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If 9 editors have one view, and you have another, you need to consider that maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't them - it's you. And even if you are in the right, you need to calmly discuss things, especially with the proposal of major changes to a just-promoted Featured Article, on the talk page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

None of the 9 editors knew what has been written by Ziegler and Saran, Freitag and Tillotson on Tod. They were just towing Sitush's line. When I question Qwyrxian on his comments criticising me (see above) I see no response. So you see it is *just one* editor and his friends (some of who are admins) who are having a field day. If I add bonafide sources I am the one comitting the mistake since I am threatened to be banned. Ror Is King (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: Thanks for noting "many of the editors at the FA discussion are not normal editors of articles related to India or castes in India". Should they really be reviewing the article then? I mean few editors who have no knowledge of the field but are good with wikipedia's quality standards are okay to have. But many of those types sounds odd. I dont have much experience and hence i dont know if its okay for many editors of film-articles to review FA nominations related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera. I also found it odd that the article received FA status with all the discussions User:Ror Is King was having on its talk page and Sitush's talk page too. (Actually Sitush was also surprised with the FA status.) Most of the queries by Ror Is King (RIK) are replied by Sitush, sometimes you. Why did the evaluators not find it important to discuss these things with RIK? Was it because they found his statements not worthy to discuss, as you found them not worthy to include in the article? Or was it because they trusted that you two will sort it out; by some means? Now lets leave this particular case of inclusion in Tod's article aside. Is this the first time that you have been called as a "team"? Or do many editors have this opinion? Is this the first time that some editor has been threatened to be banned by "Sitush and his friends"? There is one editor currently saying the same things on India Noticeboard. I do see that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But why do have to threaten all editors? Would you please see this. Image:Qxz-ad15.gif. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute and the discussion started on the article talk page should continue there rather than being conducted in two places. I don't see any administrative action (blocks, page protection etc) necessary here, nor do I see any abuse of admin powers. Admins can edit, just like other editors and have no more or less powers when they use powers available to every editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked User:Ror Is King for 24 hours for edit-warring on James Tod blatantly against consensus. It's a new FA, and we cannot have this level of disruption on it. Also, I have played no part in the content disagreement, having only warned Ror Is King about his unacceptable refusal to follow WP:AGF (you can see on his Talk page), so his accusations against me are quite false. I consider myself still in line with WP:Uninvolved here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

So he wont be able to respond here? Or are blocked editors able to edit this page? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If he wants, he can respond on his page and, using {{adminhelp}}, can ask that his replies be moved here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) He cannot respond here while blocked; he will be able to keep the discussion going on the article's talk page tomorrow, and this discussion may even still be open then (though possibly not). Regarding your question above about me, in all fairness, yes Sitush and I have been called a team before, and, depending on the time of year and specific article, other editors have been named as part of a team. In a certain sense, I freely admit to being a "team" in that we're part of a fairly large group of editors that believes that Wikipedia editors should follow policies, most especially WP:NPOV and WP:V...that everyone should do their best to only use reliable sources...and that people shouldn't cherry pick a few words or phrases out of a longer passage to misrepresent what a source says (this last, btw, is precisely the concern with Ror is King's request on the article currently in question). Sometimes, Sitush alone or Sitush as part of a "team" are criticized, because people want to include what they know is true, even though their knowledge isn't supported by reliable sources. This doesn't mean that they're necessarily "wrong", but it does mean that they can't include such opinions/positions in Wikipedia articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, just looked at the WT:INB topic you mentioned. I'm not part of that "team", but in that case, too, the actions were 100% correct: the article that one editor created was replete with copyright violations (in fact, other than references, it had nothing but copyright violations). Copying and pasting from other sources is not only against Wikipedia's rules, depending on how extensive it is, it may even be illegal. Any time you or anyone else ever sees copyright violations in articles, they should be removed immediately, with an explanation left in an edit summary or on the talk page. Since there was nothing left in the article after the copyvios were removed, it was rightly speedily deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will be happy to copy any comments from Ror Is King to here from his Talk page - I will inform him so very shortly. And any admin is welcome to review my block, which was not a result of this ANI report, but was for disrupting a new FA by edit-warring against clear consensus. (On top of his general refusal to assume good faith, and his apparent misrepresentation of sources to push a non-consensus POV, he is really being quite disruptive) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While Rik was certainly edit warring, he was also trying to resolve matters using this process. I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked. The status as a new FA is a bit problematical, as we publicize new FAs through the Signpost to bring them to community attention and we shouldn't be surprised when community members duly edit in response. "Disruption" is a term I think we should avoid, as it is so amorphous it can easily be used for finger pointing.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear--this isn't a new member coming to the process. Everything that RiK changed now was a change xe proposed while the FA process was ongoing. No editor watching the article at that time found merit in RiK's edits. Furthermore, at one point RiK quoted a source to support his words. However when Sitush got a full copy of that source, it turned out that RiK had (either through malice or simple failure to read enough of the source) that, when the rest of the paragraph was read, the source's meaning was exactly the opposite of the position RiK was trying to include in the article. Furthermore, the editor reverted 3 times today to xyr preferred version (being reverted twice by myself and once by Sitush, with a third editor saying on talk that xe would have reverted had I not gotten to it first), despite the fact that the issue had already been discussed and rejected by a number of other editors, over a week ago. As such, the block was warranted as RiK knew that the change was against consensus and had previously been warned against edit warring. That being said, Boing! said on RiK's talk page that the block could be reduced to time served if RiK promises to stop edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur. I should have been more clear I was switching from a specific point to making a general one about FAs.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "I suggest that if he undertakes not to edit war, he should be unblocked". I agree, and in fact said exactly that to him at the time of the block. I'm also happy for anyone else to unblock if they believe further edit warring is unlikely -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: I already said that most of the times your "team's" points are right. But the way disputes are handled is sometimes wrong. A edit war doesnt happen just because of one party. Its takes two to war. I once encountered a editor who wouldnt talk on talk pages, his or mine or article's. All he said was through Edit Summary when he reverted my edits. That was the only means he wanted to use. But in this case RIK was talking with you people. The material he had put on the article could have stayed there itself till you had your discussion. The material he added was not even legally contentious or defamatory. It, on the contrary, was speaking good about the subject. Dead Tod was not gonna rise and sue Wikipedia for keeping something good about him for few hours or even days. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Operative phrase here is "you people" (whatever that means--if it is an insult, they people should probably let it slide): it's not two who or going to war here. It's a whole bunch of editors, and RiK has been disrupting (yes) the article for quite some time now. At some point, enough is enough. Lending credibility to repeated claims of bias, against consensus, actually makes a mockery of the rigor of the FA process. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I won't argue with you about it, but FA's, as we both know, are not delivered on tablets of stone. Certainly, FAC is not dispute resolution. That being said, such might want to be considered in this matter ...--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, they're not stone tablets, but at the very least they suggest consensus at a given moment. RiK was a dissenter there on this point, but their objection didn't stand in the way of promotion--I can't see on this edit screen if this discussion on the talk page is linked here or not (it's mentioned by Sitush in the FA review), but it is insightful. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternate resolution

• The way I see it, this is a content dispute which has escalated. I concur with User:OlEnglish's suggestion. May I suggest the case be moved to Content disputes noticeboard and the issue of the content taken up with both sides leaving out the behavioural allegations/aspects?
• In case both parties agree to move the case there, I also request the blocking admin to release the block if the affected parties agree to behave during this process so that the atmosphere is not vitiated.
• All parties to the dispute are also requested to NOT edit James Tod for whatever reason so as to maintain a peaceful atmosphere for resolving this. AshLin (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, now I will weigh in here. This article has just gone through FAC, which is a pretty rigorous process. One person had a problem with alleged bias. Their concerns were examined, the full text of their relevant points was obtained ... and it seemed clear that they had misrepresented those texts. Subsequently, the article was promoted and then the alleging contributor returns and resumes their disruptive edits in exactly the same manner as prior to the promotion, and citing exactly the same misrepresented sources. Similar behaviour occurred when they reported me here last November. Which bit of WP:IDHT does not apply here? I am happy to continue discussion but unless something new is brought to the table it seems to be somewhat pointless, whether it is conducted at the article talk page, WP:DRN or at any other venue. - Sitush (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

@AshLin I have already agreed to lift the block as soon RIK agrees to stop edit-warring against consensus (a consensus that has been rigorously arrived at during the FA discussion). There are no other parties whose agreements I would need, as in my judgment no other parties were in breach of any policies. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

We also have the brand spanking new "Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard" at WP:ECCN. I saw the word "caste" up above so I'm guessing this might be relevant. N^oformation ^Talk 21:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not Content Dispute

I would like to point out that my complaint is not a content dispute. Sitush and friends are selectively quoting negative comments about Tod and obliterating the positive ones. For example in the "Criticism" section, which subsequently got renamed to "Reception" this is how Jason Freitag is quoted:

From: [21]

• These factors, says Freitag, contribute to why the Annals were "manifestly biased".

Now from the same source, Freitag, if I want to insert the following quotes:

• Tod's Annals sits at the foundation of modern scholarship on South Asia.(Reference: Freitag (2001), p. 7)
• Freitag further commends Tod in his PhD Thesis: "Today, historical work in Rajasthan continues to operate within the framework Tod defined two centuries ago."(Reference Freitag (2001), p. 6.)

I am not allowed to do so from the same PhD thesis that Sitush had quoted from because his admin friends are helping to create a WP:OWN situation that only Sitush and his admin friends will decide that their POV will be represented in the Tod article. No one dare oppose them or they threaten you with dire consequences and then eventually ban you (as happened to me a couple of days ago). Ror Is King (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

On the article's talk page (or linked from there) we will need to provide an extended section from that thesis in order for us to even consider including it. In this case, providing a copy of pages 6-8 is probably sufficient. Normally we would assume good faith, but since you misrepresented a source in the past by picking out a small portion which was not what the author actually meant, we cannot just rely on your word that this is what Freitag claims. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the nth time you have accused me of misrepresenting sources which started here: [22] and I responded here [23] and here [24] and asked you yet again on this notice board that how did I mispresent Saran and Ziegler [25]. Till date I have not seen you respond how I misrepresented these authors. Could you please tell everyone how I did so? ( I am aware you are wanting to turn this into a content dispute but I am hoping that everyone will see that it is a case of POV pushing, threats and bans from admins)Ror Is King (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Eschoir

Resolved

 – Editor indef blocked, and has acknowledged such. More to come once the editor has taken the time to re-evaluate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Eschoir (talk · contribs · block log)'s general conduct has been commented on very negatively on grounds of WP:EW, WP:V and WP:Competence is required in edits by Edjohnston and by Bwilkins.

Now that the recent complaint against him for edit-warring has been archived with no action taken, he has resumed the activity on which he eased up while the complaint was still open (cf. comment by Lionelt).

I will now inform all the editors I have mentioned here. Esoglou (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

His return to disruptive editing is textbook gaming the system. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "textbook", but I've seen enough. I have unfortunately indeffed, but provided a very in-depth, personalized block notice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boris Malagurski

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I made the following edits:

1. folded the excessive quote into prose, per WP:LONGQUOTE
2. also merge small paragraphs talking about the same thing
3. copyedit, losing some transient and peacock terms
4. noted criticism, per Talk

And then immediately bam:

1. rv

The explanation posted at Talk:Boris Malagurski#Boris Malagurski article full of lies is unconvincing at best, and at worst indicative of a string of sockpuppets operated by User:Bormalagurski - User:Cinéma C, User:UrbanVillager. Does anyone else think this is just a wee bit too much WP:OWN to be an accident? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Possibly. But the edits you point at are from November 2011. Bormalagurski hasn't edited since 2006, and Cinéma C not since 2010. It is entirely possible that you're correct (UrbanVillager is an SPA with no other interests, and came out of nowhere with some decent editing skills) but there's nothing that an SPI can do now, and Bormalagurski and Cinema C aren't blocked to begin with. Can't you edit or re-edit the article and see what happens? You have WP:NPOV backing you up, I suppose. Or, I don't see what admin intervention could be helpful here, besides an as-yet unwarranted block. Drmies (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Understanding a REVDEL

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just curious: see the REVDEL between these two [26] edits in Template:Smallcaps all (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Was there a site-threatening edit so that even the editor's name/IP had to be removed? And not a revdel note? It could be my edit! What went wrong? -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant log entry is here. The admin was hiding his own edit that he accidentally created during a history merge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The deleted edit was from 13:22, 25 February 2012, way before the history merge process (01:04, 27 February 2012‎). Also, is it essential to rm the editors id and not providing the revdel-reason is such case? -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I dont quite understand it either, my guess is that before RevDel was enabled that edit would have been simply deleted the old-fashioned way, as it doesnt seem to belong. But there's nothing "controversial" there, really. Definitely not site-threatening. ☮Soap☮ 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Persistent self-promoter at Aquatic ape hypothesis

For the past month, SPA User:Algis Kuliukas has been attempting to add mention of his e-book to the article (he self-identifies as one of the editors of the book). The e-book was published by Bentham Scientific Publishers, which has a dubious reputation as a "vanity press" for scientists who have failed to get their research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

I, and several others, have been arguing that the citing the latest scientific, peer reviewed, publication on the subject is a significant and helpful inclusion to the text on the subject.

Apart from gossip, what exactly is there to back the slur that a) Bentham is guilt of acting as "vanity press" ever, b) that the authors of the ebook paid to get it published? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the book has undergone any sort of peer review. Per discussion on the article talk page Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis, consensus is that the source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V, despite the protests of the author, who is currently crying "slander" and "censorship".

This is just another slur. I know for a fact that it was reviewed by at least one relevant authority. What evidence do you have that it wasn't? Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The addition is clearly against consensus as it has been reverted by numerous editors, including User:DoriSmith, User:Johnuniq, User:WLU, User:Kwamikagami, User:IRWolfie- and yours truly.

How can citing the latest scientific literature about the subject be deemed "against the consensus"? I guess, only in the sense that the "consensus" wants the idea ignored without any critical thinking or proper refutation in the scientific literature.

Furthermore, the source has been added by two other SPAs, User:Yloopx and User:Mvaneech. The quacking here is pretty loud.

"Quacking"? I note the ad hominem. You guys clearly do not even know what these ideas are and then you censor a simple ref to update the public with latest. The only quackery here is from people so ignorant that they cannot discriminate between the idea that a slight adaptive shift in moving through water might have, for example by wading through shallow water, led to in increase in hominin bipedalism and the idea that some all powerful "God" created the entire universe in six days, just for us. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Could we have an administrator look into the situation and take any steps that are needed? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please can we have a little impartiality here. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Algis actually has two accounts, Algis Kuliukas (talk · contribs) and AlgisKuliukas (talk · contribs), but given the account names it is pretty obvious that this is an error rather than a deliberate effort to get around WP:SOCK.

Thanks for being so reasonable there! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a pretty obvious history of promotion, of Algis' near-200 edits, they're essentially all related to the promotion of the AAH. All but one of the first account's contributions are to either AAH or its talk page; the other account has only edited the following pages:

• Aquatic ape hypothesis and it's talk page
• March 5 and it's talk page (to insert mention of the first publication regarding the AAH [27])
• User talk:Mufka (to object to the deletion of the entry to March 5 [28])
• Elaine Morgan (writer) (who popularized the AAH)
• Bipedalism and it's talk page, to add a paper he authored on the AAH and his master's thesis (on the "wading hypothesis, a watered-down version of the AAH) [29]
• One edit to User talk:Lammidhania to object to the removal of his paper [30]
• My talk page, initially to object to my removal of his personal webpage [31]
• His user and talk page (all edits related to the AAH)
• Only one edit [32] appears unrelated to the AAH.

I admit to being very interested in this idea. Sorry. I have a master's degree on the wading hypothesis, started a PhD, had two papers published on the idea and now had a book published. I apologise for imagining that this might have made my input as significant as self-styled, anonymous, Wikipedian lay "experts" on human evolution. Clearly, as long as you support the mainstream view, you must always be right. Algis Kuliukas (talk)

Given the analysis and the consistency to which Algis refuses to accept the AAH isn't a respected scientific theory, a topic ban might be in order. The most recent edits to the AAH page have been to add an essentially content-free promotion of a pay-to-publish book he co-edited [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. A RSN posting suggested the source was less than reliable, here, based on it's pubilsher Bentham Science Publishers.

In addition to Algis, there are a variety of new accounts similarly promoting the book, despite considerable objections on the talk page and reverts to the main page. Yloopx has as of now 10 edits, three of which were simple reverts to replace the book [38], [39], [40]. Mvaneech has 7 edits, 6 of which consist of adding the book to the AAH page [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. In addition, one of the book's editors is Mario Vaneechoutte, suggesting this is the same person and thus these additions are a conflict of interest. Cricetus has 63 edits, and his most recent edits have been to the AAH and it's talk page. Several edits to the main page consisted of making it "more neutral" which is to say less critical [47], [48], though not all are problematic. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• The first obvious answer here is to file an SPI, I reckon. That might take care of the above-mentioned two accounts, and perhaps another one. That these are all SPAs seems unquestionable, but issuing blocks with some CU evidence in hand is more comfortable than without. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a recommendation which might help: If anyone supports the damned so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" - ban them immediately. That will solve your problem. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. On that talk page, I couldn't hear the arguments because of all the quack noises. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The SPI came back as no accounts related to each other [49]. The increased interest is probably because of the new book on the subject at Bentham press. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, you guys must be geniuses! Incredible censorship of a mild, plausible and evidence-based idea. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the SPAs, User:Mvaneech, has just identified himself as a co-editor of the book (see article talk page). Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that a topic ban of Algis Kuliukas would resolve the issue of the disruption on this article because of the amount of SPAs/meatpuppets that are showing up to defend the eBook. The problem here is that we have several editors new to Wikipedia who don't understand WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, etc. Algis, if you want your book to be included at all in the article (which doesn't seem very likely considering the publisher), you need to demonstrate that your work has been peer-reviewed or that it has generated any responses from mainstream scientific sources. You can't simply claim that it was peer-reviewed and then not provide any evidence. Listing your CV on your userpage does not lend any additional weight to your book. Additionally, cries of censorship are probably hurting your aim here; there is not right to edit Wikipedia. Imagine, for a moment, that I wrote a book saying that the lights that we see at night are actually not other suns but simply holes in the sky that let in the light of the cosmos. For much of human history, that was a "mild, plausible and evidence-based idea." I can't include my book on the holes in the sky in the article on "star" because it has not been peer-reviewed and it is contradicted by mainstream science. I know that you would probably think that my analogy does not fit your situation at all but realize that this is the way that some Wikipedia editors perceive your claims. You have to provide more than a little-known eBook to change the article. Chillllls (talk) 17:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

<irony>Thanks for voting for not banning me.</irony> "Considering the publisher" is just another groundless slur. Why is it up to me to demonstrate that the book was peer reviewed and not the people set against this idea to show there is something amiss with the publisher? This seems a little unfair to me. Most of the contributors to the book are professional scientists, including Philip Tobias, and almost all the others are PhD students at reputable universities studying reputable subjects. I know one eminent scientist who reviewed the book but I am not at liberty to make this public. We are planning to contact the publishers to let them know about these slurs. Your analogy is patronising and offensive. If you (and your lay cohort of Wikipedia editors) cannot discriminate between the idea that some (rather slight) selection from wading, swimming and diving might have affected the human phenotype, as compared to other great apes - and such twaddle, I have to wonder how it is you/they that are a position of authority admonishing/judging/advising me, and not the other way around. The article (remember) is about the so-called "aquatic ape hypothesis" and we have just published a book - the latest book - on that subject. If even this simple, relevant, timely fact is censored out of this page I have to question the agenda of you and your fellow editors. It would seem that informing the public about what the idea is - is not on that agenda. Outrageous! Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"If I were them, I'd be thinking about taking legal action" comes very close to a legal threat. I'd strongly advise you to strike this if you genuinely want to gather support for your position here and bring fellow editors round to your way of thinking. And you absolutely must not repeat or strengthen this threat if you want to remain an editor here. Either take this problem to the courts or solve it here. You can't do both. Further repetition will lead to a block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC) Algis Kuliukas has promptly complied, many thanks for the co-operation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please can someone tell me why the page has a ref to Jim Moore's (a lay person who was a partner to Nancy Tanner, not the anthropologist) masquerading web site and bloggs that are not peer reviewed, but our attempt to include a reference to the latest, scholarly, peer reviewed, textbook is blocked and results in the page being locked? I think it is called bias. Algis Kuliukas (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Algis: The point that you just made is a variation of something called a Other Stuff Exists argument on Wikipedia. If you have a problem with the Jim Moore ref and the material that it supports, remove the material from the article and, if the material is challenged by someone else, discuss it on the talk page (WP:BRD). If you actually cared about the quality of the article, you would do that instead of trying to repeatedly force the inclusion of your own book against talk page and RS/N consensus. Your sarcasm and accusations of bias/censorship will not help you accomplish your goal. Chillllls (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible topic ban violation

It was pointed out to me on my talkpage that Cybermud (talk · contribs) may have violated the men's rights topic ban I placed on him here, which was confirmed in this AN/I discussion, by participating in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men and feminism (2nd nomination). I'd appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could review this and see if action needs to be taken. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the edits you mention border on violating Cybermud's topic ban but do not cross the line. He was banned from making edits related to the topic of men's rights not feminism. I believe, however, it might be wise for Cybermud to avoid that general topic area and concentrate on something completely different for a time... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Copying my commentary on this over from Sarek's talk page. I'm involved in a related AfD and am not comfortable taking admin action regarding other users involved in this round of men's rights salvos, but it appears to me to be a fairly clear violation of Cybermud's topic ban from "pages related to Men's rights (broadly construed)". Men's rights advocates consider feminism and masculinism to be heavily linked (or rather, to be diametrically opposed to one another, and in constant struggle), and an article about "men and feminism" fits quite neatly into a broadly-construed ban on men's rights topics. Cybermud's !vote in the AfD in question is actually quite reasonable, but the fact remains that he has been topic-banned from the area and has now violated that topic ban for the second time this month, after having been given a warning for the first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't wish to wikilawyer, considering that even I am suggesting Cybermud to concentrate on different topics; however, you should link to his restriction, not to the terms of the article probation. Cybermud was a one-month topic ban from Men's rights, including talk pages and related pages. I consider it a stretch to argue those words also include an article about men and feminism, no matter what men's rights advocates may think.

    Considering that you yourself think that his input to the discussion was rather reasonable and that it is, at least, disputed that his restriction prevented Cybermud from participating in that AfD, I believe Cybermud should not be sanctioned. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Men and feminism is directly related to Men's rights because the article discusses Men's rights, see the entire section Men and feminism#Antifeminist response. Moreover, this isn't the first time that Cybermud has violated his topic ban, see this warning. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree it's related to men's rights. I also agree with Salvio that the topic ban was unfortunately poorly worded. I believe the normal wording is something like from "topic banned from articles related to TB" which makes it clear it's from all articles related to the topic TB. (Sometimes broadly construed may be added.) In this case, the topic ban could easily be read to suggest the ban is from the article (rather then the topic) Men's rights including talk pages and related pages. What's a related page isn't specified, so it could be intepreted to mean xFDs and AN(I) discussions of the article. Or perhaps sub articles of men's rights (of which there are none), but not, related but non subarticles. (Men and feminism can't really be said to be a subarticle of men's rights, of feminism sure. It mentions men's rights, but also other things.) It's suggested multiple places in this thread this isn't the first time, if so, has the topic ban been clarified to Cybermud before? Nil Einne (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This talk page section deals with his previous violation. Kim Dent-Brown also clarified his topic ban on the original section somewhat, saying "You are banned from the Men's rights article and other articles in the same topic area." I think Cybermud realized, or should have reasonably realized, that this article was included in his ban. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. In that case I agree that whatever the original wording, it should have been clear that the topic ban was in the wider topic area and covered men and feminism. Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• (recused sysop comment) This is just one further instance of Cybermud flaunting site policy in a long history of it. Salvio Men and feminism has a section on Men's rights - its about men's rights as well as profeminism and other related topics, it falls smack bang in the middle of the topic ban & bans apply to all edits good or bad--Cailil ^talk 23:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty clear violation of the topic ban. With most other editors, I would be inclined to say we should let it slide, but this is cybermud's second violation of his topic ban, and shows his continued flagrant disregard for... well... pretty much everything about Wikipedia. Kevin (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How the heck can Men and feminism not be related to "Men's rights"? Men and feminism has a 5 paragraph section titled "Men's rights", and the entire "men's rights movement" arose as a response against feminism. The two topics are directly and closely related. This is an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, IMO. Whether or not his edit was helpful or disruptive is immaterial. Kaldari (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see a fairly clear (if not particularly large) consensus that Cybermud has breached his topic ban; looking at the article in question I also agree that the article clearly falls within the scope of the ban. I am going to block Cybermud for for the duration of the ban (until 10 March), which is a bit under 2 weeks. I've never blocked an editor for breaching a ban before, so I invite the review of others if they feel the amount of time is too long or two short; we may also want to consider whether there should be an extension of the topic ban, per Kim Dent-Brown's closing comment for the ANI discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this has nothing to do with me, and I only noticed this from the watchlist, as I seen the word 'block' and was having a nosey. But I would say a reasonable punishment for anyone who breaches a ban, would be to start the length of the original ban again, and add an additional 50% of the original sentence to the banning order - that way the offender is being punished not only for committing the original offence, but also for breaching it too. Just making an observer suggestion that all. Wesley☀Mouse 02:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My original closing notice imposing the topic ban included the words: "One month topic ban for Cybermud from Men's rights article and closely related articles on the same topic.". I didn't explicitly link to WP:TBAN but this includes the words: "Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic." Between the two it's pretty clear to me that a violation has taken place, albeit a minor one and I accept Cybermud's assurances of good faith. I support the block which was instated to run alongside the ban, and propose that the clock for the ban (but not the block) should be 'reset' to one month following the last edit in violation of the topic ban. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with ban being reset - this was standard operating procedure anyway until fairly recently--Cailil ^talk 19:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Clear violation of topic ban. POV warriors will continue to fight until stopped. Carrite (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Armbrust, I've commented out your archiving, because we need to determine if the topic ban should be extended. I see three people supporting that; I feel like that's not a huge number of people and would prefer to see if anyone else wants to chime in before finalizing an extension (probably 1 additional month). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The ban should be reset --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Behavior of user Xelba.davi

New user Xelba.davi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been changing the BLP Eliyahu Rips into a manifesto for the Bible codes (alleged messages about the future hidden in the Bible text). Rips is a proponent of these codes, but the new text violates almost every rule of Wikipedia. This diff shows the additions in question. It has severe violations of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, just look at it and you will find stuff like "The Torah was created prior to the creation of the world" and "The evolution of the Universe (and of the Earth) is derived from an infinite combination of the letters of the Torah" written in the neutral voice of Wikipedia. You will find citations to Facebook and self-published web sites. You will find gross distortions of the opinions of living people: "Robert Aumann: this is the greatest discovery of three hundred years of scientific research". Also a claim that critics are antisemites: "Eliyahu Rips is accused of being biased in his research, since he is an Orthodox Jew". Apart from claiming that his/her work is just fine [50], Xelba.davi reverts any changes without comment and barges ahead without answering objections [51] or engaging in discussion.(history) I do not see any way forward other than administrator assistance.

User notified: [52]

Disclosure: As the presence of my real name on the page indicates, I am involved in the "Bible codes" debate as a skeptic. Even though I have never inserted my own opinion into this page, I would really like someone totally uninvolved to take over the defense of it.

Remedy sought: The page should be protected at a version which does not contain the offending material, such as this version. User Xelba.davi should be blocked from editing. McKay (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted, and have left a warning for unverified edits, to which I will add a separate note. But McKay, do you really need to bring this to ANI? (No.) FWIW, you're both edit-warring a little bit here. Next time, the BLP noticeboard is probably a better venue, and if it gets worse, the edit warring board. Oh, no--Xelba will not yet be blocked. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, I think that the best defense against such butchering is to make the article better; this one was in a pretty piss-poor state, not having a single reliable reference. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Eyes, please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Interesting edits on Joachim Gauck. An IP (217.23.69.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) keeps adding quotation marks around the word Gulag--Gauck's father was sent to one. There are multiple sources--this one speaks of "ein Straflager nach Sibirien" and this one spells out Gulag. IP claims the latter is incorrect and we're dealing with "a ministry". I want to call this vandalism, and I think many of the IP's other edits are questionable, but since I'm at 3R I can't revert anymore; it is a BLP, but the issue concerns the father. Your attention is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Having recently unblocked this ip, I have now reblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. And reverted? Drmies (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification required on interaction ban

According to what was posted on my talk page regarding the interaction ban between myself and he who must not be named "making reference to or commenting on him or his actions" is a violation. I should like it clarified if the following would fall under commenting on my actions?[53][54][55] I ask as from what was posted on my talk page if clarification of the IBAN was needed then it had to be asked here, and not on some random admins talk pages. Also due to the IBAN I am unable to inform he who must not be named about this, so would appreciate another doing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Dru of Id (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think asking for clarification of an interaction ban is perfectly common sense and not a violation of ban. I asked an admin about those as pointed out above. One of the issues was later brought to ANI.. the new ones were still unclear so I asked an admin who commented on that ANI report. I don't think there's any thing wrong with that. I'll however like to be clarified about the queries asked in those diffs since they've been brought here now:

• I requested closure of an RFC (before the closure was addressed, the RFC was restarted - I added remarks about that too at [56])... now I have an interaction ban so you can read those remarks on the given link, the RFC was closed accordingly by an admin. This uninvolved admin closure (requested by me) was reverted by the user I have interaction ban with. [57] Is this an indirect ban violation or just a bad revert of a formal closure? How am I to go about this if it is the latter case?
• Closing my nominations (regardless of the achieved consensus) isn't a violation of ban? [58]... can I do the opposite too?

--lTopGunl (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I undid DarknessShines reversion. Asking an admin for clarification, or even to undo an action, is not a violation of the interaction ban. Both of you are good editors when you're not gunning for each other so I strongly suggest that you keep an arm's length distance from each other for the time being. Also, DarknessShines, pointy actions (such as rehashing things in a new RfC immediately after closing the earlier one) could easily lead to a topic ban on Pakistan topics, so I suggest extra care. --regentspark (comment) 13:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been reverted again by JCAla... [59] aren't admin closures meant to stay closed? (especially which are closed thrice [60] [61] [62]) I've informed the closing admin of JCAla's revert though. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with the first sentence of TopGun's comment — it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia to say that you can't refer to the ban itself. We're not in the business of issuing super-injunctions here. Thank you for bringing up this issue in a wholly appropriate manner. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• An article was nominated for deletion which I intended to improve, since it was deleted I kept it on my to do list to recreate with the right content from a draft but it has been recreated [63] - I was told an interaction ban doesn't mean "first come first serve" - how should I proceed with updating this? -lTopGunl (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like, I can move the content to the other article (simple move, delete, and restore to complete the history merge) when your draft is ready. You're not interacting with someone if the only reason you've edited the same page is a history merge. Let me know at my talk if you'd like this. Nyttend (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Great... I'll request a move after adding some more sources.. I've included the current content in my draft so that there aren't any issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to note my edits in above case were in my own userspace draft which was then merged per Nyttend's proposal above to the article I intended to create and was made clear by Nyttend in the edit summary of merge. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the fact you just put an article which was deleted back into main space (which includes the made up word which it was deleted for BTW) how is it not an interaction ban to copy & paste content I have written to userspace and then get an admin to restore it? He has edited the content I wrote, how is that not a violation? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Second violation after warning

There was a violation report above where an admin (regentspark) agreed that it was a violation and noted that a warning was enough [64]. Now there's been another violation. Not "making reference to or commenting on him or his actions" was a condition of the ban as noted on my talk page by the closer of interaction-ban thread, This has been unambiguously violated here [65]. It was not one of the exceptions of the ban of clarifying the ban or reporting a violation rather a content issue which per me wasn't even a BLP issue as being queried (either the content was sourced or the people were not living). Mentioning me with the weasel word "he who must be named" is being used to lawyer around the ban with an out right reference to my actions. I'll not comment much on another suspected one, but the article being discussed above was on my to do list as a red-link to be created with relevant content since the article with neologism title was deleted and I have suspicion that it was preemptively created to keep me from doing so, now that NyNyttend's proposal of merging my draft solved this issue, this violation was made. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) blocked for three days. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I still stand by what I said earlier and am repeating it for the third time. A topic ban on Darkness Shines for Pakistan-related articles (doesn't have to be indefinite, can just be for a fixed time even) is a must. If a topic ban or a sanction of some sort was in order, we wouldn't be seeing this. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • After seeing this edit, I've sadly come to agree with you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

True Life in God: Possible Vandalism?

True Life in God was a stub-article when I found it, so I added two sections: Writing Style and Eastern Orthodox Church's Stance. Than the section Roman Catholic Church's Stance was added. Under the Roman Catholic Church's Stance section, I added the following paragraph from the Vassula Ryden article:

After a request was made by Rydén in 2000 to the aforementioned congregation (the CDF), the then Cardinal Ratzinger invited Rydén, in 2002, to answer five questions about her messages and its relation to the Holy Bible and Sacred Tradition. Rydén sent her replies to the Congregation later that same year. At the end of this dialogue, the former president of the CDF, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger—now Pope Benedict XVI, formally requested that Rydén publish the full correspondence between herself and the CDF in the published TLIG books. Later still, the Cardinal wrote a letter, dated July 10, 2004, to five episcopal conferences who had been negative about Rydén and her writings indicating that she had given "useful clarifications regarding her marital situation, as well as some difficulties which in the aforesaid Notification were suggested towards her writings and her participation in the sacraments". The whole process was concluded with a private audience between Rydén, the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Dr. Niels Christian Hvidt who had first requested the dialogue in 1999.<reference>Dialogue between Vassula Ryden and the CDF - http://www.cdf-tlig.org http://www.cdf-tlig.org/introduction.html</reference>

Then, after I edited the paragraph a little bit, I decided to go to the referenced website (http://www.cdf-tlig.org). I found it was a self-referenced or self-published website, which is not according to Wikipedia guidelines. I deleted the paragraph as such and explained why I did that on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:True_Life_in_God.

Then, on the Talk Page, I started receiving false accusations of bias from an user, who appears to not have a userpage: Sasanack. I explained why I deleted the paragraph to him.

Sashnack "undid revision 479107697" (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=True_Life_in_God&action=history) and another user, Arkatakor, falsely accused me of deleting content pertaining to writings on the Vassula Ryden article.

I'm unsure what to do now, as it seems like the article is being vandalized by these two users. Below is a list of edits of the TLIG article, so you can see the diffs.

TLIG: My first edit

TLIG: My second edit

TLIG: My third edit

TLIG: 81.153.103.78's first edit

TLIG: 81.153.103.78's second edit

TLIG: My fourth edit

TLIG: My fourth edit (comparison to my third edit)

TLIG: My fifth edit

TLIG: My sixth edit

TLIG: My seventh edit

TLIG: My eighth edit, when I realized the dialogue website was self-referenced

TLIG: Sasanack's first edit

TLIG: Sasanack's second edit

TLIG: My ninth edit

TLIG: Sasanack's third edit

This is the situation as of this writing. Oct13 (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you notified them? I'm going out the door so won't, but they are WP:SPAs and others have had problems with that. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how if they don't have userpages. Oct13 (talk) 14:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I've notified the two editors on your behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope this can be resolved as soon as possible. Oct13 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I cannot pretend to understand the workings of Wikipedia but the situation being referred to above is absurd! If anyone is vandalising the article it is 'Oct13'. He clearly is wanting to portray the True Life in God messages in a negative way and is deleting anything positive. The page at the moment is verging on the libellous and so I will re-insert the accurate information about the dialogue between Vassula and the Vatican.Sasanack (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Find a better website for the dialogue. Don't use a self-published or self-referenced website. By the way, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated, in the documents referenced in the article under the Roman Catholic Church's Stance section, that a dialogue took place between Vassula and itself ("A calm, attentive examination of the entire question...the fact that the aforementioned errors no longer appear in Ryden's later writings..."); so I'm not against the dialogue being posted on the article, I'm just against bad websites being referenced. Oct13 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You say, "I'm not against the dialogue being posted on the article". So you don't object to me copying the dialogue itself into Wikipedia??? The dialogue has never been published by the Vatican and is never published by third parties because there is so much hatred to Vassula. Yet, as you are aware, the dialogue took place. So how does Wikipedia deal with this problem if people like yourself object to 'bad websites' being used for reference. I would like to point out that the website in question is owned and produced by the author of a book on prophecy published by Oxford University Press and with a foreward by Pope Benedict.Sasanack (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Just find another website, please. Oct13 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: The links for the two editors being discussed here are incorrect. The correct links are as follows:

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

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Interesting subject matter. Poor article. I haven't gotten to the supposed "vandalism" yet, but I do note that in what you called above your fifth edit you added this link, for instance, which is obviously not a reliable source. I also noted poor paraphrasing from Christian Prophecy – the Post Biblical Tradition; the phrase about her handwriting, which you kept from an earlier version, is not to be found in that book (AFAIK) but your paragraph suggested that it was. I'll have to look further, but for now it seems to me that this is a matter that should be dealt with by rigorous editing, before admins with block buttons get thrown onto it. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• BTW, can someone look at File:VassulaRyden.jpg and tell me when this 72-year old woman was supposed to look like this? Or is this simply a miracle? Drmies (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I copied the information about Christian Prophecy and antiochian.org from the Vassula Ryden article. But I didn't know they were unreliable sources. My apologies. Oct13 (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As for how Ryden looks: Cosmetics and surgery can go a long way. Oct13 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The clothing and hairstyle (and the underlying tone of the photograph) point to a date for our main photograph of ca. 1975-80, when she would have been in her thirties. More importantly, this article is not well-referenced. The main reference is a primary source, Sasanack, and although that would be fine (even preferable) for an essay or thesis, it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia requires that articles be referenced to reliable, totally independent third parties - newspapers, magazines, reviews, scholarly journals, even TV or radio programs or independent websites with editorial control. The True Life website is not independent and has no independent, uninvolved editorial control, so it's not a reliable source for our purposes. After all, anyone can claim anything about themselves. I could create a website tomorrow claiming that I was - to give a wild example - the rightful Queen of Denmark. That wouldn't make me the Queen of Denmark, and it would be against Wikipedia policy for someone to write an article about me using my website as a source. My claim could only be referenced to reliable, uninvolved third parties - a Copenhagen newspaper, for instance, or a scholarly journal of royal genealogy; in either case, those sources would be appropriate. My website would not. --NellieBly (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, primary sources can be used - but they must be used with caution, and are inappropriate for BLPs for anything more than the barest of factual data. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realized, the Vassula Ryden article doesn't link to TLIG. Perhaps TLIG should merge with the article? Oct13 (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

TLIG is now a redirect after I initiated a discussion on the talk page. It was just a content fork from Ryden's biography. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – Blocked by Black Kite for sockpuppetry
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to run, so I have to be brief: a week or more ago I blocked User:Wholetruth123 for edit-warring on Islamism--and insertion of argumentative, unsourced, non-neutral et cetera. Well, Wholetruth is back at the same article and seems to have picked up an SPA sidekick, User:Saadasim. I think both should be blocked indefinitely: the one is a POV warrior and the other is sock or meat. But that's just my opinion, man. I'd like it if someone could look into it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Drmies

I have placed my pov in talk. My edits are simply flagging that the term islamism is itself non-neutral and is resented by Muslims just as the prior term Mohamadanism. I have not deleted any references simply added them so user can see alternate pov.

simply banning people without even bothering to respond to their talk comments is unfair

wt

Wholetruth123 (talk) 01:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Good block, Black Kite.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Blocked Wholetruth for a week for continuing editwar after block, blocked Saadasim indef as loudly quacking sock. Black Kite (talk) 01:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfounded sanction and possible admin tools abuse

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I come here, gentleman, to report a sanction that was imposed to me by Admin WGFinley at this thread (section FkpCascais). I was abusively topic baned for 6 months without even one single diff of mine being presented to me demonstrating any violation of policy by me. I was clearly sanctioned for tendentious editing, as indicated in my talk page (User_talk:FkpCascais#Arbitration_Enforcement), with the, I dare to say, curiosity, of me not having made a single edit in the article in question (!!!). I will present you all my actions chronologically:

• There is a dispute going on between other editors at an article which I have under my watchlist, Yugoslav Partisans. I do not take part in the editing of the article, however I contribute by promoting discussion between the two sides, as seen at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation and Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute, asking the editors to focus on sources and article content. In the meantime, Causa sui protected the article for 3 days.
• I objected the insertion of disputed, unsourced text (sources did not contained what was being edited). I analised and exposed the sources, but, despite the users admited that there were problems with the sources, they limited to announce that they will bring sources. I asked for those sources, but they were intentionally not being provided, in order to avoid discussion (because they came to be the same ones which were already discussed in another article and strong concerns were expressed by other users, namelly User:Nuujinn). The article was protected for 3 days by Causa sui however the users were clearly gaming the system by avoiding discussion and waiting for the protection to expire so they could restore the same disputed content.
• I made a report, here, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Trolling_and_disruptive_behavior_in_discussion, expecting to obtain admin help and assistance so a consensus could be reached, however, after one first positive intervention from someone non-involved, condemning the attitute of the other users, Admin Animate, a user which numerous times intervened "saving" DIREKTOR at reports in the past, did the same as allways, and even worste, missinformed about the sources having been already presented. I reacted a bit rough, and I exposed that no sources had been brought to the discussion, however, he insisted in a second comment missinforming again and doing the best to turn that into a boomerang to me.
• Surprised by such an irresponsable behavior from Animate, I opened a thread at Jimbo talk page asking for advice about that specific admin and his problematic intervantions, diff.
• In the meantime, as the protection time at the article was almost expiring, and no progress was archived at the discussion, I asked Causa sui to expand protection, however he declined my request leaving a note at the discussion about, in his own words, "the value of the discussion", as seen at Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Protection. Afterwords, despite my efforts, no progress was made at the discussion, and it took only 5 hours for DIREKTOR to restore the edit warring inserting the same unsourced and disputed nationallistically based text (with no new sources, but the same old ones which they even admited that were wrong for that edit).
• After that, and after seing that no admin was taking attention of the case and my concerns, I don´t revert, I don´t edit, I continue discussing for a while, and I simply take a break and remove myself completelly.
• During the following weeks, one of the users makes an effort to improve the sources, while another one, PRODUCER, starts a full scale campaign to get me permanently removed, first with one ANI report and, after that one failed, by recomendation of the "friendly" advisor Animate, he took it to WP:AE (section FkpCascais).

I defended myself and I allways favoured discussion and dispute resolution, as clear in all my interventions, article discussions and reports included, I kept this attitude troughout the episode. By then, it had already passed a couple of weeks since my last comment at that discussion. And after a while I am surprisengly sanctioned by a 6 months topic ban. The ban is based on Wikipedia:TE and Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. They also provide some backing by the fact that I had been sanctioned to a 1RR/48 hours limit in another strange thread, in which 2 reverts and 1 edit were considered edit-warring while 4 clear reverts were ignored to the other side, with the fact that at that thread I was sanctioned without even having been noteced about the thread, so I had no chance to defend myself. Admin User:GiantSnowman expressed concerns about it at that time, but no correction of the sanction was made, but neither I bothered to appeal, as I am not an edit-warrior, and that sanction was really no pain for me, and it passed to me totally unnoteced. GiantSnowman also informed EdJohnston about it recently during this episode, as seen at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#FkpCascais.

But, having one unfair sanction is tolerable, but a second one not backed by one single diff is not (and all my problems were allways related to one same user, the 14 times blocked DIREKTOR). This sanction I am complaining here clearly intervened at the dispute as I was the only active participant from my side, and the 3 other users were clearly benefitiated with the admin action, without saying that their actions, some of which are sanctionable and I provided diffs, were ignored. To make things worste, I explained all in detail to the sanction imposing admin WGFinley, providing all the diffs (see section "Please"), and I informed EdJohnston about the thread, as he was the one who backed and "composed" the ground for the sanction. WGFinley was abscent for days, and in the meantime I explained all to EdJohnston at User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_25#WP:AE.

What I need to stress out here is that both admins, WGFinley and EdJohnston, were informed by me of all events, and I provided them all the necessary diffs. Both were informed that I did not edited the article, so the Wikipedia:TE is badly applied here, and also that I never doubled any thread anywhere, so the charge of Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP is also hardly understandable. A hard 6 months sanction is backed on what? I beleaved that they were missguided and I hoped that after clearing all out they will rectify they decition, however I was deeply disapointed when I saw an attitude of further excuses from both of them. The excuses can be seen in their answers, and they go from charging me for the lenght of one RfM in which I was participant, passing by "disliking" a thread of mine complaining about a fellow admin, to the another absurdity of trying to back the forumshopping charge with the excuse that I discusses the sanction at the talk pages of both of them. Each time I got to demonstrate a point, they simply avoided facts and ignored my arguments and questions.

They both had no good-faith towards me, they provided no diffs to back their accusations, they failed to clearly demonstrate any breaking of any policy by me, they directly favoured one side of the dispute, and to top it, they clearly attributed me a punitive sanction, as I was innactive for 2 weeks at the dispute by the time they sanctioned me. Seing things back now, Animate, after having exposed for lying on ANI report, recomended WP:AE for a report against me, after seing that at ANI the report failed, and discretely, step-by-step, WGFinley and EdJohnston cooked a 6 months sanction without having one clear charge against me. That is clearly admin abuse in my view, as they gamed the system using all possible (and impossible) excuses to punish me, and I am asking here for the sanction of mine to be lifted, and the two admins to be worned against this kind of revengfull action. FkpCascais (talk) 07:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No. There is no "admin abuse" here - you were reported for violating WP:ARBMAC. Two uninvolved admins looked at your history, agreed that you were (though they also agreed that there were other parties involved who also were in violation) and topic-banned you. That's what ARBMAC means- the Macedonian articles are such a nest of culture warriors that anyone who steps out of line more than once gets topic-banned. They both agreed that you have been battling for more than half a year, and so they enforced the ruling. Go edit some other articles for the next 6 months. --PresN 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hashem sfarim and Sicily

Hashem sfarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and myself have a content dispute about the first sentence of Sicily. The discussion, starte by myself, is at Talk:Sicily#Lead sentence, where I explained that his version has language problems and duplicated information. User:Bejnar mostly supported my reasoning, and made an attempt at compromise formulation [66].

Despite my appeal not to post on my or Bejnar's talk page [67], but on the article's, Hashem has been posting diatribes on MY talk page [68] (that's some dozen separate edits), containing, among other niceties, "And putting an idiotic lede of only "largest island in Mediterranean"", [...] "Number two: I never called you or anyone an "idiot". Not sure where you're seeing that." "So don't be biased and arrogant with me. " "After this, I'm through with you.", and, finally, "You're out of line, and I'm writing you off. But if you undo any edit on that article, for no reason again, I'll just undo you (but I'll keep it at 3RR, so I won't get a 24 hour block that you can throw in my face, idiotically.)".

Half of that was after I asked him not to post on my talk page anymore. [69], which was then removed with edit summary removing garbage from my page. And, yes, Hashem sfarim has just returned from a 24-hour block for edit warring.

P.S. I informed him about this thread on my talk page; I don't indend to post on his anymore. No such user (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. And I cannot but notice similarity of attitude and wording in this exchange back in June: only Hashem may change the article as he likes, all others must discuss. It took only 4 reverts by 2 users to persuade him to give up. No such user (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's funny how he leaves out other things I said, and tries to poison the well against me, in your minds, by bringing up past things that are irrelevant to this, and how I only responded to today (over a settled matter by another editor) because HE today posted first on MY page. I told him clearly I was finished with him and I was never dealing with him again. Two sides to every story.

I said that the LEDE was "idiotically worded", not any person.

After he wrote this rude stuff on MY page, bringing up junk that has nothing to do with this, like he has the habit of doing, in bias, as if that somehow bolsters up his case, all the while dodging the actual specifics of what is brought up in this current matter:

"If you cannot restrain yourself from calling other people idiots even in the dispute about what should go in the first sentence, after coming back from a 48-hour block for edit warring, you should reconsider if you belong to a cooperative project. Please do not post on my talk page anymore. No such user (talk)"

This is all that I wrote:

First of all, that block has NOTHING to do with this (and it was 24 hours not 48, and the other person got blocked also for violating 3RR). Number two: I never called you or anyone an "idiot". Not sure where you're seeing that. So stop lying and stop hallucinating. Number three: you have posted on MY page, but somehow it's wrong for me to post on yours. Number four: about number one, do you know that the other person was ALSO blocked for violating 3RR that I myself reported on, and also it was a 24 hour block, not 48 hours. Again, that has nothing to do with this. I could have been blocked, about something else, and you could still be technically wrong on this matter. So don't be biased and arrogant with me. And don't accuse me of calling "idiot" when I never did. After this, I'm through with you. I won't even acknowledge anything you write or say to me. I knew you had issues way in the past, with that uptight nonsense about photos, that you brought up again that has nothing to do with the lede. You're out of line, and I'm writing you off. But if you undo any edit on that article, for no reason again, I'll just undo you (but I'll keep it at 3RR, so I won't get a 24 hour block that you can throw in my face, idiotically.) I'm done. Hashem sfarim (talk) 13:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

He said I called "idiot", which I never did. Describing actions or wordings as "idiotic" may be a bit too blunt (for some), but that's not the exact same as calling a person an "idiot". I never do that. I don't violate WP policy with name-calling like that. And I was simply explaining how reverting with no explanation is not according to WP policy, and also how article under discussion is not consistent with how other articles generally are in lede, regarding this matter. I'm done here. I don't have time or patience for his whines and tattling over stuff like this. This only shows what kind of person he is, which I knew already.

He is out of line bringing up stuff from the past that has NOTHING to do with this. It shows a flawed character. I can't deal with this person anymore. Which is what I told him clearly. But he whines about bluntness. I told him that I want nothing further to do with him. It's that simple. I have that right, not to engage persons I feel are unreasonable. Who see things that aren't there, exaggerate things, distort things, try to bully, throw irrelevant past things in the face to make the person feel bad, bringing up junk from the past as if it's relevant, when it isn't. In bias and desperation. I don't have patience for that. He wrote on my page first, a number of times, yesterday and today, and I simply responded on his page after that, and he didn't like what I said, in pointing out his errors and flaws in argument. So he runs here. When the original matter was settled by another editor, and I was moving on already from yesterday. So this was totally unnecessary to be bothering me today about this. And then to run here. And basically just bad-mouth me, to get me in trouble. Class act.

He brings up other matters here to try to POISON THE WELL, against me. A common tactic, and logical fallacy. That you should not fall for. I had a 24 hour block recently (for 3RR), that he brings up of course as if it were pertinent to this, and of course does not see that the OTHER person was ALSO blocked for violating 3RR, and I was the one who reported it to begin with. I could have had a block over something, and still be technically totally right in THIS matter, and No Such User (who loves to revert with no explanation), be totally wrong. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but the point is neither is he. Two to tango. REGARDLESS about some past minor thing that has nothing to do with this matter. If someone got blocked recently, and I was later on in some silly dispute with the editor hypothetically, I would NOT bring up his past block as if it that somehow proved he had to be wrong in this case. Only desperate people do that, who have no real leg to stand on. I try to deal only with the specifics of a present matter, alone. Not pre-biased nonsense from the past, that's totally unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other. But he fails to see that.

But the type of person he is, he went running here bad-mouthing me, putting his spin on things, distorting what I said, not dealing with the fact that another editor already settled this yesterday, and I had moved on already, but he tries to assassinate my character and reputation, bringing up past stuff that has nothing to do with this matter at all, to poison the well, because he can't just deal with this matter alone by itself, proving that his case is weak. Hoping that some gullible or busy or biased Admin will fall for it, which could happen of course. (Don't know what he's trying to accomplish, but just out of spite to probably get me blocked. Which again shows what kind of person he is, as I violated nothing, and called no one any name, as I said that the LEDE was "idiotically worded" not any person). Over a settled matter. HE is the one who posted on my page first today, when this was already a done deal by another editor. I simply addressed what he wanted me to address on the article talk page, and let him know on his page, like he did with my page. And this is the nonsense I have to deal with now. Hashem sfarim (talk) 15:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please learn to use the preview button rather than saving then re-editing. Also, you have a tendency to repeat yourself...repeatedly. Previous blocks are considered relevant by admins if the current report shows a continuance of the behaviour that you were blocked for. Just from your post here and your talk page, I see a tendency to flare up at the littlest things. This is not consistent with the expected collegial environment that Wiki should have (probably an idealistic notion but still, gotta hope for something). Battleground behaviour of the sort you've displayed is viewed very dimly here. Admins will of course investigate as they will, but the first thing you should look at is toning down the rhetoric. Blackmane (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not relevant, because it was over 3RR only before, which is not the case here, as I arguably violated NOTHING, no unambiguous policy or anything here, and it's out of line to mention here, only to bad-mouth and poison the well. Which of course with many people, the fallacious tactic works. I was blocked for violating 3RR ONLY. Nothing else. So it's not relevant here. As I did not violate 3RR at all here. As for repeating, well that was more done in relation to other points brought up, but regardless, some appreciate that for emphasis and memory retention, and to make the matter super clear. That's a matter of taste, not WP policy, so no need to bring that up or complain about that. Also, I have a right to "flare up" over this character's actions here, that were rude and distorting and disrespectful and unnecessary. You talk about "battleground", well I was not the one who started this "battle", and I am simply trying to defend myself. So what? What exactly do you expect? To take his garbage without saying anything? You're wrong about that, but that's no surprise. I have a right to state my case, without you harping on straightforward tone. How bout this? Try focusing on the actual substance? It's not like I'm cursing or going off like that. So let's not exaggerate that. (Even if you're an Admin, which I doubt you are, you could be wrong...you're not infallible). Anyway, this was a settled matter yesterday, by ANOTHER editor, and I moved on. Also, I don't like the fact that you're only harping on my tone, ignoring context that I have a right to be upset, as well as the specifics, meanwhile this person with his nonsense and whining and poisoning of the well neurotic illogical tactics, comes off smelling like a rose, and you say nothing about his nonsense. But (to be honest) I expected no better from Admins on here, for the most part. Sorry, just being frank. Again, though, it's NOT relevant, as my recent block was over 3RR and nothing more. So bringing up that here is creepy and pathetic, to be frank, and logically fallacious, and kinda desperate, because it has nothing to do with what he's complaining about with me here specifically.

I mean, he also brought up stuff from June of last year, that's totally unrelated. He actually milled through my past edit history months ago, in stalk-ish manner, which I have not done with him at all, because I only deal with the matter at hand, never someone's past stuff. The point is he assumes that any past disputes I had in before I MUST have been in the wrong, simply because of personal bias he has now against me, and simply because he does not like me. I must have been 100% in the wrong in June of last year. According to him. But the fact that he looked through my past stuff (sorry to be blunt now) is kinda scary, creepy, and neurotic. (But it speaks to the type of person I knew he already was, which is why I avoid him now, and will NOT engage him directly ever again, unless in edit comments, if even that much.) He brings up past past junk, after fishing for stuff. To try to poison the well. (And it's obviously working on you, which is why it's a tactic often used.) But it's not relevant. The matter here is not even a big deal. He's just whining and complaining and running to this board (class act) simply because I said "worded idiotically" (then thinks that's the same as calling a person "idiot" which it really isn't), and also because I wrote again on his page (which I admit I probably should not have, even though he wrote on mine a few times first). Nobody's perfect here. But it'd be nice to see that he sure isn't. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, verbosity often leads to responses of WP:TLDR. I've no issue if you intend to repeat yourself, merely as a suggestion that walls of text are often skimmed through rather than read especially if the latter parts are the same as the first parts. Whether your previous block is relevant to this report will be up to an admin, if you'll correctly read my statement, where it's quite clearly stated that "Previous blocks are considered relevant by admins if the current report shows a continuance of the behaviour that you were blocked for". If it's relevant, it will be held against you, otherwise not. In fact, I would have to agree that in this case a block for edit warring is not really relevant, but the cause of the block may well be, this will be up to an admin to decide. Diffs from the past are also considered relevant if it is symptomatic of your behaviour. Again, whether it is will be up to an admin to decide, however, you may find that your tone here will be precisely the sort of thing that will get you into hot water. I think you'll also find that a reply that is laden with personal attacks will also be viewed very dimly. And no, I'm not an admin, merely a busybody who decided to make a passing comment. Blackmane (talk) 17:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's part of the problem. There are too many people with low attention spans, when they should take the time to read and mull over these things, if they're important. What I wrote is not THAT long. If it was important enough for No Such User to run here. I was merely stating my case. And if some busy or hasty Admin finds this nonsense necessary for a "block", well that will only confirm my position more about Wikipedia in general. WP has its pluses and minuses, no doubt. And I know I'm not perfect every second. But annoying nonsense like this (and No Such User's unreasonable stuff) is just one of those minuses. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you start SHOUTING people start to get turned off to your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree if I was actually shouting, but you're referring to those occasional all caps of one or two words here and there, and for real that was not meant as shouting, but just as emphasis, similar to italics (which I also use sometimes). If it was actual shouting then you'd see whole sentences in all caps, but you don't see that. So no, the assumption (and charge) are false or a misunderstanding. No shouting was done by me. All caps of one or two isolated words does NOT (there I did it again, you see) constitute necessarily "shouting" but simply emphasis. Ala italics. Again, real "shouting" would be clear if entire sentences were all caps. But I don't do that. Just setting the record straight. For real, I did not shout, because I did not mean isolated words in all caps as shouting. Cheers. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

On the Internet, ALL CAPS = shouting. If you want to emphasise words, use italics. And you only need to explain yourself once, explaining it three times (or is it four?) in the same comment as done above isn't necessary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions are fine, and you may even have a point. But making them dogmatic things is not fine. In other words, common sense should tell you that if they are isolated words that are in all caps then it's NOT necessarily meant as "yelling" per se. Yelling generally carries on with the whole sentence. Also, as far as occasional repetitiveness for clarity maybe, don't exaggerate it, and please stop imposing personal tastes, and whining about it, as if they were hard WP rules or something. That's not your place, plus it's kind of irrelevant to the actual substance of the situation. I was not yelling. Period. If you dogmatically think that even just one word in all caps is ipso facto yelling, and if you can't see that one or two occasional words in all caps in an otherwise non-capped sentence or paragraph is not logically yelling, but simply a little emphasis (similar to italics, but maybe slightly stronger, but still not yelling) then I can't help you. Nor do I have the desire to wrangle about something so trivial. The reason I'm a little annoyed at you right now is because that's all your comments to me here were about. Nothing else. No substance, just whining about petty things, and style (which you're A) misunderstanding, or B) exaggerating.) Like I said, you might have a point, but to harp on it like it's a federal matter? If you have something of more substance to say, other than one or two isolated words in "all caps" that was not meant as "yelling" at all, and some repeating some points for retention and clarity, or maybe further elaborating those "repeated" points, then please don't bother. I had enough of the picayune minutia on here. I got the point. Thank you. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion on 189.60.0.0/14

I just noticed in this edit, the IP seems to have admitted to block evasion. Unfortunately, the IP seems to be dynamic within 189.60.0.0/14; this same user appears to have been using 189.61.24.117 relatively recently. I'm not familiar enough with dealing with IP block evaders, especially hopping within such a large block, so I ask here for someone more familiar with such things to deal with it. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: A /14 is too large to check (or block); the smaller range checks I did (imperfect, blunt instruments at best) did not reveal anything actionable at this time.  Frank  |  talk  18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion is block evasion and they need to get blocked for that however, blocking every IP could cause collateral damage and hurt the project. If this were me making the decision, as long as this user isn't doing anything wrong at the moment, I would leave it at that. That's option 1. Option 2, which is likely to be less favorable, is to perform a range block with ACCOUNT CREATION ENABLED to allow regular IP editors in that range to create an account and continue editing while taking care of the block evader.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,724,130) 21:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By my calculation, a range block for a /14 would be 256K (2^18) addresses...and I can't begin to imagine how many accounts. I don't see how that is reasonable, not to mention that leaving account creation enabled would enable a vandal to create an account as well. True, we can (and do) block such accounts, but the potential collateral damage seems immense.  Frank  |  talk  03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AFTv5 comment. Action needed?

Hi, someone posted in the AFTv5 feedback log on Date rape drug "What should I do to get tested for proof that I was given date rape drugs". Is there anything that needs to be done about this, since it is not a post on, for example, the Wikipedia Help Desk? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if you don't receive a response here rapidly given the nature of this, I think emailing emergencywikimedia.org might be warranted. Kevin (talk) 20:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hindu fundamentalist vandal?

I'm confused by what is happening at the Hindu Astrology page. User Dbachmann is vandalizing referenced material and inserting uncited garbage. I tried speaking with him here, but as you can see I am very confused by the conversation. AssociateLong (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is material that has been there in the article. I did not put it in. AssociateLong (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not made any realistic effort to discuss this either on the article talk page or with the editor involved. It is certainly not vandalism which as you'll see from that link has quite a specific meaning here; it is more like a content dispute which AN/I cannot resolve. Dab has a no-nonsense editing style and can often appear brusque but I can assure you from personal experience that s/he follows policy closely and is open to reasoned debate based on good sources, well cited. Please go back to the article talk page and engage in a proper, well-argued discussion about why you prefer one version, and whether there is some compromise to be made here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe with the insertion of junk uncited material. Reading your link, this is absolutely vandalism. And again these are not my edits. AssociateLong (talk) 21:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were your edits. I said it seems as though you prefer one version and dab prefers another. I suggest you both go to the article talk page and resolve this content dispute there. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

AssociateLong (talk · contribs · count) is editing from 23 Feb. Despite contradictory evidence from his contributions, I'm assuming good faith that he is a genuinely new user with no prior username. BTW, we have a policy called WP:CIVIL which AssociateLong must go through. He should also know bold editing is not vandalism. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I remember how this noticeboard was useful at the time it was created. Now it just seems to be a forum for trolls complaining because they didn't get away with an edit summary of "reversing vandalism"? Perhaps people should become more exclusive about what kind of complaints are even allowed to stand here? Otherwise, there is a real risk that any real issue will just be buried in all the non-issues. --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair dab, we can't be exclusive about what people choose to post here. However we can deal firmly and clearly with people when they do bring irrelevant material to the wrong place and I think that's just what we've done here. I don't see anyone rushing to AssociateLong's side in upholding their complaint! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

So what explains the insertion of all the UNCITED material by dab? Can anyone explain that? AssociateLong (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please take that question to the article talk page. That is a content dispute and as it says prominently at the top of this noticeboard, none of our business. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Bloope

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two weeks ago, I discovered that Bloope (talk · contribs) posted a message to nearly every single talk page concerning the Japanese Super Sentai franchise asking where he could go to watch these TV shows illegally online where there were English language subtitles on them. He also contacted myself and another editor making the same request. I reverted all of these and then advised him of his error. He proceeded to revert me on nearly all of the pages (I won't spam the diffs as I did above), asked me why I reverted him, and continued to ask why he could not ask, and I told him why and removed his talk page messages, again. Today, I discover that he's made the exact same requests on two new pages. I've reverted him, again, and left a stern message on his talk page. I do not think Bloope is going to do anything but ask "Where can I watch these shows?" and he is a waste the community's (or at least my own) time and resources.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

This user certainly spamming and violating WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK. Ryulong is right when he says that talk pages are meant for collaborating and improving the encyclopedia and does allow for minor irrelevant conversations however, it is not meant to be used the way he's using unless he plans on using those videos to contribute to Wikipedia. On another note, those edits were made 15 days ago which means I would consider this issue STALE.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,718,088) 21:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

As Ryulong said near the end, Bloope asked again in two pages recently [70] [71] so I don't think it's quite stale. After this ANI thread, Bloope appears to have finally concedeed [72] it wasn't appropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I would disregard those two as long as he's not posting that all over the place again.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 519,735,640) 22:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I frankly think he does not get it. He spammed across 17 pages two weeks ago and asked again today. However in that diff, I think he's asking to restore the NOTFORUM questions he made that I also removed.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. WP:NOTHERE, block him already. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wustenfuchs, disruptive editing at the article "Yugoslavs"

The User:Wustenfuchs has violated Wikipedia policies on Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. The user's editing is in violation of the Wikipedia policy of WP:DISRUPT. The user is refusing to accept inclusion of material on Yugoslavs at the article Yugoslavs that has been supported by multiple users by reverting their edits, refusing to accept their arguments in favour of their edits, refusing to accept evidence that supports their edits, and refusing to take other users seriously. In one comment he denied that Yugoslavs exist, and in spite of multiple clear evidence shown to disprove this spurious claim, the user has refused to accept this. The user was warned not to continue this behaviour, has been asked by another user to drop the stick, and was encouraged to cooperate with other users to help build consensus on related material. The user has refused to accept this and has continuted disruptive editing.

For further evidence of Wustenfuchs' behaviour, the following users have been involved in conversations with this user since the user began such disruptive editing, and should administrators wish to contact them for evidence, here are their names: User:Biblbroks, User:Evlekis, User:PRODUCER.

Report by: --R-41 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence in the form of links to specific edits with an explanation of why they are considered disruptive and specify what administrative action you wish to be taken. Otherwise it is just your opinion and this discussion thread will probably be closed. TFD (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are links to the sections where the disruptive editing occurred: [73], [74]. Here is an edit by Wustenfuchs denying that stateless nations exist after being informed of this and given evidence: [75]

I am asking for the user to receive a two-week block on editing of the Yugoslavs article, and the block would pertain only to that article while the user would be free to edit other articles. Afterwards I suggest that the user may return to edit the article, but if the user upon returning continues to do such behaviour upon returning to the article, then considerations of blocking the user again for a longer period should be considered.--R-41 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, you need to provide links to specific edits and explain why they are disruptive. TFD (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke. --Wustenfuchs 09:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example: [76] - this example is where Wustenfuchs simply explicitly refuses to accept that stateless nations exist, after being demonstrated to him that they do. And this is Wustenfuchs denying that Yugoslavs exist at all and calling for the article to be deleted when he said: "How you can speak about nationality wich doens't exist? This article should be erased then" - statement by the user Wustenfuchs [77] - multiple users have strongly rejected this and provided evidence disproving this - including statistics, but he has refused to even acknowledge them. Here he Wustenfuchs denying again that there is a Yugoslav nation, after being given evidence that there is: [78]. Here is User:PRODUCER frustrated with Wustenfuchs' editing, and the first user to identify Wustenfuchs' editing as tedentious as well as being involved in edit-warring: [79]. After this Wustenfuchs wanted sources - which were given to him afterwards - but also included an unnecessary aggressive and condescending statement in response to PRODUCER, saying "You can believe anything you want, like I care" - statement by Wustenfuchs.[80] here is User:Evlekis saying that evidence is in the article that states that Yugoslavs exist - people declaring themselves Yugolsavs - and saying that the discussion has been resolved and doesn't understand why it is continuing.[81] Wustenfuchs has been highly combative with the users User:Evlekis and User:PRODUCER, his attitudes with them demonstrate that is not intending to work toward Wikipedia:Consensus and that he is engaged in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. As I have said before, for further evidence: simply ask the three users who have discussed with him on the article: User:Biblbroks, User:Evlekis, User:PRODUCER.--R-41 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, I can't agree for adding Strossmayer and Rački in the infobox without source. And there is no source to confrimes they are Yugoslavs, only the sources that explains their political ideology, wich is not same as nationality. All other was discussed on the talk page (the problem are they nationality or not) and did not influenced the article. --Wustenfuchs 12:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

None of these edits would normally lead to sanctions and providing edits showing other editors have expressed concerns is not relevant. If you and other editors are having trouble which cannot be resolved with another editor, then your best approach is to set up an RfC. In the meantime, you have not made a case for administrative action, despite several opportunites to do so. TFD (talk)

I gave you evidence above in diffs showing violations of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and Wikipedia:I didn't hear that. The names of users involved with the issue that you can ask to confirm what I've said, the user's names are: User:Biblbroks, User:Evlekis, User:PRODUCER. User:PRODUCER first noted the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing along with edit-warring, see here: [82]--R-41 (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

user:Amuel Gins

Copying from AIV.

• Amuel Gins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Suspicious edits. Positing here in case someone can immediately spot socking. Materialscientist (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:EnRealidad deleting article talk page post by other user

There is consensus and policy backing for removing talk page posts that discuss the subject in the manner of a forum post or merely voices the user's opinion about the subject or parts thereof. However, when there exists a focus on improving the article, e.g. when the post claims there are errors or biases in the article that needs to be corrected, removing such a post is inappropriate. And this is what is happening at Talk:Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) where user EnRealidad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly ([83][84]) has removed one post by another user, Mike-ely-kasama (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), in what I see as violation of WP:TPO.

The rationale for removing the talk page post of another user is given as:[85]

“ Finally, I have also removed an entry that Ely posted on the Discussion page in response to comments saying that the entry needed to be rewritten. He stated that there were numerous errors in the entry as a whole and then proceeded to write several paragraphs discussing what he believed to be the organizational structure of the RCP in Los Angeles and in relation to the RCP nationally and speculation about the role of individuals in the RCP. By his own statements, Ely has not been a member of the RCP for a number of years and yet is trying to pass himself off as an authority on things about which he could not have any knowledge. ”

I find this rationale wholly insufficient, but having been reverted by EnRealidad and seeing the post in question being removed twice from the talk page I'm calling on the community to intervene. __meco (talk) 10:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the disputed talk page edits and they do not violate any talk page rules. Whether or not they are supported, true or valid the edit is a commentary upon the article as it stands and not a simple violation of WP:NOTFORUM. I invite User:EnRealidad to self-revert by restoring the comments s/he deleted. I have said as much on the article talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Grossincivility/personal attack by User:RedMongoose

Please see this edit summary in response to a warning about this removal of sourced content. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User is abusing power and cluttering up my private talk page to make a point / bullying --RedMongoose (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• And again. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The words "asshole" and "wikitard" are textbook examples of extreme incivility and personal attack, and generates doubt whether this user really has any constructive motive. Anyway I've issued him/her two warnings - one for incivility in edit summary, other for the second incivility/personal attack. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Since (s)he removed the warning templates, I left a note on their talkpage explaining why their behavior is inappropriate, which they removed again. The user has the right to remove warnings from their talkpage, lets see if they continue this behavior. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

However, this level 3 vandalism warning in response to this good-faith edit was just as bad, as was this irrelevant warning, so I don't see what admin action either of you want here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• This edit summary was grossly inappropriate, which is why I issued this warning. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 14:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You had warned him for making personal attacks 1 minute prior, which is fine. There is no need to then tell him to "please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did." Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I cannot see that as a good faith edit. Yes, information about the resignation was added, but at the same time, well-sourced information critical of the article's subject was removed. This was not a mistake. Given the extensive edit history with repeated whitewash attempts by different SPA editors, I think that a level 3 warning was absolutely justified in this case. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

...which was why the edit was appropriately reverted. However, I cannot see anything that yet indicates that he made the edit in bad faith, so don't you think that a level 1 warning would have been better? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps. But please have a look at the article history. I don't want to add complications here, but somehow I hear a lot of quacking there. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have, and I'd agree that RedMongoose's edits look suspicious. In that case, however, WP:SPI is a better solution, since then he would be indefinitely blocked if he were a sockpuppet. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First talk page edit personally is not a gross violation per se...but other edits are incivil and WPA. think a final waning should suffice for now...or an SPI complaint which is apart from ANI.Lihaas (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at helpdesk

Admin eyes on this diff, please: "This dispute must be resolved for legal reasons," and "I have no desire to issue subpoenas," tripped my NLT alarms. User is presumably the same person as IP 86.10.11.16. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, saw the first statement (which promted my link to WP:NLT), but missed the second one - Happysailor ^(Talk) 13:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Placed notes at help desk and User talk:Awdurdod. Also alerted user to this discussion, as required.  Frank  |  talk  13:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to do that. *self-trout* Yunshui 雲‍水 14:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, please stop templating that person. Have a normal conversation with him instead. The templates are bureaucratic and obnoxious and will probably tick him off MORE. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

More possible legal threats here? Quote: "I suggest that those interested in the truth agree a form of words with the management of the new company. That's surely in keeping with policy, courteous and avoids any legal entanglement that may come as a result of certain actions be taken by certain bodies. Wikipedia is not above the law. Nether are the writers here."  ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 18:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

67.117.145.9 - He's had two template, one was a standard template regarding WP:NLT, the other one was telling him about this thread, not exactly excessive. Also, he hasn't been blocked - not sure where you got that from. He was warned that he may be blocked only. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He should be blocked. How many legal threats does he get to make? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree, just pointing out that 67.117.145.9 jumped the gun telling him that he was blocked. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To clear up the confusion, this is clearly the IP user who was IP blocked for one week for disruptive edits. His block expired today. It looks like he has now created an account Sirfurboy (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He was blocked as 86.10.11.16 as Sirfurboy mentions. The templates he got were obnoxious and bureaucratic under the circumstances. I left him a note trying to explain what happened. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. The templates specifically say what to do if they disagree with the actions. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests

I have continously warned and discussed edits at the above page by the user User talk:TAzimi. In return he responds to warnings with attacks of ownerships even though the vast majority of his edits to the page are unsourced OR. He then explains through further OR that one edit is wrong in his opinion and "commen sense" when discredited by WP's own page at Bagram airfield ought to imply. THen he reverts everything AGAIN despite calls and discussion not to do so (where i explained EACH of the reverts of his that are OR or against MOS.) As a new editor i told him to read MOS, but he acusses me of cowing him as a new editor (see the aticle talk page). I am now not reverting but just tagged the page to try and generate a discussion. (the page is also on ITN)

At the moment only seeking a warning intervention..however seeing his contribs there maybe further reason if thats how he edits across WP. in future a block but for now an admin warning should suffice.Lihaas talk) 15:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Lihaas, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion" here. (See header). Haploidavey (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. Haploidavey (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR

DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) persistently fails to cite sources at articles Unitary National Liberation Front and Yugoslav Partisans. BoDu (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any diffs? GiantSnowman 17:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

...and this requires immediate blocking? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: [86], [87], [88], [89], [90]... BoDu (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like attempted retaliation by BoDu due to his recent blocking for repeated unsourced edits on the Draza Mihailovic and Chetniks articles. Thought it was worth mentioning. Peacemaker67 (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit war/unsourced content forced by Chipmunkdavis at List of world map changes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chipmunkdavis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world_map_changes

After I started editing Wikipedia 2 weeks ago and tried to make a change on this page, unfortunately I was in an edit war. When I was informed of the rules and the proper way to make changes, by discussing on the talk page, that's exactly what I did. I stopped reverting and instead explained the edit on the talk page.

The basic idea is this: there is an entry about the symbolic Palestine declaration of independence in 1988. This declaration declared a state of Palestine based on the 1947 UN Partition Plan (ie: the borders of their proposed state would include around half of the modern borders of Israel). Of course, as we all know, this proposal for Palestine has not had any practical effect, and Palestine with those borders never showed up on the world map. So in other words, that symbolic declaration did not make any change to the world map. Instead, the page discusses the West Bank and Gaza, and changes to their status... which makes sense, because the world map does label the West Bank and Gaza. But as of today, Palestine has not become an official country that is represented in the UN and appears on world maps. When it does, it will be based on a future agreement on borders, and not on the borders alluded to in the 1988 declaration. So I attempted to remove the entry since it does not match the topic of the list, which is described not only in the title but also in detail in the introduction of the article.

So after I stopped the edit war 2 weeks ago because I learned it was not allowed (Chipmunkdavis had been participating in that edit war at the time), I made an entry on the talk page and had a discussion. I asked anybody to explain why the declaration made a world map change and show sources that indicated such. Nobody brought any sources, and Chipmunkdavis repeatedly refused to do so. Instead, he told me that if I want to delete the entry, I have to go find sources for all the other unsourced material in the list. I think that it's not my responsibility to fix the entire encyclopedia, and if he thinks something else is unsourced and incorrect, he should bring it up on the talk page like I did and we can have a separate discussion. Meanwhile, the Palestine entry still remains unsourced and does not belong in the article.

I said that I would wait several days without making any more revisions, hoping someone would join the discussion with sources. But nobody did. So after giving the warning, I decided the discussion seemed to be finished, and I went and once again removed the inappropriate entry. Immediately, Chipmunkdavis reverted my edit without bringing any sources or explanation, and accused me of edit warring. Even though I followed the process correctly by discussing and waiting, before making the change.

So now I am stuck and don't know what to do, because he is forcing this unsourced edit into the article and refusing to find any source, instead just putting it back and insisting on his way even though I have explained why it's wrong.

I appreciate any further help, maybe from an administrator who has the power to advise him that he cannot just force unsourced content because he thinks it is right. And since I don't want to engage in edit warring, maybe other people can take a look at the article and discussion and either if you think I am wrong find some sources to show it, or if you think I am right join the discussion and/or remove the unsourced content.

Thank you very much. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the correct venue for this is the dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrative high-handedness

Resolved

 – editor to file RM Nobody Ent 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I find that User:Keith D has been repeatedly edit-warring and redirecting H. P. Ward to Humphrey Ward without initiating any discussion on the same. In doing so, User:Keith D has also reverted around 10-15 edits of mine, repeatedly removing the infobox and the citations I had added and the copy-editing work I had done. Such an act is childish and domineering and does not behove of an administrator. We do take plenty of measures to fights vandalism from anons. But then, what if an administrator, himself/herself indulges in vandalism.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at WP:RM and request a move properly - any changes you want to make should be done at Humphrey Ward for now.

While the communication hasn't been perfect it isn't that bad and his edits aren't vandalism. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's definitely not vandalism and Keith D has explained the reversion in the edit summary. Please discuss with him on his talk page. Nobody Ent 18:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's okay. But he has reverted fifteen other edits of mine including the copy-edit work I had done and the addition of infobox. That's definitely not in good taste, right. No explanation for the reverts (except for the move). I do expect an administrator to have a better look at an article's history before reverting.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, you're the one who has created a problem. It isn't that he opposes your move on principle, your move is a violation of Wikipedia's procedures because you appear to be trying to do a "copy-paste" move which is highly problematic because it creates problems with Wikipedia's lisencing requirements. Instead of returning the same problems, what you should do is to follow Keith D's advise and use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request that the article be moved to the new title. What you see here, Ravi, is that you've broken then basic principle known by the acronym WP:AGF. You've assumed that Keith D. is out to "get you" or is somehow misbehaving. Instead, what he is doing is trying to get you do use the correct method, instead of the wrong one, to do what you want. In the future, instead of assuming that people who revert you are acting badly, is instead look at your own work and try to see what you yourself may have done wrong. In this case, you've clearly done something incorrectly (doing a cut-and-paste move). Instead, use the correct method (using requested moves) to fix the problem the right way. --Jayron32 18:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, an article without an infobox, with lesser references is better than this right. If Keith wants to revert my move that's okay, but why have all my edits been reverted. And why should I not get the feeling that someone's out to get me -Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's cool! I'll request moves in the future and not act in my own.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

AGF goes both ways. Ravichandar84 has not created a problem, they're simply trying to improve the encyclopedia by ensuring articles use common name. The way he attempted to do so is the obvious way; it requires an esoteric knowledge of copyright and Wikipedia licensing to know that copy paste is problematic. Nobody Ent 18:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Absolutely correct Nobody Ent. You are an astute observer. When Ravi made his first attempt to improve Wikipedia, he did not act in bad faith. When he came here to complain, and called Keith D.s action "high handedness", that was acting in bad faith. You see, Nobody Ent, it is possible for a person's behavior in one instance to be good and desireable, and the same person, in a different situation, can have behavior which isn't so good. People are not unidimensional, and it is quite possible for that to occur. In this case, Ravi should be commended for trying to improve Wikipedia, even if he should not be commended for tattling on people who were trying to help him do it correctly. The good-faith response would have been to contact Keith D. and ask how he could do it correctly. What happened here, where he made no attempt to discuss the matter directly with Keith D before coming straight to ANI with accusations of administrator high handedness, represents a failure to assume that Keith D was working in good faith. That failure is evident in the lack of direct communication with Keith D on Keith D's talk page. Presupposing your next comment, yes Keith D did not contact Ravi either, and he probably should have, but he also did not accuse Ravi of any bad-faith actions. Indeed, he doesn't blindly revert Ravi, but through edit summaries offers an alternate way to do the moves correctly. Yes, it isn't the best way to communicate, so you don't have to tell anyone that it isn't, and perhaps Keith D could have made a better effort using Ravi's user talk page, but that also doesn't excuse Ravi from throwing around accusations of administrator high handedness (especially in light of the fact that Keith didn't even use any administrator tools nor make any threatening actions to do so.) --Jayron32 18:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it the obvious way? The obvious way is to move the page to the correct title, not create a new page and slap a redirect on the old one, it's common sense. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh well! I just wished to register my protest here over something which I didn't like. I do not wish to dwelve deeper into it. And well, I'll take care to follow WP:RM in the future. Probably, Keith might have taken care to explain where I went wrong before reverting me like that.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 18:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

He did, you just weren't understanding. In the future politely ask on the article talk page or the admin's talk page before coming here. Nobody Ent 18:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Administrators should communicate better than what we see here when they undo good faith edits - the very least is to try to make sure that the good faith editor understand why their work is being reverted. If they can do so without being condescendent its even better. It is a load of bull to say that a good faith editor has "created a problem" and therefore doesn't deserve to be explained what is going on in a reasonable way. What good can possible come from reverting a cut and paste move with out taking the touble to explain the editor who did it why its not a good idea, and what is the correct procedure?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Maunus, you are entirely correct about that. Editors should take the time to explain why they are doing what they are doing. It doesn't make it "administrative high handedness" when they do not. There are many levels of "not doing what you are supposed to" in the world, and this one was rather low on that scale. --Jayron32 19:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The difference between arrogance and administrative arrogance is that the latter is done by an administrator. And yes we should expect more of administrators.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I used the edit summary to explain the reason for the revert and felt that was sufficient for an experienced editor. Keith D (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That was a reasonable course of action. Ravi didn't get it and came here frustrated and made a misguided post, but that is not reason to castigate them. A calm explanation and redirecting them was all that was required. Nobody Ent 19:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

[editconflict]That is a reasonable way to think, and in this case it seems clear that Ravi would have done better to simply ask you to explain what he didn't understand. However I think that this should be taken as a reminder to make always make that extra effort in communication with good faith editors, because it does make a difference.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:96.125.246.135 edit on Pierre Poilievre

Background: There is allegationsof voter suppression from Conservative Party of Canada in the recent Canadian federal election, 2011. There are reports of harassing calls calling claimed to be from the Liberal Party of Canada and robocalls redirecting voters to non-existing polling station in southwestern Ontario. The phone number used in the robocalls is registered under "Pierre Poutine", an obviously fake name. [91] [92].

This IP user made this edit [93] to the Pierre Poilievre (Pierre 'Poutine' Poilievre...). Given the subject of this article is a Canadian Member of Parliament in Conservative Party and the timing of the events this is not only vandalism but constitutes a libel. The said revision needs to be deleted and appropriate warning given to the said user. I have revert the edit alreadySYSS Mouse (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Report them back here if you see them making any similar edits. Thanks, Swarm ^X 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus - experienced user, does not seem to understand or accept "STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please provide guidance. Shajure (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Shajure, an experienced user her/himself, doesn't seem to understand that the purpose of a User talk page is to communicate with other editors, and that a warning saying "Go away. Stay gone." isn't an appropriate use of the page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Malik - you are incorrect. The appropriate talk page is the place for that discussion. My talk page should not exist, as I have a strong desire never to read it nor post to it.Shajure (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My guidance is to remove the notice from the top of your user talk page. It is unnecessarily confrontational. This a collaborative project, and if you do not wish other people to periodically contact you regarding your work here, you shouldn't be here. Its that simple. You should not make a blanket request that no one leave you messages on your user talk page. --Jayron32 20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I firmly decline and disagree strongly. I am here to edit articles, not my talk page. If I wanted to chat I would be on a chat board.Shajure (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but if someone wishes to discuss your edits to articles, they need to be allowed to use your talk page to reach you. You are correct that this is not the place to chat, but you still must be willing to discuss the encyclopedia with other editors when they wish to. --Jayron32 20:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I read the opening of this thread and was prepared to gently remind Piotrus that it's polite to leave people alone when they ask you to, but upon looking at your talk page...this is not that. If, as it reads to me, that talk page notice is intended to communicate that you have no intention of engaging with other users, period, then I would advise that Wikipedia is very much not the right place for you. All editors are expected to be willing to discuss their edits and/or behavior when necessary. Repeated failure to do so is generally considered disruptive to the encyclopedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dear Malik ShabazzShajure, thanks for asking for guidance here. Talk pages are the default way to give people messages (positive or negative) on their behaviour on wikipedia and thus are very useful. If you have problems with someone, you have the possibility to ask them to stay away, but a default "go away" seems not very productive to improving this encyclopedia. My suggestion is thus: remove the text and be open to comments of others! L.tak (talk) 20:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Check again. It wasn't Malik that started this thread. --Jayron32 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • indeed; sorry; corrected! L.tak (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• The warnings on this user's talk page, as well as their comments, seem to reveal an attitude that's absolutely incompatible with our goal of building a collaborative encyclopedia. Piotrus originally posted on their page with a perfectly reasonable comment. Shajure, on the other hand, went so far as to suggest that people who post on their talk page will be blocked. This is astonishingly inappropriate and I'm wondering if there's any reason not to block immediately, considering the message to administrators on their talk page. Swarm ^X 20:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go that far. A problem has been brought to the OPs attention regarding their behavior at Wikipedia. The OP should be given the chance to not heed our advice before blocking them. --Jayron32 21:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The OP has apparently retired. If he/she returns, I don't think a repeat of their non-communicative attitude is remotely acceptable. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.