Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Content
User
Other
Welcome to the incident noticeboard

This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors.

  • Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting.
  • Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.
  • Do not report issues requiring oversight to this page - email oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org directly with your concern.

Sections older than 36 hours archived by MiszaBot II.
Shortcuts:

You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion.

You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

Click here to start a new discussion thread
Centralized discussion
Requests for Comment on User Conduct

Candidate pages

Certified pages

General


Contents

AfC User's Rash Approvals [edit]

I have been active in #wikipedia-en-help for a little while now. At least 90% of the "editing help" questions are about the AFC process, and 90% of that is a familiar routine; the wait time, the COI issues (the vast majority of it is corporates or PR types, alas), WP:ADVERT, what's a good reference, why those aren't good references, why those references "do not adequately evidence the subject's notability".

So far, so good. A couple of days ago someone came in asking about what is now Eric_Sanicola; in the course of discussion, they (entirely predictably) proved to be Mr Sanicola, who had written the entire thing himself. (Not grounds for rejection itself, but not a good start). We gave him the usual spiel - references not reliable or mention him only in passing, notability is not infectious, etc. - but at the end of the discussion, User:Coolboygcp pops in for some other purpose and says "sure, I'll approve it"... and did.

This seems to me to be quite contrary to the reviewing instructions - and frankly, it seems a little futile to hang around in the help channel explaining the need for good references if someone else will come in and approve articles with junk references.

I attempted to discuss this with User:Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled; a flat denial that there was anything wrong with the article. On checking further, their contribs consist of a series of AFC approvals many of which seem dubious, and from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coolboygcp#Reverting_your_acceptance_of_Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FBritish_Basketball_Association I am not the only editor to have an issue with them.

I'm seeking advice on what should be done next. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There are certainly some highly questionable accepts among User:Coolboygcp's contribs. Apart from this, has the user been asked (on-Wiki) on be more careful and pointed in the direction of the reviewing guidelines? Pol430 talk to me 11:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
No. I got a flat denial on IRC that there was any kind of problem. IRC does tend to make people terse, but if you agree that there is an issue, I would be grateful if you (or someone else) would bring it up on-Wiki; I appreciate a sanity check that I'm not overreacting. I observe the Eric Sanicola article has been CSDed. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you're overreacting, but I don't think the Eric Sanicola article is the worst of them (CSD has been declined). I'd rather someone else took them in hand, a third opinion won't hurt and I've already raised one editor's AfC work at AN/I today – I don't want to earn a reputation :P Pol430 talk to me 12:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Wow, just wow.
I had no idea that there were this many editors interested in my contributions.
Additionally, when I read the quote: "I attempted to discuss this with Coolboygcp on the same IRC channel the following day, to get completely stonewalled:", I proceeded to laugh hysterically. I did no "stonewall" Pinkbeast, in any way whatsoever.
When I corresponded with him/her, I provided several reasons as to why I approved the Eric Sanicola article. I truly cannot comprehend why he/she would fabricate such an accusation and story about me. However, Pinkbeast has repeatedly threatened me on the mentioned IRC channel several time. Threats such as, "if you upload that image, I will delete it", and I will report you if you upload that image, as well as "I will report you for even thinking about creating that article". Additionally, he/she has repeatedly misinformed dozens of editors and users who come to the IRC channel in order to seek useful, and proper advice and help, who instead receive misinformation and incorrect instructions among other worrisome advice.
In fact, I would advise that Pinkbeast has exhibited very much more worrisome, and detrimental behavior and conduct. Coolboygcp (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
CB: Please feel free to show equivilant examples of Pinkbeast's disruptive behavior/content. Your behavior on the other hand causes problems, both for volunteers and the project as a whole. Your article approvals could cause editors and admins to have to edit the newly minted article and potentially have to go through the process of deleting it, having to sort out a policy morass, or potentially opens the foundation to liability. I'm saying this as nicely as possible, be extra careful with your approvals due to the fact that previous approvals have been questioned. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
These accusations are false. If there is any doubt about that, I would suggest contacting other users of that channel to see if their clients keep sufficient scrollback; I believe any of User:gwickwire, User:TheOriginalSoni, User:Huon, or User:Yngvadottir might do so. For the avoidance of doubt, I am completely happy to have any comment I addressed on-channel to User:Coolboygcp, or any comment to anyone similar to those above, made public.
The only discussion I have had with User:Coolboygcp about images is that I declined to upload a non-free image for them, responding that "I can't really see that there is much justification for using a nonfree image there" (direct quote) after quoting the Wikimedia Commons guidance on non-free images verbatim.Pinkbeast (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I've lightly interacted with Coolboygcp in the past. The direct interaction between us was minimal, and if there was, I dont have a strong memory or a log of it. What I do carry is an impression of him trying to help others, though giving quite a few wrong advices. Based on only that impression I carry from there (which I think were based on some articles he was involved in), I think he might make a good reviewer if nudged properly. I think a mandatory adoption for him before he can continue reviewing articles might be sufficient.
Also, IMO IRC interactions have a lot better chance of actually generating a positive response and actually solving the problem than escalating the issue, which I've often found on-wiki interactions do. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban? [edit]

Looking through his declines, and his assurances that nothing is wrong, when many of his reviews clearly are, anyone willing to support an attempt to get a topic ban? Mdann52 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've looked through some of his approvals and am the one that nominated the article that brought this up for CSD, which was declined, and subsequently nominated for AfD by myself, which at my last check had only one other person with a Delete nomination and no Keeps. Technical 13 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that would be best, but I'm not exactly unbiased here. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
They're still at it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Talent_Neuron&action=history is an approval of an AFC which took a whole five hours to get G11ed! Pinkbeast (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure IRC is the best way to communicate to people about what they might be doing wrong. Suggesting improvements or problems to people on their user talk pages leaves a record, which can be very helpful for anyone coming with subsequent problems. (It also eliminates pointless disputes like the above about what has been said.) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't disagree; I just happened to see him pop up there while I was thinking about it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban from reviewing AfC submissions for a period of three months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There comes a time perhaps where some reviewers should be asked to cease reviewing, at least for a while, such as in the past we have had to ask patrollers to stop patrolling new pages. A polite request rather than a formal topic ban may be sufficient. Like many meta areas, AfC is one that attracts many relatively new and/or inexperienced editors. This has always been a thorn in the side of the AfC process which often requires an admin level of knowledge of inclusion policies. I am absolutely not advocating that only admins should review the pages - there is backlog enough - but some campaign to attract truly experienced editors to the task would probably not go unrewarded. Nothing will change much however until the Foundation comes up with a decent landing page for new users / new, new-page creators. Concurring with DGG, transparecy is required for discussions and IRC is not followed by any means by everyone. Some of us do not use it at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have one example here, an AFC approval which has now survived AFD. Before topic banning anyone we should be looking at enough diffs to form a pattern, and that pattern would need to indicate a problem. But if an editor's judgement has been born out by the article surviving AFD then it is the rest of the AFC community who have got this one wrong. Note I'm not proposing that Pinkbeast be topic banned from AFC simply for this one case where he declined an AFC submission that went on to pass AFD, I'm hoping that that is an isolated mistake and a learning experience. But there is something deeply wrong with the AFC process when it is regarded as controversial that someone approves an AFC that goes on to survive AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 11:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The article was improved enormously (by someone else) while the AFD process was going on; the version that was approved was essentially uncited and bears little resemblance to the one people were commenting on later in the AFD process. This is not the only example:
These are likely not the only ones, just what a quick trawl finds. I think a more compelling argument for opposing is that the editor appears to have stopped doing it anyway. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Er, addendum, I have never in my life declined (or accepted) an AFC submission. But if I had declined https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Sanicola&oldid=551199625 I feel I would have been right to do so. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Copied to ANI here Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I think some of his approvals are questionable, however we need a more thorough investigation before doing anything rash. I have started a thread at the WP:ANI, and have copied our discussion here as well as adding my own comments. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I have also informed everyone involved in this discussion via the ANI template. I hope this is due diligence - I even notified myself. TheOneSean | Talk to me 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ummm... I think I said all I had to say in that AfC discussion and had thought this issue was closed. Echo me if you need clarification of what I had said, but otherwise I've nothing further to add at this time. (I'm not monitoring this discussion as I would rather stay away from ANI right now but will check back in a "few" days). Technical 13 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While there does seem to be a problem, its too premature to throwing around topic bans yet. There needs to be further discussion, and a longer pattern of troubling decisions, before that is warranted to be discussed. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would like the editor to voluntarily stop approving AFC's right now, based on their poor history. If they refuse to do it, then I will 100% support a 3 month topic ban (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I am in general against a topic ban on Coolboygcp because I think its neccesary that we try to approach him directly and help him understand the reviewer functions more before trying anything of this sort. We need more reviewers, and not less, and AGF, I believe, coolboygcp's intentions are good. Maybe we ought to suggest him to be adopted by another experienced reviewer before he actively reviews articles again? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose á la flying off the handle with this one. Basket Feudalist 13:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: Coolboygcp does, judging by the diffs that have been posted here and his response here, not have the competence/maturity needed for the job, and should be stopped before he causes even more damage to WP. Thomas.W (talk) 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Like Bwilkins, I also think they can think of voluntarily stopping AFC review for sometime (2—3 weeks?), in addition they should be more careful in future, but, I don't support the "Topi ban" right now! --Tito Dutta (contact) 14:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support with reluctance. I'm not seeing any sign of Coolboygcp realizing their acceptances were problematic, and I see recent creation of two articles of their own that have been deleted as non-notable, so I don't think they "get" the criteria yet. So rather than ask them - again - to hold off on accepting any more articles at AfC for a while, I think we'd better make that official: for a short time. They can always consult with someone else if they think an article is ready, and should be encouraged to do so. Making it official will send the message that they really do need to re-read and internalize the criteria (including, for example, checking for copyvio in the obvious places). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not just AFC that's the problem... [edit]

Note That copyvio was made with the creation of the page back in 2007. [3] It is not the editor's fault. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Editor's competency is clearly insufficient to continue reviewing AfCs and their behaviour so far shows me that they don't seem to take well intentioned advice onboard. Indeed, their responses show a certain combativeness that leads me to suggest they won't stop voluntarily. This, taken into consideration with the evidence of introducing copyvios, makes a topic ban entirely justified IMO. Pol430 talk to me 19:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per WP:CIR and the editor's demonstrated unwillingness to take good advice on board. Bishonen | talk 19:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
  • Support a topic ban per Black Kite. For whatever reason, this is clearly not a user who has the judgement to participate in AFC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 09:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per Black Kite. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per Black Kite and Bishonen, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - If Arbcom requires intermediate steps of dispute resolution before considering the sanctioning of an editor, why do we so routinely see calls for sanctions here when nothing of an equivalent is considered. This is RFC/U material, in my opinion. My76Strat (talk) 10:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban per Black Kite. It is reasonable to insist that users who are involved in reviewing AFC contributors' work -- and giving advice to those contributors -- show an awareness of and willingness to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. This user's record at AFC, the incidents described here, and the WP:BLP/WP:NPOV/WP:V violations I found when reviewing the user's recent edit history (diff) lead me to conclude that this user is not currently qualified to evaluate the main-space acceptability of other users' contributions. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Commenting so this unresolved discussion won't get archived. (The user hasn't edited in several days and this discussion has gotten quiet.) --Orlady (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support When I read the title "AfC User's Rash Approvals", I thought let me report coolyboygcp here and voila, whole discussion is about him. When I had noticed him sometime back, he not only approved "yet not ready" articles, but went ahead and gave "B" ratings on quality scale to the Stubs.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- this started off as a dispute about afc & now it has turned into a "shitstorm" of "everybody-hates-coolboygcp".
first: the discussion has been split by what seems to be an unnecessary subsection, which makes it more difficult to tally opinions; that needs to get sorted out.
second: this started off as a discussion about coolboygcp's actions in afc, NOT as a "general-complaint" about said user. IF we want to convert it to a general complaint about the competence/merits/etc. of the user, then let's do so openly (rename/restart the topic, revise the suggested sactions accordingly). IF NOT, then let's please try to stay on-topic? right now the cat & the kitchen sink are competing for attention in this discussion, & i breathlessly await the next startling revelation from this user's sordid history.
whereas, if you look @ the user's overall contributions, it actually doesn't look like the antichrist has come to wikipedia (yet?)
third: some of the "excitement" in this discussion needs to cool down. there's nothing this user is doing that is vandalizing or irrevocably harming the project; we can afford to take a little bit longer, reaching a decision here. given the agitation & strong feelings of some of the commentors, perhaps we should seek a wider range of opinions within the community before reaching a decision?
(i'd also like to know how many people were "social-networked" into the discussion)
fourth: while i may not agree with some of the cited editorial decisions by coolboygcp, i think that a topic ban (or any other, broader sanction) would be an OVER-REACTION.
this started off as a squabble @ afc; absent some urgent problem, or persistent edit-warring, it shouldn't have been brought here.
there are plently of (you should pardon the expression) "hard-ass" editors @ wikipedia, who freely vote "no" to most new contributions & "yes" to most deletions; they get along just fine & seldom face sanctions for their actions, except for the most severe abuses.
this editor is perhaps a bit too permissive, but there's no "severe abuse" at hand & they shouldn't face any worse sanction than a comparable editor who is excessive "in the other direction". when we start to hand out tougher sanctions for "deletionist" zealotry, then we can revisit this case.
right now, there aren't enough "inclusionists" @ wikipedia & this editor isn't doing any harm. you'll note that (at least) one of the cited "rash approvals" that sparked this argument has survived DR.
that said; if anybody can build a real case for the actions of this editor being or becoming harmful (or at least egregiously incompetent) to the project, i'll reconsider my vote. right now it just looks like a local spat @ the afc sub-project, that's turned into a "pile-on" here.
i'll finish by c&p'ing my comment from the original discussion @ afc; other parts of which have already been copied above
"*Oppose with all due respect, simply not liking or not agreeing with another editor's decisions is insufficient grounds for a ban. Lx 121 (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)"
endrant

Lx 121 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

post-script: as per somebody else's comment (either here or @ afc) it's not really good or useful to cite an irc chat, when nobody else has access to the text. Lx 121 (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Lx, I'd like to WP:TLDR that entire rant. But, since I read it, I can't do that. So I shall respond. This is not (in a major sense) an ideological debate between inclusionism and deletionism. (full disclosure: I am a precisionist.) This is an incident involving an AfC reviewer flying in the face of article guidelines. Also, you provided no evidence for your contention that there are editors who abuse the process the other way. And even if they did, that should not be evidence to end this dispute. Sanctions should be issued to the (theoretical) deletionist abusers as they should be issued here. TheOneSean | Talk to me 22:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
oppose - I'm not sure that its' fair to ban someone simply for having a different threshold of notability than you. He isn't breaching policy exactly, He is simply approving articles that someone else could in good faith not approve. Both perspectives are reasonable. Personally, I would never even think to make something like Australian Construction Contracts which is frankly almost lethally tedious but the article is well cited and well referenced. If his standards are dramatically out sync or out of whack with 99% of the community's, that's a cause for mentorship or advice, not for just banning from a vital responsibility solely because of one potential slip up (re: Eric Sanicola, an article that actually looks pretty good despite the hyperbolic assertions made elsewhere). DrPhen (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support User is clearly far from ready from even providing input on AFC. I encountered this edit on Country Crock connected to the 'Sketti' article BlackKite mentioned a couple weeks back going into detail about the 'recipe' on that reality show and a highly inappropriate hypothesis that the product is mostly used by low-income households. I reverted it because it seemed ridiculous to mention it in a product article, especially as it could be 'made' just as well with generic margarine (though I'd also delete it on the margarine article just as well), and the financial wellness attack. The user's page is filled with deleted or AfD'ed articles. If they're not even ready to edit in article space on a regular basis (or in template space), they should be nowhere near approving articles for creation. Nate • (chatter) 03:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


An admin to close this topic ban proposal one way or the other, please. Also, as far as I can see, Lx 121 has two !votes in here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Mrt3366 at Narendra Modi [edit]

Mrt3366 has recently begun contributing at Narendra Modi. Are this edit summary & comment this edit summary and a lot of the stuff here really necessary? I did try to deal with it but was brushed off. Although there has been some heated debate in recent weeks, we have generally managed to keep a lid on things until the last few hours. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • And can someone else notify Mrt3366, please? I am persona non grata on their talk page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how you know that I shrugged something off. What I want is for some uninvolved people to take a look at what seems to berather pugnacious editing by you on that article and its talk page. As I said, things were actually being discussed quite reasonably (the specific section about POV aside) until your arrival. The temperature has suddenly risen and given that this is (i) about a controversial politician, (ii) a BLP, and (iii) potentially one of those awkward Hindu vs Muslim situations that often spiral out of control, it seems sensible to see if something needs doing sooner rather than later. I can't even discuss it with you on your talk page and the article talk page is really not the right place to discuss behavioural things. I'm no prude but shouting out "fucking" in an edit summary that mentions Hindus and Muslims is something that sorta catches the eye, seems unnecessary and perhaps should be revdel'd even if the actual content of your edit is considered to be reasonable & thus reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment MrT is a sometimes passionate editor and gets a little carried away, he does on the other hand stick to NPOV quite well. And saying "fucking" is not a violation of any policy I know given Wikipedia is not censored. I would ask MrT to allow you to post to his talk page so that the two of you can discuss the issue there and should that fail, return here. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Could you give me an example of him sticking to NPOV quite well? two weeks ago he ws editwarring to insert a claim that Kashmiri Pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race sourced to a 200 year old book. Today he is removing a POV tag from an article that glorifies a hindutva politician during an ongoing discussion of neutrality concerns. I dont think he even knows what WP:NPOV says.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I would not ask MrT to allow Sitush on their talk page because I can understand why someone may not want Sitush on their talk page. Perhaps they could discuss things on Sitush's talk page or some other talk page, if it needs discussion at all ...OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Sitush on this. While the f-word is not by itself a problem, this sort of edit summary indicates that Mrt is approaching the article in a less than salubrious way. Regardless, I think a warning and closing this thread is the best action here. --regentspark (comment) 10:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a fucking good idea. Basket Feudalist 10:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Warning MrT for what and what do you want to warn him? Closing the thread is a better idea though.-sarvajna (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Warning him that India/Pakistan topics are covered by discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom and that he could be blocked if he continues exhibiting biased editing and intemperate language in edit summaries or elsewhere. --regentspark (comment) 11:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Has he shown biased editing? I am sure you have seen other issues on the page of Modi here at ANI, you did not call that bias editing, coming to the edit summary I am sure if you dig out you might find not so good edit summaries on the page of Modi. You can close this ANI though, if you want we can ask MrT to tone down his edit summary if it was that offending.-sarvajna (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It is natural for a Pakistani POV guy to fail to see anti Modi bias even if it exists, but see pro Modi bias/problems even where there is usually no cause for concern.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure who is this Pakistani POV guy you are referring to, everyone commented here commented are pretty reasonable and if you are referring to RP then I strongly disagree. Can an admin close this thread. I don't think it is going anywhere, lest it turns into a slugfest.-sarvajna (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why should a warning be given to Mr.T? A warning should be given only if his introduction of any lines was found to be a POV. Unless that has been established by consensus, how is his editing being considered biased? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The comments, edit summaries, and edits of MrT show that he just wants to display what wrong the "Muslims" did. This may be a violation and breach of Wikipedia policies. The editors should take in account WP:POV. That's all. Faizan 11:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
What POV in it? Those are facts. Do you wanna say those numbers are wrong? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not about facts, whatever they might be. Rather, this edit summary Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were FUCKING BURNT TO DEATH by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims. is extremely problematic. More of this sort of thing and I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked. Again, I suggest that we warn Mrt that this is not acceptable and move on. --regentspark (comment) 12:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok read this Explaining the insanely downplayed Godhra Train Massacre where Hindu PILGRIMS including Children and Women on their way to a Holy Hindu site were burnt to death by a radical Islamic mob of 2000 Muslims., if you remove the f-word then I don't see any issues at all.I don't see any reason why he should be warned, like I said before this is not a first dispute that is resulting in an ANI and somehow you think that this was wrong.Close it if you want.-sarvajna (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I met Mrt3366 a few weeks ago when he was editwarring against multiple editors to insert a claim that "Kashmiri pandits are the purest members of the Aryan race" a standard Hindutva propaganda claim which he sourced to a 200 year old book. When I reached out politely at his talkpage to let him know that he was about to breach 3rr this was the reply[4]. Now he is continuing the same pov pushing at Narendra Modi where he is joined by a few other likeminded editors trying to keep critical information out of the article about the Hindu National politician. I think a round of topic bans are in order, someone clearly are having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality. Mrt3366 also clearly has a hard time accepting critical messages on his talkpage instead flying off the handle[5], but this is a kind of communication that is vital for wikipedia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If there is someone who is "having a hard time distinguishing between their own POV and Neutrality" then it must be you for sure. Your edits to the page/talk page are clear testimony of that. Also if you know even a bit about Hindutva thing then you will know that they do not support the theory of Aryan race, you still need to do some research in that field I think. -sarvajna (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
As opposed to you I have a long history of editing things that have nothing to do with Hinduism or Indian policy. I dont have a POV on this topic, but I recognize propaganda when I see it. In fact it is only this last month that I came to the topics and discovered their dire state. And your claim about aryanism not being espoused by Hindutva is of course wrong, they exactly propose the theory that there was no Aryan invasion but that the Aryan race and the Indo-European languages originated in the subcontinent. Im a little surprised you wouldnt know this yourself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
So what, yes I edit articles related to India, that is what interests me, I need not edit other articles to show that I am neutral also coming to the point about aryanism they don't believe in the theory that there were people called Dravidans and the theory that aryans came to India and pushed natives to south India is not something that they accept. So the whole point of considering just Kashmiri Pandits as the purest form of aryans is not some Hindutva thing.One more point, the dispute here is not MrT pushing material against consensus like you were trying to do, the dispute here is whether his language in the edit summary is proper or not -sarvajna (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I was not trying to push any material as you well know, I was trying to tag the article for its obvious lack of neutrality and start a discussion about how to make it conform to NPOV. As for your claims about Aryanism they are contradicted by sources like these:[6][7][8] which describe the racialist element in hindutva thought. The topic here is Mrt editing aggressively in collaboration with a group of povpushers trying to own articles related to hinduism and make them conform to their own viewpoint.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, my concern is Mrt's pugnacity and the way that has almost immediately raised the temperature from warm to uncomfortably hot. We were generally getting along ok together until their arrival. The edit summary is one part of that but not the whole. He has been combative from the outset seemingly because he thinks I am not trying to usefully develop the article and am hiding my POV by committing many small edits etc (at least, that forms part of his rationale in the last of my three links above). - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
So was there any discussion started when the disagreement began? To be honest I am still not able to understnd the reason why we are here, Sitush, disagreements happen and people might not have the same style as you do. Taking people to ANI because you did not had your way or because you did not like how they did things might not be the right approach.-sarvajna (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
See my 09:38 above. I am not here because I have not got my "own way". I want uninvolved people to look at this, not you or Maunus or OrangesRyellow (who is pretty much always involved with niggling commentary whenever my name crops up here, rather like another user with a fruit-y name once was). Without input from uninvolveds, we are just going to go round in circles. - Sitush (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, however you have tried to involve more people [9], [10] .-sarvajna (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And your point is? I went to Boing! before Mrt posted the last-linked item above and with the knowledge that Boing! had just posted a message in another thread here & thus was active. There was no response from Boing prior to Mrt escalating things further and I had good reason to believe that Boing may have gone away. So I came here. I could have come here straight away but I was trying to keep the drama down. If Mrt had not posted that last comment, I might still have been waiting for Boing now but it seemed obvious to me that he (Mrt) was getting still more worked up. Happy now? - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • With due respect to everybody, I think nobody likes to apologize or to be warned, when they have done nothing wrong but still I have been accused of exhibiting "pugnacity" and it's time I said something about it. If somebody's emotions are hurt because of the valid edit which elaborated (with a reference) how a mob of 2000 Muslims burnt alive 58 helpless Hindu pilgrims, then I am profoundly amazed. If somebody doesn't like my usage of the word "fucking", then I ask others to close this discussion ASAP; it is not the right venue to discuss user conduct. There are other venues to discuss user-conduct. Having said that, I am sorry that any of this is happening at all. Let's close this damn thing and move the discussions to relevant pages. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Fucking get on wiv it then Face-wink.svgBasket Feudalist 15:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Not looking to get involved here, but I feel the need to point out that user conduct is indeed discussed here (although RFC/U is equally appropriate; it just depends on whether you want sanctions or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Pointing out that User:Ratnakar.kulkarni have now removed a pov tag three times from the article (just today) with no other rationale that he doesnt agree that the article is biased. These are the editors who are accusing me of pov pushing, "mischief" and "aggresive editing". Could we get some fucking admin attention here already? ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Maunus, you dont get to come and cry here begging for admins. The real problem here is that you simply want the POV tag stayed there on the top of the article. There is absolutely no action from your side to remove it. You have been asked n number of times of what exactly is POVy and what you think should be written instead. But instead of commenting on the content you are being very very fond of this mud throwing at other editors. Its been 24 hours since i have asked you to come up with your version of non-POVy lead. But here you are playing blame game instead. In that vaguely worded RFC you raised you are asking for other editors to come and see if the article is POV. Why will they do that? You think its POVy, you say it why it is. When i said this last time to you, you resorted on personal attacks. Not surprised by that; Chesterton says that people generally quarrel because they cannot argue. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, because it gets anonoying after having spent three weeks descirbing in detail what the pov problems are and how the article doesnt conform to policy that idiots like you keep saying "so say what the pov problem is". It is pretty difficult to talk to people who are simply not willing to listen. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • How odd. How could anyone deny that this edit here is of a promotional kind? "In 1967, he volunteered to serve the people of Gujarat who were affected by the flood"--sourced to the subject's own website. The additional detail on the 2002 massacre appears to be inserted here to rally anti-Muslim sentiment (58 against 2000); the numbers add nothing to the article's subject. And then Ratnaker has the gumption, after all this promotional stuff was added, to remove a perfectly valid POV tag. I think an ArbCom-enforced slap on the wrist for Mr. T and Ratnaker is in order. And Basket Feudalist, if you got nothing useful to say, then just stay out of it. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely the numbers do not add anything, but don't you have any issues with the other numbers given there? that post train burning killed 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. If you really cared to see the talk page you will see that I have started discussion on those things. Unlike few other editors who just want the POV tag, I am rather trying to resolve the disputes.-sarvajna (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Solving the dispute by editwarring and slandering others....Thatll work....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Drmies, the edit does appear to be promotional in the sense that it employs the phrase "to serve the people of Gujarat", but there is nothing wrong with using primary sources for something non-controversial that is not unduly self-serving. The text would have been alright had it simply stated the fact that 'he volunteered during the floods' and so on... and it would have been better had the fact been corroborated through a secondary source. The same paragraph that you point you details the fact that among those dead there were 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus. Does that equally seem to prove an anti-Hindu sentiment? I would like to see some unbiased commentary here please from an apparently uninvolved administrator. I would further like to understand your rationale behind the proposal to sanction Ratnakar. Please do elaborate. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Edit warring, related to the tag. There is a big difference between saying there were 790 victims of faith X and 254 of faith Y, on the one hand, and saying that a mob of 2000 Muslims burned 25 women and 15 children, on the other. It's called rhetoric, and it's pretty obvious what this is supposed to accomplish. Helping flood victims and all is nothing encyclopedically unless rigorously verified to be non-trivial. You can send a $10 check and write it up in your autobiography. It is not easy to judge whether this is unduly self-serving, but it certainly is self-serving, yes. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Given that Modi is a high-level politician and a former pracharak (propagandist working for the RSS), who is known to be reluctant to talk about some of his early involvements and to have pulled the plug on attempts to write an official biography, I think it reasonable to assume that anything he says about his background etc on his website is self-serving and any source that relies on it is also thus. Nick and I do not see eye-to-eye regarding this, nor about the use of op-eds to contrive neutrality, but while I might give a little on the latter, I'm sticking to my guns on the former: Modi's self-published biography is not acceptable for anything much other than his date of birth, religious affiliation and nationality. Mrt3366 only needed to read some still-visible threads on the talk page to understand the contentious nature of some of his recent edits: he should have continued to discuss, not forced the issue in such a heavy-handed manner. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sitush, I am actually amenable to what you have said regarding the particular assertion and using the primary source above and I am happy to discuss content on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Mrt3366 was involved in a discussion where you pronounced that using the above WP:SPS for an almost-identical statement was ok. From that he may well have been encouraged to make a contribution based on that dodgy source. Like it or not, I think that even many experienced editors (me included) do tend to have a subconscious "they're an admin so I'm alright doing as they say" mentality. On this one, you were way off-base, as I suspect you have been on a few other content pronouncements relating to that article. You know that you are fallible but did Mrt3366? He is responsible for his own action, of course, but it is all a bit of a mess. - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sitush, you are misrepresenting my position again. The other discussion was altogether different where there were secondary sources available to corroborate the primary source. Please review the discussion again. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • That page is such a mess now that I can't even be bothered trying to work out who said what and when. I'll take your word for it and apologise. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ This comment is the latest in a long line of combative comments and edits made by Mrt3366 in the last few hours. He's probably exceed 3RR anyway but will someone please give him a break. He needs to calm down. - Sitush (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Editor behaviourial issues [edit]

  • I have recently reported Maunus's less than productive behaviour on this page when he went on a campaign to canvass for support on several Wikiproject pages without due regard to their relevance. Their aggressive mode of editing and commentary is counter-productive to any form of dispute resolution on the article talk page. I think that any form of sanction should equally apply to users who indulge in unnecessarily combative behaviour to bully, intimidate and harass other users. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
And that would of course include your twinkle reversion of my first edit to the page[11] (a clear violation of WP:VANDAL which should cost you your access to automated editing tools) and your subsequent unmotivated threats on my talkpage[12]. You know that your accusations of canvassing are unfounded (advertsising an RfC on project pages is NOT canvassing), and your accusations of bullying are gooing to boomerang right back on your own ass. So I think you should shut up with that right about now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, reverting your edit using Twinkle was a one-off mistake. As a courtesy, I left a message on your talk page asking you to discuss prior to making substantive changes to the lead section (even when cited). The rationale behind the reversion is available in my comments. You also appear to have gotten into a habit of clearing out your talk page each time you have an uncomfortable discussion takes place, mostly cases where other users highlight your less than ideal behaviour. Perhaps you should take time to read what you write and reflect upon that. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I wonder how many one-off mistakes like that I could find if I perused your editing history. Yes I archive my talkpage regularly - is that a problem? As for my "less than ideal behavior" look at your self in a mirror. I have met few more arrogant admins and admins with less clue about policy. As for your "courteous message", perhaps you could take time to read what you wrote and reflect upon how it looks in the relation to WP:OWN and WP:CHILL. You do not have the right to request from anyone to discuss before they edit, and an edit not having been discussed is not a valid rationale for reverting, not even when not using automated tools. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Please stop treating Wikipedia like your personal playground. You cannot simply decide to barge in on an article and make substantive changes to the lead section without discussing on the talk page first. Please extend some courtesy to other editors if you expect them to extend the same to you. Or perhaps, given your recent experience on the project where you had to give up your admin tools, you no longer believe in civil discussion? The fact is that you edited the article to make inappropriate inclusions to the lead section and I reverted you and left a message on your talk page (which appears to be that of an SPA) informing you that a reversion had taken place and that you were invited to discuss the matter on the talk page in the spirit of WP:BRD. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No? Honestly you call yourself a wikipedian administrator and you think one has to ask permission before adding reliably sourced material to the lead of an article. How the hell did you pass an RfA? And dont talk about courtesy to me: Your first courtesy to me was a threat and a claim of ownership, since then youve graduated to lies and false accusation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am going to leave this diff here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
/edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A few other one-off mistakes: [13][14][15][16][17] Here is your admission[18] that you know [[User:Kondi] personally. User Kondi who showed up out of nowhere[19] to remove the pov tag that you dont like on the clearly biased BLP article which he had never edited before. Could be a coincidence I guess. But on the other hand perhaps you are not the one to be accusing me of canvassing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it is you who is clueless about policy after all. Or perhaps in the spate of zealousness you forgot to review the cited diffs properly. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
They are all reversions of good faith inclusions of cited material with only an automated editsummary.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
To whomsoever it may concern: I would request you to examine the pages and the changes made carefully along with the corresponding talk pages of the users reverted. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 22:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I made a personal attack which I later removed. If you are so keen that people see it i can repeate it here and save "whomseoever" the trouble to go through my editing history. /edited for NPA/ ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Maunus for 48 as a result of his repeated personal attacks. -- Y not? 02:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: To return to the supposed subject of this discussion. MrT, I've spent a little time reviewing his contribs over the past couple of weeks and I think it is obvious that he has problems with NPOV over a whole range of articles that involve Hindu-Muslim conflicts. Uninvolved admins should step in before it gets to be an even bigger problem than it has been so far. 122.176.146.47 (talk) 21:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
You clearly aren't new to Wikipedia. Did you accidently get signed out? (For about an hour or so and still didn't notice!!) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I just don't edit that much any more, and even when I used to it was back in the time when we mainly used IPs, and I'm old-fashioned. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, I tend to avoid it because of the POV-battles that are such a feature nowadays, and drive away editors -- which is why I strongly recommend uninvolved admins take a look at MrT. Lazarus the Lazy (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)— Lazarus the Lazy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Editor (Sitush) behaviourial issues [edit]

Sitush is being a real pain at the Talk:Narendra Modi. He is picking trivial stuff and making huge issues out of it. Once or twice was okay. Its good to have best in the article. But he is nibbling every line and arguing on it with every editor. The article is not in GA/FA review and doesn't need so much of strict reviewing. Few examples.

  • The article previously said "During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Modi, who was then a teenager, volunteered to serve the soldiers in transit at railway stations." Sitush added a "clarification needed" stating that it was a very vague. We had a huge discussion at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Serving_soldiers_in_1965 on firstly how the term "serve" was sufficiently concise enough for a biography. Then he said it comes from self-published source and wasn't reliable. When presented with multiple third party reliable sources he insisted on what exactly did he serve as. After a whole day of discussion with 3-4 editors finally he was happy to know that Modi served "snacks and tea"; which was the mostly likely guess and didn't need such a huge debate. But whats the result? The line is now finally removed anyways.
  • Next day he questioned one of the quotes of the subject, saying that the quote "makes no sense". (NOTE: He did not say that the quote makes no sense in context but said that the quote itself makes no sense.) Thankfully we had a very small discussion here at Talk:Narendra_Modi#Weird_quote which he hasn't replied to. (I don't think he is happy with the discussion. He has simply forgotten about it because he is busy causing other disturbances. )
  • Next he picked on Mrt3366's (Mr.T) usage of phrase "Godhra Train Massacre". He object and debated on it and wanted it to be "Godhra train burning". When Mr.T presented various third party independent reliable sources that use "massacre" or "carnage", he came up with some silly reason of how google gives different results in different location and that his UK version didn't give much results that used these words. (The incident is the one that happened in India in 2002, 55 years after India got freedom from UK and has no known connection with UK at all.)
  • Then he complained about the Google+ crash incident. He objected on the line "The chat was schedule to start at 20:00 IST, but began 45 minutes late because of the reported crash of Google+ due to the response." because he thinks it is a PR stunt. After giving various references, the line is still anyways removed from the article because he doesn't trust these newspapers like Business Line (part of The Hindu group) and Zee News and others.
  • He then debated on use of two references to cite one and same point when its perfectly okay to use multiple sources for one and the same thing.
  • Long back we had discussed on the line "He is a crowd-puller as a speaker." Sitush had objected on inclusion of this line firstly because he says its just the opinion of that one particular writer (POV) and secondly that every politician is a crowd puller. I presented to him a newspaper report of how one major politician was not able to get enough crowd and it was felt worthy of noting as a news by one newspaper. To comment on his POV doubt, we presented various reports that called Modi crowd-puller. The discussion did not conclude and hence i finally added multiple sources by bundling them together to avoid CITEKILL. He reverted that addition saying that it was ridiculous.
  • He is also seen moving edits of other editors on talk pages [20].
  • When Mr.T posted a huge commented on his reversion of edits on talk page at 08:43, 16 May 2013, he instead submitted this complaint about Mr.T here at 08:56, 16 May 2013.
  • And you would think that he is such a nice boy being so particular about right usage of words. But no! When Mr.T proposed using exact figures of people killed in 2002 violence, he instead reverted him and added a vague sentence of "Many people were killed".
  • He still continues on talk page "wondering who pays the Supreme Court judges!" demeaning India's system as compared with UK's; calling various stuff in the article as gibberish; indirectly calling Modi a male prostitute and various other things.diff

All these edits of Sitush are just to agitate other editors. He knows that it works well. He knows that Mr.T gets short tempered and would violate WP:3RR and then he can be blocked. He also knows that i have for various times abandoned editing such articles where someone is simply playing in a puddle and throwing dirt. That is also true with various other editors and not just me. He is using all these strategies to irritate us all.
I propose that he be topic banned from editing this and other related articles. He may choose any of his buddy-editors to edit the article instead of him; you know if he is really very caring about the readers and Wikipedia and such moral stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I am reluctant to believe that Sitush is making these edits to agitate other editors! The first one "clarification needed"— I also feel expansion was needed there! Which railway stations? Did he volunteer during whole war period or any specific period? Did he work as a member of any volunteering group/religious/political organization? About Godhra Train Massacre>>Godhra train burning, the Wikipedia article is titled Godhra train burning! I have not checked other points you have mentioned! --Tito Dutta (contact) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh of course! We should also mention his working hours, was it raining or scorching heat on those days, how many more people helped him, what he used to wear then, how did he communicate with soldiers, did he knew Hindi or English then, or did he use sign languages to get their orders, what types of teas he used to serve and what in snacks, did he serve the spicy ones or medium one, did he wear gloves before serving and tie his hair properly, VERY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS!!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Your answer does not require a reply as it teases back itself! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Still a reply below! --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "edits to agitate other editors!" - I myself don't believe Sitush is editing this way only to spite other editors.
    Moving on, if you wish to know more about "Godhra Train Massacre>>Godhra train burning" then I urge you to go through the spiral discussions on the talk or we may just use common sense or if you want to know my views click here. That's all. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Post script to that, my comment should not be used to mean that the points Dharmadhyaksha is presenting as the issues, are in anyway false. His conclusions might not be agreeable but the points are verifiable. I would not like to be involved in this any further. Thank you all. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dharmadhyaksha, initially it was good to clarify his doubts but now he seems to see issue with every word.I do not know the real intention of Sitush behind his nitpicking but I see that lot of editors are agitated and irritated due to to his current behavior, he has very stong opinions about the subject and most of the times think that everything is a PR stunt of the subject or it is somekind of POV that is being added by editors.-sarvajna (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Much of what is said above, and in particular the opening exposition by Dharmadhyaksha, is a misrepresentation of things that I have done or is mind-reading. To take just the first point as an example, the statement related to a war of 1965 between India & Pakistan and it was sourced to Modi's self-published biography. I raised the issue of what "served soldiers at railway stations" meant due to the lack of context, ie: served in what capacity? It was eventually determined that Modi had served tea to them, as opposed to being, say, a shoe-cleaner, batman or a male prostitute. So, the statement became something like "served tea to soldiers". That it was subsequently removed is something that I that I had mooted (it is a minor point and arguably self-serving) but was not my doing and had support from others. The thread that Dharmadyaksha links explains pretty much all of this.

    I'd rather one of the above actually explained what their specific problem is here because at present it looks like an exposition of various content disputes. Or is the claim that I am editing in a tendentious manner, ie: that I am similar in style to Mrt3366, who is repeatedly raising certain issues in new threads and even here, such as whether we refer to something as a "train burning" or a "massacre"? - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! I have not studied all of the points, but see my post above and his immediate reply! Follow this, if keeping Modi's political activities in mind (read the political party as BJP), if I want to to learn did Modi serve for any political or religious volunteering group— RSS, BJP, will it be totally irrelevant, since it could well establish political activities of early days? The second question was— did Modi serve as volunteer during whole war period? From history, Atal Bihari Bajpayee joined Gandhi Ji's Quit India movement as a volunteer but only for few days, not from starting to ending and later was jailed for 23 days.Now, coming to L.K. Advani, though the story is unclear, some people alleged Advani was a member of the team who assassinated Gandhi (ref or search in Google). Whether he was there or not, surely Advani was not the head of team at that time and his activities surely had been minimum. Now, these two examples (actually there are more..) show that some political leaders worked as volunteers in their early days, but those were not very remarkable/ were for brief period. Now read again the question— did Modi serve as volunteer during whole war period or a brief period? Note, the point, he did not even attempt or ask me to clarify the questions I asked and .. (see his reply).. --Tito Dutta (contact) 13:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
What do you really want to say? There information of Modi serving army men is supported by RSs, if you want to learn more you are free to do research. Was he part of some volunteer group? the info is not provided in source. So what is the issue to write that he just served, obviously he was not a soldier.Also I do not know how helpful the whole Advani thing will be but just FYI, Advani is accused to be involved in a plot to kill Jinnah. Sitush, on what basis did you speculate that Modi would have been a male prostitute? Did Indian army used the services of male prostitutes or is Modi well known to be a male prostitute? It would be helpful if you can control your bias. -sarvajna (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Where is the bias in the "serve" issue, sarvajna? I just picked some random examples - he could have been serving ice-cream or playing tennis with them for all the sense that the statement made. Anyway, Is the allegation of bias the crux of this issue? I'm still trying to figure out what I am supposed to be defending myself against here, if anything. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Not in the serve issue, you speculating that Modi would have been a male prostitute is what I am saying. What was the basis for the speculation? because you wanted to be funny? because you think that Indian army use the service of male prostitute? -sarvajna (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyone who understands English knows that Sitush did not speculate any such thing. Competency is required. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
read this -sarvajna (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
You'd do well to point at something specific; I'll do it for you: "as things stand we could as well mean that he served them as a male prostitute as a boot cleaner". If you think that that means that Sitush is speculating that Modi was a male prostitute, there's a serious lack of language competency. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
My suspicion is comprehension underlies much of the angst that I seem to be generating, and I suggested an example of this yesterday. Perhaps I need to try to say things more simplistically. - Sitush (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope you know there is a slight difference between "simple" and "simplistic"? The "angst" you seem to be generating has little to do with semantics and phraseology, your diction was at times truculent and provocative. Your way of editing was unilateral, autocratic, subsequent justifications for removing seemingly relevant edits (as well as my talk page comments) were whimsical and occasionally peremptory. You're again implicitly refusing to even admit that those who are speaking against your general behavior in this article, have any basis to do so. It seems as though you're trying to blame it on the incompetence of every single one of your detractors while precluding the possibility of your obstinacy over fairly minuscule things. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I have the same impression as Dharmadhyaksha. I have been following the article and its talk page for some time. It is obvious that Sitush is constantly doing and saying things which would constitute blatant baiting (WP:BAIT}. He appears to be baiting MrT3366 in particular (who does not seem to understand how ridiculously common and succesful baiting is on WP, or what baiting is). I would urge that suitable action be taken to prevent Sitush from baiting others.OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hang on a minute, Dharmadhyaksha is unclear about what exactly it is I am being charged with, sarvajna seems to be suggesting bias as being the issue and you are suggesting baiting. I seem to be causing an awful lot of different problems for different people, so perhaps it would be best to set up a formal call for a topic ban - D mentions it but has not set up a "yes"/"no" arrangement where people can support or oppose. - Sitush (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I was wrong in writing this all. I did not realize this before. The more chance you give Sitush to speak, the fouler it starts getting. Please close this thread. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I really detest this (AN/I) venue and would not post in this thread unless a bizarre coincidence. Sitush today astonished me by his appearance on my user_talk without any previous interaction or other plausible pretext, and for the sole purpose of reiterating a nonsense accusation made by a third person (I presume the two are members of some clique). I did not try to determine how many other users experienced such intrusions, of which persons and in which numbers, but I have a feeling that it is something undesirable for Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'd remove this is trolling but hey, here we are. For the record, Incnis Mrsi is pissed because they warned a user for "defacing" a user page after an honest mistake and then got even more pissed when I asked them to look carefully next time. Sitush happened to agree with me, hence the "clique" thing. It's on the user's talk page, if anyone is interested, where you'll also find this diff with a sneer against the editor who made the initial mistake, "I am really happy that English Wikipedia has so few people here like you, 76.189.109.155". Maybe someone should collapse this section. Drmies (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
BTW I have an impression that the user talk:Drmies page is used by the clique to coordinate attacks against disagreeable contributors. One can see how they discussed (and defamed) me there, without even notifying me, although I did not cross their paths except this single message at user talk: 76.189.109.155:
“ Don’t deface other’s User page. If you post to AN/I, then you are an experienced user and should understand that a User: page it is not the place for postings. ”

—Incnis Mrsi 05:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC), diff
Believe me: I had no previous history of interaction with anyone of them. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I know I said that I would not like to comment here, and I don't. I empathize fully with Incnis Mrsi, like others, I also didn't like Sitush's insinuation and baiting and everything. Didn't find it helpful at all. I don't believe that Sitush randomly chose to use "male prostitute" as one of the few possibilities. It seemed as though he was looking to instigate his opponent to say something unbecoming. Some flatly reject even the possibility that Sitush's way of inserting inferences, speculations and insinuations like "BJP hit squad might be sent to find him" (in response to merely a vague and inarticulate comment by Dharma), "BJP is affiliated with a known militant organisation" along with the anecdotal claim that BJP is trying to kill him and he is worried for his safety (see Talk:Narendra Modi#Serving soldiers in 1965), might reek of possible bias. Sitush is very good with words and his rationales for edits in this highly controversial article have been, at best, arbitrary and subjective. He has removed my comments altogether without even trying to discuss with me or others in the talk. Even after my repeated attempts to stop him (i.e. i asked him on the edit summaries that "don't DELETE my comment", "Don't delete my comment altogether, I didn't refactor your comment, I added proper date"), even then he bullishly kept on shifting my comments with arbitrary claims thereby mocking me. He went to complain against me to admin Salvio Giuliano (as opposed to other editors or admins who were already involved) instead of discussing on a thread in the talk. I later deemed it necessary to open a thread to discuss this otherwise trivial issue. Then he himself proved that he is not concerned about the problems he cited as excuses to delete or shift my comments (read the linked section). I felt indignant, It didn't help at all. But I do not believe his sole objective is to agitate other editors.
    Two sources (bundled) behind one statement is unacceptable to Sitush. He created a big fuss out of that too. Were it not for Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington I don't know where we would be with this article, the lion's share of credit goes to Nick for monitoring the article. I don't believe Sitush is done editing the article, one day Nick won't be around and then nobody could stop Sitush with all his mockery, chicanery and bullish edits. Read the talk, I attest to the points raised by Dharma, they are true. Nitpicking is fine once or twice, but persistently groping for excuses to maintain a neutrality dispute at all times is very, very pugnacious and not helpful at all. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (EC) I have a passing interest in the article areas Sitush regularly edits (from a reading perspective only) and I have generally found their interaction in those areas to result in great improvements to the articles. I think most of the issues above are caused by a combination of non-native English speakers completely mis-interpreting Sitush comments (see the above 'serve' discussion), and some, very minor in my opinion, poor choices on the part of Sitush when discussing with editors who do not have the best grasp of the English language. As some people have said above, "competence is required", we also need to accept that certain areas are going to primarily be of interest to people who are not well-versed in all the nuances of the English language. So every reasonable effort should be made to help them. I think Sitush offer to try and communicate more simply would probably eliminate quite a bit of the noise and be in line with that. And perhaps when making a comparison, not take it to the extreme. (Was he a batman or bootcleaner would have sufficed!) Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ. You're oversimplifying a very convoluted issue that has to with the general modus operandi of the user in question, by theorizing it would go away if only these non-native English-speakers knew English better. No. It doesn't have much to do with understanding English. Nobody is saying Sitush is a bad contributor all-around, but his contributions when taken as a whole, from legitimate edits to needless caviling at a number of points, doesn't augur well for the progress of the article and its other editors. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually I was focusing on the only coherant evidence (with diffs) supporting them above. 'Needless caviling'? You would need to provide supporting diffs that show Sitush objections are trivial for that sort of comment to fly. And I just have not seen anything that qualifies. But as an aside I generally find any time someone says 'this is really complicated' what they are actually have is an inability to explain things in a logical and concise manner, or are unable to drill down to what the issue is. And as I said, when I see Sitush has been involved at an article, it usually means it has/or is in the process of improving. If the issue is communication (which it looks like to my eyes) then an attempt to alter/change the method is likely to have an effect. If your problem is that you think Sitush's objections over article content are 'trivial', then you will need to post diffs that show that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Many diffs are provided with proper explaination by Dharmadhyaksha in the beginning of the section.-sarvajna (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, is
“ Isn't one inappropriate claim of vandalism sufficient? Would it not just be simpler for you to acknowledge that you erred rather than drag the matter on? ”

—Sitush, diff
and my reaction on it a matter of [my] mis-interpreting Sitush comments [due to my non-native English]? Nobody of Drmies’s brigade (of which Sitush is apparently a member) didn’t provide a single diff showing my alleged “inappropriate claim of vandalism”, and nobody of them apologized for their defamation and harassment, including a fresh accusation in trolling. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
With respect, Drmies is being lenient there. You used the word 'deface' when warning an IP over what amounts to a minor mistake. Deface is not a nice word. It means to intentionally spoil. So vandalism. But thats all explained on your talkpage. When you bring up spurious arguments to support something, expect someone to characterise your editing as such. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Although it is possible that I made a mistake, I prefer to ask at a more neutral venue to ensure that my mistake took place. An overt assumption of my bad faith and baseless accusations in making “inappropriate templated warnings” eroded my confidence to the people from AN/I and user_talk:Drmies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sitush has a prodigious output when it comes to Indian subjects, he quotes from reasonably reliable sources and has good understanding of Wikipedia rules. He edits caste articles frequented by those with inadequate understanding of what Wikipedia is. He is a tireless editor ever willing to support his edits with sources and more sources. The only lacuna if there is any is his inability to understand the nuances and his tendency to be judgemental. Most of us here are willing and happy to work within Wikipedia rules and are here for building a better encyclopaedia. He ought to AFG. He also has a right to be unhappy about Modi, or India or Indian courts, however he mustn't let his beliefs overcome his responsibility to be neutral while editing Wikipedia. Also if anyone alleges lack of comprehension of his prose as a defence, I think that is a poor excuse. If there are allegations of baiting against Sitush, well is this the first time? If anyone has been apotheosised he would consider himself beyond action. No surprises here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Msoamu [edit]

Msoamu (talk · contribs) has had quite a few ANI cases filed against them recently. They've literally just come off a 2-week block for large-scale, long-term sockpuppetry, and immediately returned to their editing style of pushing their own POV, whilst accusing other users of doing the same, ignoring consensus and making allegations about other users' religious stances. Diffs (note these are all post-block):

  • [21] - restoring a whole bunch of unsourced information, which had been removed for that reason, citing POV pushing by User:MezzoMezzo as the reason for their reversion.
  • [22] - allegations about editors religious stances, allegations of POV pushing, failures to abide by consensus.
  • [23] - various unsourced comments, more allegations of POV pushing.
  • [24][25] - restoration of unsourced information, despite two seperate editors (one whom I've not seen in any of the disputes) removing it for being unsourced, again initially citing POV-pushing.

I think it's time we either gave Msoamu an indefinite topic ban on editing and referring to all religious articles, broadly construed, or a simple indefinite block. There's no point giving any short-term topic bans/blocks, because this is a 6 year old issue, and previous blocks haven't achieved anything. User:Qwyrxian, MezzoMezzo, User:GorgeCustersSabre and various other editors are probably all equally as fed up of Msoamu's actions as I am. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Support Topic Ban I've seen this user at AN/I enough times to know the amount of pot-stirring and disruption this user causes. Action at this time is not only warranted, but necessary. It's time for the project to get back on track. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict), reply to Lukeno94. I would support a topic ban at minimum. I haven't been as involved in this as some others, but I did try to help out on Barelvi some time ago, and found it an incredibly frustrating experience. Dealing with Msoamu and socks made it too tempting for me to break the 3RR, and I ended up taking the relevant articles off my watchlist to save my sanity. I think we have a serious case of failure or refusal to get the point here, with perhaps a sprinkling of competence issues. (Quote from the Competence is required essay, "Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively.") Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, the content he was edit warring in was also a copyvio from here which he must have known as he added the references. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic Ban especially not "indefinitely"..i also don't mind mediating in the article talk pages..msoamu can perhaps agree to being more "talk page" active instead of reverting or editing..if the points in contention can be brought up clearly i don't see why there won't be a solution. Baboon43 (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear All you have to look into this case with a very neutral perspective.I am an Sufi Sunni wikipedian who has contributed a lot to this wikipedia by his Articles and sourced content.There are issues with me and User:MezzoMezzo.He has hundreds of time found deleting content from Sufi related articles and sometimes nominated many pages for deletion unsuccessfully.I am not saying he has particular leanings but his love for some movements [[26]],Madkhalism[27] and Wahabism and his insisting on adding criticism for Barelvi page must be noted after deep study.He has accepted it in his own words when he created Article named Madkhalism.Quote Madkhalism is a strain of Islamist thought within the larger Salafist movement[28].

Read this interesting comment on his Page by a fellow Salafi editor who has witnessed that MezzoMezzo is a Salafi.

  • salafi's at wikipedia

assalamu alaykum brother alhamdulillah i see you are upon the manhaj of the salaf us salih insha'allah and i wondered if there is any way for all the salafi brothers to some how network on here inshallah so we are able to work together to ensure all of the information on wikipedia is correct. if you are interested please get in touch with me.jazak allaju khayran. assalamuy alaykum wa rahmah tullahi wa barakatuhu Dawud.Beale (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (taken from his talk Page)

  • His hate for Sufi oriented Articles nominated several articles many time for deletion at a single time read here and
  • He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
  • for speedy deletion [29],
  • [30],
  • [31],
  • [32],
  • [33]*Mohra shareef here
  • Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [34]
  • Conclusion-Barelvis or Sufi are not considered Muslims by these Salafi,Wahabis,Ahle Hadith people.This thinking and motivation has prevailed world over to kill and murder them.Now this hidden motivation is also here on Wikipedia. It has been complained by many editors that Wahabi editors are editing with an objective.Islamic articles are not so easy for non Muslim Wikipedians to understand where agenda has been inserted or where the content has been removed with an objective.If a Salafi will continue editing Sufi or Barelvi Articles , he will do what MezzoMezzo is doing regularly ,removing content and nominating them in a sequence with out genuine reasons for deletions.
  • Wahabi interference is reality at Barelvi page
  • Request-
  • This behavior establishes his editing pattern which has harassed many editors in the past forcing them to leave Wikipedia editing.For his behavior he has been warned many times by multiple editors.
  • His friend Lukeno was also warned for edit warring at Barelvi page.

No one of them is neutral though they are trying to be.It is very essential to stop MezzoMezzo from editing Barelvi Articles and Sufi pages for the sake of neutrality.*This ANI is motivated and opened up by his close friend Lukeno who shares good relation with him.Lukeno never edit or participate in discussions every time he came to revert articles about which he knew very less.He is just a right hand of MezzoMezzo. After my Ban How much he got active on this page and removed points according to his POV. I have edited with references and have also left comments on all talk pages where I have edited after my Ban.It should be noted that after my absence a lot of Sufi Barelvi topics were edited by MezzoMezzo and large chunk of content was removed like thisMarkaz Articleeven though he could have taggged it for ref or for source but due to hate for these articles he always just removed content directly.Today itself ,I have added this relevant info[35] after good research and also tried to add sources for my various editing. At last I request neutral and un involved admins to understand the crux of the problem and don't pay heed to motivated biased ANI of Lukeno.Any action on me will leave a free and open field for MezzoMezzo on Islamic pages related to Sufism and Barelvi movement to add and remove content from these pages thus making them non neutral and compromising Wikipedia's position.A situation very difficult to understand though it will look normal to non Muslim editors.Msoamu (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I just find this stuff more amusing than anything. Hopefully, I can get this out of the way here and not deal with it again, though as a Wikipedian I find it sad that I have to speak about my personal beliefs here.
  • I am not a Salafi. I told Msoamu and his sock account Shabiha many times to stop saying that. I don't hate Salafis or Sufis but on a personal level, I want nothing to do with movements.
  • I don't love Wahhabism. User:Toddy1 also protects that page from Msoamu's POV-pushing with sock accounts, yet as far as I know Toddy isn't even Muslim. Will we accuse Toddy of loving Wahhabism too?
  • I dislike Madkhalism intensely. The fact that I wrote that article and have avoided POV-pushing or bashing the movement, I feel, is another sign that I am here at Wikipedia to provide information only. If I really wanted to push a negative POV, it would be on Madkhalism, not Sufism or Barelvi. Yet I haven't.
  • I seriously don't care about Barelvis. It's a Muslim religious movement restricted to South Asian and I have no desire at all to ever take a vacation in South Asia, nor do I have any close friends from that part of the world. I learned about what Barelvis are through Wikipedia, I don't care about them and the only reason I've dealt with the article for six years is simply because I hate POV-pushing. And I have never, ever seen POV pushing to the level I have at that article.
  • A Salafi Wikipedian thought I was Salafi. On social media, Salafis have also called me a Sufi. A Deobandi called me a Wahhabi. An Ash'ari declared me to be an apostate infidel. In one instance, a Salafi called me a Shi'ite and Shi'ites have called me an infidel more times than I can count. The problem isn't movements or me, it's zealous, extreme people and my inability to keep my mouth shut when I see someone saying bigoted things.
The root of this problem is Msoamu's POV. He only edits articles related to Barelvism and only edits Wikipedia in order to push an ultra-positive POV about the movement. Because of that, he assumes that anybody who edits an article about a religious movement must be a part of said movement, otherwise they wouldn't take interest. His accusation of me being a Madkhali is clear when I have no shyness saying I really, really, really don't like Madkhalism and on a personal level don't like being around Madkhalists. (Biased? No. As Stephen Jay Gould said, objectivity is being fair despite bias, not denying one's own bias. I don't like Madkhalism, but my edits to the article have been fair.) I created that article because mainstream publishers took interest in the movement in 2012, and noone else had written an article yet. That is all.
Given that Msoamu's POV is so incredibly strong, and he has made multiple sockpuppet accounts in order to push that POV, I see no way around a topic ban for all articles relating to religion. The guy can't even wrap his head around the fact that someone can edit articles about religious figures and groups without holding strong opinions. That alone is enough, though the sockpuppets to push POV and the number of ANI threads he is involved in bolster the case as well. Baboon, I thank you for your attempt to mediate, but you're not the first to try and if we don't slap a topic ban on Msoamu, you won't be the last. If Msoamu slips up again and creates more sock accounts to get around the ban, then perhaps an indefinite block would be in order. But if we just start with a topic ban, then nobody can say that we didn't try. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - Msoamu's statements here should only strengthen my case. Edit warring has happened from all parties, that is correct, but note in this report that I haven't cited edit warring by you, Msoamu, as a reason for this block. And User:Baboon43, Msoamu can end up being quite disruptive on talk pages - note that at least one of my provided diffs is a talk page diff. They make no effort to get a consensus for their edits, they just blindly wander in and nuke things, simply because MezzoMezzo wrote them. MezzoMezzo has not "harassed" many editors, and I'm fairly sure the majority of those editors you refer to are your blocked socks anyway. What is also concerning is we have an editor of 6 years plus who STILL doesn't know the difference between WP:CSD (speedy deletion) and WP:AFD (articles for deletion) - I've barely seen ANY cases where MezzoMezzo has CSDed any of these articles. And you still seem incapable of realizing that MezzoMezzo only either inserts sourced information, or removes unsourced (or poorly sourced) information, whilst you do the exact opposite. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not a Muslim, and definitely not a Wahabi/Deobandi/Sufi/whatever. In fact, the only one of these I'd heard of prior to joining this dispute were the Wahabi sect. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
WTF? The last block wasn't indefinite? With a drawer of socks, all of whom do the same POV pushing? Block now, block indefinitely, if socking continues ban. The diffs provided by Lukeno above are ridiculous to be the first things after being unblocked for edit warring and POV pushing. I don't have time right now to decide if I'm WP:INVOLVED (though I did block before), but please, someone take care of this and don't waste any more of any neutral, civil editor's time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I did query why it wasn't an indef block, but if I ever got an answer, I didn't spot it. It was just a 2-week one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks like it was explained, albeit a few days after I asked: "This is the first time he's been blocked for socking, and we generally give second chances. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)". My apologies to Reaper Eternal for suggesting that they had ignored my comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Please could he/she spend a few months editing non-religious articles, so he/she could learn to edit with a neutral point of view. A three month topic ban would be a way of achieving that.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I see consensus is shifting towards non indefinite ban..what will that achieve? it will just pick up again after a few months..if msaomu accepts my proposal, i believe that will be a better approach for him, the article & other editors involved. as far as the talk page incivility thats a minor issue..if there's more discussion it should ease the major disruption which is edit-warring. ill also offer to mentor mr msoamu. Baboon43 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus isn't shifting toward a non-indefinite ban; one person suggested that. Another suggested an indefinite block. Several others suggested a permanent topic ban. We need more feedback before a definite community consensus can be reached. As for easing the disruption...won't happen. Were this the first, second or even third incident, yeah we would need to try. It's been six years of edit warring against various consensuses through sockpuppets, and right after another block he started edit warring immediately. That's in addition to the refusal to get to the point and the competence issues. Nobody can say that we didn't try everything we could, multiple times. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've already said this, and any short-term topic ban is simply not enough/not going to work. It either needs to be long-term (a year) or indefinite, because this is a 6 year old dispute, and Msoamu is clearly going to wander straight back in and be disruptive again. 95% of what this user has done is disruptive, be it on talk pages or elsewhere - their constant accusations against other editors, their POV-pushing edits, their edit-warring, sockpuppetry (which I'm willing to believe is now in the past, at least for now)... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello Lukeno94! In writing this comment you deleted one of the comments by another editor in the section above this. I don't know how that happened, but you should restore it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If he/she is given a "second chance", then it needs to come with strings. One way of doing that would be three month topic ban. I have no objection to a longer topic ban such as: six months, one year or two years. I am sure that the "second chance" needs to come with strings - if it does not, then the difficult editor will just continue as before. (I am not arguing against a permanent anything. I am only saying what I think needs to be done if he/she is given a "second chance".)--Toddy1 (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Formal proposal [edit]

I propose that Msoamu is topic-banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia relating to religion, broadly construed, for a period of six months. For clarification, broadly construed means anything even slightly related to religion--this includes articles about religious leaders, groups affiliated with religious standpoints, history topics if the point being edited is related to religion, etc; it also includes other namespaces such as article and user talk pages. The following conditions are also applied:

  1. If Msoamu violates the topic ban, he will be given escalating blocks, starting with 2 week blocks, with the six month topic ban being reset to the beginning of each such block.
  2. If Msoamu socks to get around the topic ban (including clearly editing as an IP), he will given escalating blocks, and the topic ban will become permanent.
  3. If Msoamu edits appropriately for the next six months, but continues the same disruptive behavior after the expiration of the topic ban, any admin may reinstate a new topic ban to be of at least one year.
  4. Msoamu is strongly encouraged to obtain a mentor, ideally while the ban is still in place, so that Msoamu may be guided to editing that conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  • Support as proposer. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as the best way forward. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support because if it works then great, and if it doesn't work then nobody can say that every option wasn't tried. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban in principle though I think the inclusive nature defines "broadly construed" in overly broad terms.--My76Strat (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I find the use of sockpuppets to be the most deleterious form of POV pushing because it basically destroys the notion of collegial consensus by allowing one user with a lot of time and no hobbies to pour a dozen fake arguments to derail something that probably woudln't even be controversial without such buffoonery. I think we should really consider strengthening the mentorship provision. We shouldn't force on one him by any means but if someone is willing to volunteer we can get this person to reach out to him and take the intiaitive so perhaps he will be serious about it. DrPhen (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - I want longer, but I'm clearly not gonna get that. So I'll agree with this as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a way of giving him/her a "second chance" and I hope that he/she uses it to discover how to edit less disruptively.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Holodomor [edit]

This article likely needs someone conversant with translations to see if an apparent edit war (one editor being accused of being a sock) has any value thereto. I warned the IP editor previously about doing multiple reverts - but the editing has taken more twists than a maze at Hampton Court. No editor is being accused of anything by me, but this is an annoying enough situation that eyes would likely help. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting some uninvolved editors with the required linguistic skills to step up for adminship? This has been going on for years, it's getting silly. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
The likelihood is proportional to the number of editors who know about "self-flagellation" in at least four languages. Collect (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Both translations ("death" or "killing") are equally possible. This depends on context. Words "man-made" in the phrase imply intent, and therefore "killing" or "extermination" is a better translation. However, making reverts with misleading edit summaries like here is not a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I concur that both translations are acceptable. I'm afraid this is a political issue and not a linguistic one. USchick (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I think there are plenty of people who can vouch for my "self-flagellation" in at least three languages :-) USchick (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually have no preference on the exact translation of the term "Holodomor" - whether it is "death by hunger" or "murder by hunger" (both of them, etymologically are justifiable) - which is what this particular round is about, not the "man-made" stuff. But regardless, the user account involved in the latest spree of edits is very obviously a sock puppet of indef banned User:Jacob Peters, one of the perennial "POV pushers banned long ago for good reason who just don't give up". He comes back to this (and some other) articles with a pretty well defined regularity.Volunteer Marek 05:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I happen to be an admin with corresponding linguistic skills. Marek, My very best wishes, and USchick are absolutely correct, both translations are acceptable. There is no difference between "to kill" and "to murder" in Eastern Slavic languages.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Marek about multiple accounts. For example, one could compare these edits by Rediscoverer and Volunteer Eddy (who apparently mocked username of Volunteer Marek). Both tell "In 1960, an estimated 60% of agricultural land in northern China received no rain at all." There was also User:Rediscoverer2. This is already on SPI though. My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is sort of a POV trojan horse, a Ukrainian-nationalist tinged phrasing for the mass starvation of 1932-33, which some Ukrainians claim was an intentional incident of national genocide against the Ukrainian people (neatly ignoring the fact that more than 1 million ethnic Kazakhs and ethnic Russians also died in the catastrophe). I would neutrally translate "Holodomor" as "Time of Hunger," if that's the question, but the word itself has a extremely strong nationalist vibe which implicitly links the episode to Hitler's Final Solution. The 1932-33 catastrophe is a complex historical phenomenon — a gargantuan body count and a scholarly literature sprinkled with extreme and politically-inspired interpretations. It's a swamp every bit as deep as editing on Palestinian-Israeli topics, etc. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, upon further review, a translation of Holodomor which gets closer to the meaning would be "The Hunger-Extermination." Carrite (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That would be the case if it came from verb "umorit'". However, the noun "mor" can mean death from natural causes. However I agree; this certainly mean killing in the context. There are no serious disagreements among historians that these deaths were meant by the Stalinist government: so many people died because numerous military/NKVD detachments were dispatched to prevent people from escaping regions affected by the hunger after requisition of grain. The only controversial matter if this was planned specifically against Ukrainian people. Here the opinions by historians differ. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, no, that's wrong, the question of intent if not culpability is the matter of historical debate. But this is not the place to argue that. I'm sticking with "Time of Hunger" as an NPOV rendition of Holodomor and "Hunger-Extermination" as pretty close to on the mark as its actual meaning. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually "The Great Famine" also works as an NPOV rendition. The point is that this very term implies intent and is POV on the face of it. But it is an article of faith among Ukrainian nationalists that there was genocidal intent, thus the heated editing atmosphere... Carrite (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

removal of comments [edit]

Discussions should not be edited while being closed. That's why Bbb23 reverted some edits. Blocked users must not continue editing using an anonymous IP. That's why Bbb23 reverted some other edits and 24.61.9.111 got blocked. De728631 (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Bbb23 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing comments of myself, IP 24.61.9.111, and Little green rosetta [36] [37]. My reference to applicable policy on their talk page [38] was not responded to. I'd like the comment restored.

Prior discussion regarding closing may be found here: Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_10#archivetop_and_collapse_tags. NE Ent 03:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • You invoked WP:TPO in your question to Bbb, but I don't see how this noticeboard is a TP, v/r. There was a thread asking for admin intervention, none was forthcoming, an admin decides it's not actionable, end of story. Asking Arthur Rubin to explain Arthur Rubin's edits on Arthur Rubin's talk page seems like a good idea to me. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That is not how Wikipedia works, Drmies. Wikipedia makes decisions based upon consensus, not individual administrative opinions. Administrators only implement community consensus, they do not unilaterally makes up rules as they go along. I am concerned that you think there is some great divide between administrators and editors. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the lesson. Should every admin bring every single block to this board for your approval? Drmies (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This and this are in absolute violation of policy. Bbb23 is warned against further violations of policy through editing and/or removing comments that are not his. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing what's wrong here. The discussion was closed, and Bbb23's comment seems to be entirely appropriate. Now, if someone had reopened the thread, then it wouldn't have been so bad - and I'm surprised neither LGR nor Ent took that route. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
My comment was rhretorical stating in not so many words that if AR did not use any admin functions, so he was not required to give a response per INVOLVED. For the record, I'm ok with bbb23's comment removal per his edit summary.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's common to be reverted over a closed discussion, at times drop the stick must be enforced without blocks it seems that the discussion ran it's course. Why keep adding fuel for the fire Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just another voice echoing that its pretty common practice to revert comments made after a close, and that those comments could just as easily been made directly to the person's talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The close was not modified in any way. Additional comments were added in the same section but under the archived messages, as is consistent with policy. It is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy to remove comments from other editors. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Removing comments that were made after a section is closed, in the same section, is not a policy violation and it is done as a matter of course as it is, in fact, continuing the closed discussion. If the discussion is to be continued it needs to be unclosed, or to be re-started in an entirely new section - "tacking on" to the bottom of a closed discussion is acting as if it were not closed and is asking for the comments to be reverted. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And now Arthur Rubin himself is violating policy by removing comments. Interestingly, he only removed them after he commented and didn't like the direction they were headed. Additionally, AR is making wildly inappropriate sock puppet allegations. This is now three policy violations on the part of AR, WP:3rr, WP:TPG, and WP:HARASSMENT. The questions remains will anyone pull the block trigger on AR because he is an admin despite clear and unambiguous violations of several policies? My guess is "no". 24.61.9.111 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm taking a wild ass guess that AR is removing your comments because he possibly thinks you are an indeffed user and effectively banned.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, you were just talking about the importance of coming to consensus, and there's clearly no consensus forming to support such a block, so that was a pretty good guess. Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Block 24.61.9.111 [edit]

The quacking is loud in this one. De728631 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I guess my original wild ass guess that this ip belonged to User:StillStanding-247 was incorrect. A quick look at the edit history of our ip user above, it is most certainly the same person behind the account of indeffed User:Basket of Puppies. Both the account and ip have shown an overwhelming interest in Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak. Hopefully a passing admin will block and someone else will make this section go blue and that will be that.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am neither of the above. 24.61.9.111 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Arthur Rubin and Little green rosetta. Per their constributions I have blocked this IP as a sock of Basket of Puppies. De728631 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NO, that person wasn't and isn't SS or BoP. I really thought you WikiSleuths would have caught me by now, but it seems you are still chasing your tails. 63.92.228.217 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

User Watti Renew [edit]

I added a comment (permalink) to Watti Renew (talk · contribs)'s talk page considering his behaviour. In Finnish Wikipedia, known there as simply Watti, he has been involved in two RfC:s (1, 2) regarding his/her disruptive editing and neglect of article scope. He/she also seems to continue his/her old habits in English Wikipedia, too. Please be careful about this user's contributions. --ilaiho (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Behavior on another project is not (yet) relevant here. If you have something specific you think requires admin intervention, you may bring that up. Without such specifics (that is, specific problematic edits that require some kind of action), this reads like blackballing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
    In my comment at Watti Renew's talk page, I linked to this and this edit as examples of contributions to en that resemble those that were considered problematic in fi. I am not sure if this is the correct place for this thread, there are lots of different noticeboards in English Wikipedia. I just want to advice English Wikipedia admins to not allow the situation escalate to the same point as happened in Finnish Wikipedia. --ilaiho (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that those paragraphs were way off-topic, especially the 2nd one and thus WP:UNDUE. But there's no immediate reason for administrative action. Your reverts address the problem adequately for now. 5.12.68.204 (talk) 23:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Harassing editor making false accusations [edit]

I see no "aggressiveness and hostility" that rises to anything remotely blockable. I see a bunch of grown-ups (I assume) fighting over something here, on the article talk page, on the EW noticeboard, and on their own talk pages, and it's enough. Settle that one little-bitty quote with an RfC. I haven't seen the expression "more heat than light" on ANI in a while, but it's appropriate here: I'm closing this because a. there is nothing that requires admin intervention and b. there's more heat than light in this thread. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:SudoGhost is behaving aggressively at Talk:Iron Man 3, including by making a false accusation about edit-warring. Rather than discuss the issue of his behavior, he wrote, "[I]f you think I am 'harassing' and 'bullying', you are more than welcome to take it to WP:ANI," so even though I'd prefer to discuss, this is his demand.

Rather than go into a long description here, I'll simply point here to his accusation of edit-warring after I had made precisely one (1) edit here at Iron Man 3. I informed him [39] that I found it harassing that he'd post a long edit-warring note and accusation on my talk page after one edit.

He removed my comments from his talk page [40]; I subsequently removed his from mine. [41]. He then falsely accused me a second time of editing-warring, after I had made a third-party comment, as is not improper, at a 3RR he brought up against another editor. The string, with difs, here cover that.

As I said, I'd have preferred discussion; it was at User:SudoGhost's insistence only that I bring it up here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

If "I don't like that comment" turns into "they are bullying and harassing me" then most of Wikipedia would be blocked from editing. If at worst I was just incorrect and editors haven't been blocked for edit warring for making a single revert (they have) then I'm wrong, but being wrong is not bullying or harassment. The editor saw that there was an ongoing discussion, but decided to comment and then remove the content, which is odd because they then reverted an edit I made on the basis that "there's active discussion on the talk page" even though they had just removed content despite active discussion on the talk page. Is this a double-standard, or was it a "well I'll revert you back" edit or meant to be done in a WP:POINTy manner? Since we're being dragged to AN/I since Tanbrae won't stop making these accusations on any page he can, I would love an explanation as to this. It's also odd that a single edit continuing an edit war is not edit warring, but a single notification (which is required to report an editor, which he requested I do), is harassment.
The editor then said that "If you believe I am edit-warring, then report me here. Otherwise, we do not make such unsupportable allegations" which is almost right (as one must be warned before they are reported), but otherwise a fair point. However, that point falls flat then since then they then use talk pages to throw around accusations of harassment, even following me to AN3 to accuse me of harassment there but stopping short of "reporting" anywhere appropriate, only accusing in every other location, yet they would like the courtesy they are not willing to do themselves?
After contuining to accuse me of less-than-honest behavior they then went to canvassing the only other editor that agreed with him (he didn't provide a "neutral notice" to the editor that disagreed with him). I'm fine with plenty of things, but this double-standard behavior doesn't really make me feel terribly compelled to sympathize.
Tenbrae knew there was an ongoing discussion, made a comment, and continued the back-and-forth by reverting to his preferred version despite that. If that is not edit warring, fine. However, by continuing to revert they lost that excuse, and they have far surpassed that single "false accusation" with wild accusations of WP:OWN, WP:Harassment, failure to WP:AGF, and the editor's canvassing. - SudoGhost 18:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Another false accusation. I'm losing count. Going to one editor and writing neutrally, "As a past participant, you're invited to join the discussion at Talk:Iron Man 3" is not in any way canvassing.
I reiterate: Jumping onto someone's talk page after one edit and posting a warning symbol and a long claim about edit-warring is deliberate, bullying, harassing behavior intended to intimidate another editor from making editos SudoGhost happens to disagree with.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Going to one editor and writing a neutrally worded comment is not canvassing. However, only posting a "neutrally worded" invitation only on the talk page of the editor who agreed with you is. It doesn't matter how the message was worded, it's who the message was sent to (and not sent to) that makes it canvassing. According to WP:Harassment, "Harassment is defined as a pattern of repeated offensive behavior", yet to my knowledge I have never interacted with you before, and that talk page message was the first thing I've said to you. You then accused me of harassment after that single message. With that in mind, do you still assert that it's harassment? - SudoGhost 18:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Harassment "can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place." It logically follows the same can be true of the next step, where direct communication has taken place. Harassment also includes "[p]lacing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page." I'll leave it up to an admin to decide if it's perfectly reasonable and perfectly permitted to place any false or questionable warnings on a user talk page. Also, canvassing, by definition, involves contacting than one person. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Harassment is a pattern, not a single instance, and following my edits to continue to attack me is itself more harassing than anything I have done. If you're going to quote WP:Harassment out of context, you should probably at least provide diffs to show how I have been hounding you without actually interacting with you, which is what that is saying. If a single edit continuing an edit war is itself not edit warring, then at worst I am just plain wrong. However, when you flew off the handle and accused me of harassment, bullying, and being "WP:OWNy" while engaging in the same behavior you felt I was wrong for, you lost any merit you would have had in complaining. I've gotten templates and messages I disagreed with. Those people were not "harassing" me. What you're saying is that any unwanted comment is harassment, and not only is that wrong, that perception does not give you license to engage in WP:POINTy behavior and WP:Canvassing, which says nothing about "more than one person". You left a talk page message on a specific editor's message to influence the discussion to your benefit, and avoided leaving one on the talk page of the other participant, who disagrees with your position. That is canvassing. - SudoGhost 23:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Your false allegation of edit-warring was the first thing you said to me, so I'm not sure it's fair or reasonable to say I "flew off the handle" when you initiated contact by accusing me of something I did not do. And an "unwanted comment" is one thing — a warning symbol and a false allegation are something far beyond an "unwanted comment." "Accusation" and "comment" are words with two different definitions. As for the canvassing claim, let's let an admin decide if contacting one person neutrally is "canvassing." See the dictionary definition of "canvassing." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, continuously accusing someone of harassment at every opportunity for a single comment is flying off the handle, given that for that single edit you threw that accusation on your talk page, in an edit summary removing that discussion, on my talk page twice, and following me to an AN3 discussion to accuse me of such there, on an article's talk page, and here, despite the fact that leaving you a template on your talk page is nowhere near harassment. By continuing to edit war by reverting the content, you were edit warring. You came nowhere close to 3RR, but editors have been blocked for a single revert before, so it's hardly a "false allegation". I probably shouldn't have put the template on your talk page, but your reaction and subsequent behavior have been disproportionately hostile, given the number of times you have repeatedly accused me of harassment today (which by my count is close to a dozen separate times). I did not "harass" you, certainly not be Wikipedia's definition. I want you to please stop making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.
As for splitting hairs about the dictionary definition of words, that is irrelevant. Wikipedia uses Wikipedia's definition of canvassing, not whatever dictionary definition suits you at the time, and under that definition there is definitely the appearance of canvassing, since you only notified the editor who agreed with you, and failed to notify the editor that did not. Wikipedia also uses Wikipedia's definition of harassment, and you have yet to show how you were harassed in any way under that definition, yet you continue to attack me under that pretense. Please stop. - SudoGhost 23:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't like my answers. Please remember, it was your idea to bring this here. And I'm sorry you disagree with someone using words precisely: I'm a journalist, and I believe being accurate in one's wording is extremely important. In any case, as I said, let's let an admin decide. I'm signing off from this for the night — you can have the last word. Try to make it reasonable and I'll try not to respond till tomorrow. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It was my idea to bring it here because you continue to attack me despite no evidence to back your claim of being harassed. You being a journalist or not is irrelevant since this is not Wiktionary but Wikipedia, and we use the consensus-determined meanings on Wikipedia, not "dictionary definitions". As you said, being accurate in one's wording is extremely important, yet on Wikipedia you continue to do otherwise. You were not harassed, but your subsequent behavior in response has been entirely inappropriate. Do you have any evidence that you were harassed in any way that would meet WP:Harassment? - SudoGhost 01:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, being on Wikipedia doesn't mean creating our own language and words no longer having dictionary definitions — this isn't Through the Looking Glass. And I have to ask: What word would you use to describe an inaccurate and unprovoked accusation intended to intimidate and create a chilling effect? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
So...what you're saying is that no, you were not harassed in any way that falls under WP:Harassment, but you believe that any unwanted comment on your talk page can be labelled as harassment based solely on your interpretation of some vague undefined dictionary definition? That's not how Wikipedia works. Harassment on Wikipedia is defined at WP:Harassment in the very first sentence, and since what you're saying does not come anywhere close to that definition, that pretty much confirms that your comments are personal attacks as they lack evidence of any kind that anything of the sort took place. If you have a problem with the definition of harassment on that page, discuss it on that talk page, but unless consensus changes what that page says, your comments about dictionary definitions do not have any merit in regards to what harassment is on Wikipedia. You have not shown that the comment was inaccurate, and it was not unprovoked. It also was not "intended to intimidate and create a chilling effect" by any means (I'm at a loss as to where you came up with that); it was intended to get you to comment on the talk page instead of pushing contentious changes that had been reverted by several editors. Despite multiple requests to do so, you have not shown in any way that you were harassed in the slightest, for the obvious reason that you were not harassed. So stop throwing personal attacks at me; either back up your claims or stop making them. - SudoGhost 02:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That's an old debating tactic, taking what someone says and then rephrasing it in a way that says what you want it to say rather than what's being said. Admins see that all the time and aren't fooled by it. Bottom line: Wikipedia doesn't let anyone go around making false allegations against another editor. As well, I don't have to prove a negative, that I didn't edit war — the burden of proof is on you to prove I did edit war. And since one edit is not an edit war, yes I have "shown that [SudoGhost's] comment was inaccurate."
We can keep going round in circles or we can let an admin read this increasingly long and repetitive argument and decide for him- or herself if your initial attack on my page — your false allegation of edit-warring, designed to chill debate — was harassing or not. --Tenebrae (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight, you believe that the template, which was written by a consensus of editors and directly asks you to discuss the content, was intended to stop you from discussing? No. It was intended to do the opposite. You got offended when you were notified of edit warring, and started throwing around personal attacks. You were not harassed. Show that you were, or stop saying it. For someone so concerned about "false allegations", you'd think that wouldn't be a difficult request. That way there doesn't need to be "an old debating tactic", you can actually address your claims. Were you harassed under WP:Harassment and if so, how? If you're so concerned about being harassed it would help to show it instead of just attacking others, because that's a poor tactic for those with nothing better to say. Please, show that you're not doing that and back up your claims or stop making them. - SudoGhost 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: You're saying it's perfectly OK to go to another editor's page and flat-out lie that they were edit-warring, even going so far as to post a warning symbol? Wow! I'd love to see an admin's reaction to that assertion! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If you two want to argue with each other, pick one of your talkpages. If you want input here, it might help if you'd both shut up and wait for someone else to comment. I've lost interest myself, but perhaps it's not too late for someone else. --Onorem (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP genre warring [edit]

Septa14 counselled, METALMAN2488088 blocked. Any suspicious IP edits are now stale, so there's nothing more to do here. De728631 (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Gonna try not to flub it this time. The actual culprits look to be Septa14 (talk · contribs), METALMAN2488088 (talk · contribs), and a host of IPs. 81.138.2.36 (talk · contribs) is here to help. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've now notified those two registered accounts. De728631 (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I meant to do the same but was busy trying to track down a source for something else. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Septa14 is a new editor who had never been warned over their contested edits, so I'm asking them here to use reliable sources for the changing or adding of musical genres instead of editing without any summaries or references. METALMAN2488088 has had ample requests and warnings at his talk page and received a final warning notice on 7 May without any effect. I have therefore blocked him for one week. METALMAN2488088, please note that the mentioning of musical genres in Wikipedia articles is not to be attributed to our own research as you stated in this edit summary, but it should only reflect what has been written elsewhere in reliable sources. Our own opinion is irrelevant for writing any article content.
Evan, as to the hosts of IPs, is there any special article you've noticed a recent surge of IP activities or was that just a general observation? De728631 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm misjudging a lot of things today! :) In IP 81's contribs I noticed he reverted 108.208.170.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and a few others. You can check his edit summaries where he reverts the ones I suspected were related (historically the genre warrior in question -- see archived thread I linked to -- has lingered primarily around articles related to Led Zeppelin and Uriah Heep). It's primarily the range of interest of those IPs that made me suspicious, but it could just as easily be coincidence. Not enough for an SPI or CU or anything, I'd guess. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TheWikipreditor [edit]

Moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#TheWikipreditor. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I spotted some blatant advertising by TheWikipreditor (talk · contribs) and went back through his submissions. They had all been declined but I blanked most of them as near- or actual-blatant advertising and clear violations of the NPOV policy. Just wanted to give you all a heads up in case anyone asks about it. I've also raised issues about his username ("Wiki PR Editor"?) on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good call on the blanking, I've just found at least two containing copyright violations. His username has already been reported to UAA but a block was declined by the patrolling admin. Pol430 talk to me 09:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why this has been moved here; the editor has stopped editing. Now that they have been 'educated' and gone away, perhaps they will one day return with a clearer idea of what Wikipedia is and is not. I don't see a pressing need for sanctions at this time. Pol430 talk to me 11:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I jumped the gun on this one. Oops. We are discussing the concept of a script blacklist here, so that will help with these inexperienced reviewer issues. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 16:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

ProudIrishAspie [edit]

Blocked 31 hours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

ProudIrishAspie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has added flags to approximately 2600 infoboxes in the last month, despite four warnings from two editors flagging up the WP:INFOBOXFLAG policy. He has not responded to the messages and continues to add flags. Final warning has been given. Span (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Have they added one since that final warning? I mean, that's eminently blockable, but if they haven't added any then your warning was heeded. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There seem to have been a couple more since the final warning, but ProudIrishAspie seems to have moved on to other editing. So, it's not a crisis, but... I think better communication is needed here. bobrayner (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, you're right--didn't see those. Tell you what, I'll say it out loud on their talk page one more time, and next time they get a 31-hr block. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, I have implemented a 31hr block for disruptive editing. Lectonar (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Lectonar. It had to happen, didn't it. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I have kept about half an eye on him since the thing with his userpage, so yes, I agree, it had to happen....but see my talk-page now. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Qworty's talk page protection [edit]

community solution implemented by User:Dennis Brown. - Ched 16:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:SB Johnny took it upon himself to protect Qworty's talk page thereby shutting down ongoing discussions about what to do with the user's page following his banning. There was no vandalism. There were no attempts by Qworty to edit his talk page. SB Johnny's comments upon protecting the page were "Giving this page a few days off. Move on, the encyclopedia isn't being written here." I requested SB Johnny undo his page protection, but he declined citing IAR and "possible BLP violations" (really? where?). So - here we are. I'd like to see the edit protection removed from the talk page and for SB Johnny (or me) to get a better understanding of the community's norms and expectations. At present, our standards read thusly: [42]Rklawton (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Other people discussing whether Qworty deserves a special place in WikiHell not even typically reserved for far worse abusers of this site is not so terribly important.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hard to parse. Do you mean "It's not so terribly important to permit discussions by other people about whether Qworty...abusers of this site"? If I understand you rightly, I agree. Talk pages of blocked users are to enable them to request unblocks, and for other people to communicate with them and vice versa; discussions about the user are only appropriate elsewhere. None of this can happen with someone who's gotten himself a block without talk page access, and protection is appropriate when misuse is definitely happening. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
He doesn't have access to his talk (see block log). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Understood; that's why I said "None of this can happen with someone who's gotten himself a block without talk page access". Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that would be what I am saying.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
(after e/c)I protected in the interest of drama-stomping, and discouraging the "grave-dancing" (horrible expression). No big deal for me if it's undone, but honestly the wider discussion about Qworty (and his userpage) should be elsewhere. See y'all in the AM. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 01:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I for one am pleased to see the "manifesto" ("Qworty is a shtick") blanked from the user page, with cutesy picture and all. Editors banned for what Qworty did don't get to use their old user page for such self-congratulatory fake-postmodern BS, for a bunch of words that are but a lousy excuse. As far as I'm concerned, his talk page gets blanked for the same reason, and protected from editing. It's not all a game. Nyttend is quite right, and the gravedancing argument holds water as well; note that his talk page is completely useless since an unblock request will have to be initiated via email to ArbCom. The discussion that RKlawton seeks can be held elsewhere--and we're here already, so we could: I support blanking of the talk page per WP:SOAPBOX and indefinite protection given the likely possibility of gravedancing and the uselessness of said talk page for the editor himself. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Just as the talk page is pointless, so is any attempt to wipe out its contents. Let his comments remain and the few comments others made, we don't blank them for banned editors who have and still do, through sockpuppets, far worse things. We can just full-protect both user pages indefinitely.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see why his comments should remain. They're no explanation anyway--they're just a smokescreen and, for Qworty, a badge of honor. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is one of those situations where the right thing to do is blindingly obvious. Blank the user page and talk page with appropriate notices and fully protect both, but do not revdel unless absolutely needed so journalists doing research can follow what happened by looking at the history. When revdel is required, make sure the edit comment explains why with a minimum of wikijargon. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Nyttend and Drmies and I think SB Johnny did the right thing. User talk pages are for talking with an editor, not about them. If a discussion about the ultimate fate of Qworty's userpage needs to happen, there are better venues for it (e.g. here, AN, MFD...) 28bytes (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • What 28bytes said. (ie: what Nyttend and Drmies said) Unusual circumstances call for unusual actions and this seems to be the lesser of all available evils. No need to allow his talk page to become a dartboard. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Now that I have read up a bit more (really, I completely avoided the previous discussion...wow) I think Drmies may be is completely right that blanking is appropriate, and I would support indef protection as well. No need for the talk page to be either a trophy or a dance floor. This can always be undone if he is allowed back, although I won't hold my breath. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • From my perspective that sort of blanking is effectively like trying to nullify an editor's existence to punish them, or sweep it under the rug whatever the case may be.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And under normal circumstances, I would agree and we wouldn't have needed to even take away talk page access. Then there are exceptional cases with some community banned users, like this, which I feel warrant it. A rare exception, but reasonable. It is as much to prevent others from dumping on them as it is to disallow them to continue using their talk page as a soapbox. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 03:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Indef protection is fine to resolve those concerns. The idea that his missives are so horrible that we can't allow people to see them unless they search for them is really quite silly to me. What does it actually prevent? Seems people who support this mainly support it out of spite, which is not how we are supposed to do things.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • What did I say that made you think it was out of spite? And your opposition is because you don't trust the motives of those here? I didn't even know who he was until today so I'm pretty sure my motives are not "spite". I'm still inclined to blank. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 04:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe not you, but it seems to be the primary motivation. There is no real purpose to blanking his talk page except to bury everything else about him in a revision history and leave only the tag of shame.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Their existence and edit history can't be nullified (well, unless they're vanished--is that a transitive verb yet?), and that's not what blanking a talk page does. Dennis's phrasing (neither trophy nor dance floor) is pretty apt. And seriously, "It’s time to get over the Internet. It’s time to get over ourselves." So it was all our fault, for believing that the articles we wrote were actually textual? That's the kind of thing we shouldn't be propagating. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - Blanking of user and user talk pages and indefinite full protection per Drmies, Dennis and others above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Drmies is simply taking the easiest path to preventing martyrdom or disruption of Qworty's page. The subject is still under BLP and given the dispute; and not even the public nature of ANI prevented a rather venomous personal attack. The media is probably watching this still and reading our responses to see how we handle this. It may be drastic, but the actions serve to protect both Qworty and Wikipedia's image by not allowing editors a highly visible place to vent their frustrations. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support blanking and enforcement thereof. The community does not need to discuss stuff indefinitely—some may want to do that, but please do it elsewhere because it is distracting when on-wiki (distracting because such endless discussion/bickering makes people forget that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia). The page is being blanked to avoid misuse of Wikipedia for gravedancing or grandstanding—if someone outside Wikipedia thinks it is for spite they are mistaken. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, if now is too hasty, perhaps tomorrow someone can blank the talk page, leaving some appropriate "courtesy blanking" notice or whatever. Maybe Chris is right and I opted for the easiest path--it'd be a first. I don't object to the latest edit by User:BullRangifer on the user page and I will go ahead and protect that right now (AN is probably the best venue to discuss issues pertaining to the user page). The talk page could maybe use something similar, some kind of explanation with perhaps some links (though the box on the user page covers it, methinks); I'll leave that for others to decide. And then we move on. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose blanking of the page and support reverting it to this version. Partly per TDA, with whom I agree when he says "There is no real purpose to blanking his talk page except to bury everything else about him in a revision history and leave only the tag of shame." and partly per ChrisGualtieri (I know he supports blanking), with whom I agree when he says "The media is probably watching this still and reading our responses to see how we handle this." Blanking this page is the wrong move from a PR perspective (the coverup is worse than the crime). If the media is watching then the chance that they'll know how to look through the page history is small. It just looks like a coverup. Also, the original version of the page as left by Qworty has been quoted in two articles already, with doubtless more to come. For an institution that makes a talisman of the phrase "the sum of human knowledge" to even seem to be covering up what is now a primary source for a notable episode in its history not only looks bad, it is bad. Obviously there are no BLP concerns. The guy put the stuff on his own user page. Presumably the most respectful thing to do is to leave it alone. To call it "courtesy blanking" is especially bad. It's not a courtesy if the editor hasn't requested it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • "Courtesy blanking" doesn't mean "courtesy to the editor"--the term applies also to attack pages, copyright violations, etc. A permanent link to this discussion, with an explanation perhaps, undoes the cover-up bit. BTW, there are BLP concerns, since Qworty now has a real name as well; on the other side, the soapbox side, there's the "shtick" section, which in my opinion is inappropriate. Alf, I often agree with you, but not here. And now I will drop this particular stick--sorry for being so verbose in this thread. Drmies (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Chris and John both cite stopping discussions on the user talk page as a cause for blanking, but this purpose would be served just as well by indefinitely full-protecting the page in its current state. No need for blanking at all.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • On a further note I see Rangifer has once more restored the completely absurd and redundant tagging of Qworty as blocked and banned together with the list of links, while Drmies went in and full-protected the page in said state. The reinsertion of the links was undoing an action by the original blocking admin Ironholds that he explained well enough. You two and any who support you should start heeding his words, not because of any special authority he is perceived to have, but because he is right and it is right. This whole debate and any action that endorses the current state or compounds upon it by blanking his talk page as well, serves no constructive purpose whatsoever. His punishment has been meted out in spades: harassed, outed, his misdeeds exposed to the press, banned, tagged, and the community turned against him. Why is that not enough to sate your blood lust?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I hadn't seen Ironholds' comments on the talk page when I restored the links. I left out the sentence/phrase that offended someone. I hope everyone noticed that. It's not a complete restoration. What's left is totally neutral and useful information. Leaving it there will help to avoid misunderstandings. Readers and journalists who are not familiar with the workings of Wikipedia will not know how to find this information and may write inaccurate things that will do no justice to Wikipedia or Young. If anyone has objections to the neutrality of the links, then let's discuss it, but just deleting without policy-based reasons is not a good option. This is an exceptional case and therefore we're doing something a little different this time and it does no harm at all. On the contrary. Try to AGF. There is no attack or harassment in this action at all. Otherwise, blanking of the page and leaving tags happens to be totally normal practice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Only the banned tag is normal practice, not all the tags added after that. Not even sure why we have the block tag and we certainly don't need it when there is already a ban tag. As far as "does no harm", I imagine you would have a different perspective were you on the receiving end and are right now being clouded by your malice.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 07:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The page now states that "Sockpuppet investigation revealing the many sockpuppets used by Qworty/Robert Clark Young." The problem is that the list of possible socks was stale, and no sleepers were found. [43] Without a CU there are many accounts there that may well be socks, and did seem to act like them, but there are also some which feel less certain. I'm not sure that we should be linking to that with the description that that it revealed the socks, when a CU wasn't run. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Link should just be titled "Sockpuppet investigation (2013)" Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good solution, but it's a moot point, now that the page has been completely blanked. Unfortunately the lack of information will contribute to confusion in the public and journalists, who will likely make mistakes due to lack of information. This lack of helpfulness will not improve the reputation of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongly support blanking both userpage and talkpage, per my statement here. Ironholds (talk) 09:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a fan of censorship at the best of times, & doing this when greater offenses haven't produced this result is an overreaction & unjustified punishment. It makes me wonder why. If an uninvolved editor, like myself, can come to the discussion & suspect (rightly or wrongly) the decision makers had a bias, then the process is flawed & the decision rendered certainly is. That outcome is not good for WP. Neither do I think that was the intended outcome. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 12:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • lock it down I'm looking at User:Essjay, which is fully protected in a more egregious state, and it seems to me that leaving this locked, without all the "helpful" links, is as good a state as any, and would give people an opportunity to find something useful to do. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever the outcome, it is best given BLP, that people stop discussing that person there. People may discuss reliable sources and encyclopedic phrasing on the talk page of that subject's BLP article, if it remains on the Pedia. Or choose other forums off the Pedia for their general opinions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To reply to the matter of full protection, the user page is typically wiped clean as in the case of Bambifan101 and other LTA accounts, but the talk page often remains. Full Protecting the talk page I guess works out, though it leaves that little 'essay' and gives easy access to links which attack him. The matter of it being done off-wiki and that the user cannot remove them is of slight concern to me. Also, the page on the subject has been essentially trashed and links back to the user page. If full protection is what the community decides then I am fine with that. Qworty's stance and essay are one thing, but given the subject's page is referenced back from the article and the content is negative (even if true), it does not seem that this current drama is worth expanding to non-editors. The subject is under BLP all the same, and a permanent page full of dirt on this matter will be seen by many people who have to work with the editor as part of their career. Most sockpuppets don't have this off-wiki drama attached to their block, Qworty does, the fact the article was axed and throws the 'Wikipedia' controversy back seems to be Wikipedia's own way of preserving the conflict. And I'm not saying sweep it under the rug, I just see no need for it to remain given the nature of this dispute having a major off-wiki presence which will impact the subject's real-life and career. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment I've boldly added the {{subst:courtesy blanked}} template to both the user and talk page, and extended the full protection to indefinite. No tag of shame, no one gets the last word. The editor is community banned, meaning they are no longer a member of the community. Terms like "censoring" have no meaning in this context as non-community persons don't share the same rights to opine that community members do, per WP:BAN. Of course, this doesn't mean we can justify anyone dancing on their graves either. None of the history has been deleted and anyone needing access to the previous information can with a single click. Assuming he doesn't start sockpuppeting, no tag on his user page is likely needed as any admin that sees that tag knows to check the history before unblocking. This addresses the concerns expressed above about it being used for shame and being used for a soapbox in the most neutral way. I have no opinion on the validity of the ban itself, and I didn't participate in that discussion. I understand some may disagree, but at the end of the day someone has to do something and this seems to be the best compromise that fits the consensus while addressing the real concerns expressed herein. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse protection/Support blanking If you look at the talk pages of other banned users, you will see massive amounts of grave dancing and martyrdom. If the page is protected and blanked now, we can prevent this kind of negative energy for arising in the first place. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 14:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the move by Dennis as a suitable compromise.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Fine with me as well. DA, in regard to your comment above, I don't wish to break a lance for any template/box. I had no problem with it being there, I have no problem with it being removed. Now that the SPI has (just) closed with the note that no obvious sleepers were found, certainly that link does not deserve a prominent place anymore. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, been busy today. I fully approve of the resolution here... apologies if I caused drama while I was trying to stifle drama ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

WP:OWN on 2013_Moore_tornado by United States Man (talk · contribs) [edit]

Much ado about nothing. Shadowjams's proposal that we don't write nothing about nothing until it's over a year old is filed with ArbCom, the WMF, and the MMA project. They'll be in touch, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

A major edit war (something that would go at WP:AN3RR), but it involves an ownership of articles. I count 22 reverts in the past 36 hours on a number of articles, hence implying an ownership. I also suspect some borderline personal attacks. I could link to the all, but his contribs page says it all. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you select some of the worst problems, provide diffs, and a brief contextual explanation as to their problems? I see a LOT of editing by that editor on the Tornado article, but that's not unusual. The fact that someone is making a lot of edits is not itself a sign of ownership, nor is reverts, per se; a fluid article on a recent news story attracts a lot of editing, and not all of it is good. I have seen nothing in scanning his recent contribs list that stands out as problematic, at least as self-evidently as you seem to imply it is. If there are problems, it would help if you gave actual diffs of the worst of the worst and explained what is wrong. --Jayron32 03:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • This is what happens when people forget that this isn't a newspaper and think that being first somehow makes it good. We should have a rule forcing a 24 hour wait on current events. Since we're WP:NOTNEWS, it really wouldn't hurt. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
YE always seems to revert any changes I make to articles like this. Why he does that I will never know. Anyway, I would love to know how WP:OWN applies. YE started an edit war with me because I took something off the talk page that was WP:FORUM. The rest was reverting rating and death toll changes to the tornado. I don't think I did anything wrong - other than the mess with YE. United States Man (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I originally gave the editor a 3RR warning for a rather pointless sequence of reverts where he removed improvements to the article's infobox, with the excuse that it was "taking up space": [44][45][46][47]. He proceeded to blank the warning, and engage in a low-grade revert war on his talk page about removing the warning, then followed by a straight revert of a good-faith wording change by an anonymous user, which caused another round of reverts.[48][49] Add to that incivility in the article's talk page, and it seems to me that the editor needs a break from the article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec)I will admit that those reverts were my fault. I repeatedly asked what was being changed by those edits. When the user finally explained I realized that I was wrong and backed off. The thing with the talk page was that I did not know that I didn't have the right to take those off of my talk page. I see others do it all the time. I did end up archiving the thread and all is well there. Whenever I get mad and start something, I usually try to fix it. United States Man (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The only edit that I see that was wrong with the list Yellow Evan gave was this, which was sort of harsh. The application for protection was because people kept putting in wrong ratings and death tolls (sometimes just plain vandalism). WP:OWN does not apply there last time I checked. This was not being hateful, but rather being in a hurry. This was nowhere close to WP:CIVL, just asking what difference it made, which I would have known if I had looked hard enough (again my fault). These are just examples of me being a little aggravated, that's all. United States Man (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As for the talk page, you don't "the right" since editing is a privilege not a right. You are technically allowed to remove warnings off your talk page, but it is not encouraged. YE Pacific Hurricane
I am not aware of any encouragement to keep such notices on one's talk page. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Correct in one - removing a talk page notice is tacit acknowledgement that you have read the notice. You can't say you missed it later when we have a diff of you removing it, after all. But that goes both ways - you really can't get off with ignoring it either. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • US Man, those two editors that reverted your edits to your talk page have been told that they had no right to do that. See WP:OWNTALK: you have the right to do with your talk page as you please, pretty much, and don't let them tell you otherwise. [OK, that's obviously not Bradspeak since there's a ton of things you can't do (see WP:TALKNO), but none of these things were happening here.] Drmies (talk) 03:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked over all the actual diffs that were posted.... I'm not sure how much further one's expected to dig into the edit history on something that's barely 12 hours old... I don't think removing a large criticism from your talk page is good form, but it's allowed, nor do I think the other edits are particularly bad, nor do I think their removals are explained (at all). This is stupid btw... this is a pending natural disaster, there are hundreds of people hurt, and you guys are bitching over absolutely nothing of substance. Grow up and do some good with the article. Whatever "not news" therefore we shouldn't talk about anything current (let's make it a year, for fun) talk is above, that's not how we work, and people look to wikipedia for useful information. I don't see anything admin worthy here [yet], but you two need a strong slap on the wrist. None of this should have ever been brought here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Shadowjams here. I was hopping for more on the [[[WP:3RR]] side of this, but I had no idea there was some encouragement against recent events. However, since we are clearly getting nowhere, I withdraw this request. I am not here to fight people 24/7 I am here to wrtie articles and build an encyclopedia after all :) YE Pacific Hurricane 12:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikihounding: Threat and follow-through [edit]

By the power invested in me, by the honorable William J Le Petomane, I hereby close this thread. Final warning issued to Steelbeard. "Advice" given to all involved. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Steelbeard1 openly threatened to commit Wikihounding against me back in April. He was warned by an admin at that time that his behaviour "is indeed considered wikihounding". Eventually I stopped hearing from him and I thought it was over. On May 21 he started confronting me again and promptly admitted that he has been following my edits with the intent of giving his input in any "editing disputes" I am involved with.

It is abundantly clear that he is once again wikistalking me, and is not only vowing to Wikihound me but is clearly following through on that vow. He is also threatening retaliation if I report his behaviour:

ChakaKongtalk 13:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I follow any editor who makes obviously false edits if you recall from his glaringly false edit in the MGM Music article. Because he got involved in an editing dispute which I hoped I settled in the Black Sabbath (album) article, I had to settle things there. If you read the top of his talk page, the statement he made regarding his involvement in editing disputes is very hostile and he refuses to apologize regarding his hostile reply to my polite pointing out the faulty edit he made. I think the problem with with Kong, not me. See [54] Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

While I have not yet looked into the underlying edits, I will say this: Steelbeard, it's not your job to police another editor's edits. If Kong repeatedly posts false information, we have places to report that sort of thing. But vowing to "keep doing it until you apologize" is the very definition of wikihounding. Who gives a shit if they apologize or not? Clearly they will not discuss the matter with you, so let it go, report it, and move on. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, Kong - I don't know that Steelbeard is wrong about the MGM Music thing, though - what was the deal there? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
@ UltraExactZZ: Here is the edit he's referring to. An anonymous IP added unsourced content and all I did was revert that edit per guidelines. That's all I did. Steelbeard1 is somehow interpreting that as something terrible. I didn't actually add anything to the article. If there was incorrect info there, it was added previously by someone else, not me.
*[55]
ChakaKongtalk 13:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What Kong should have done is insert a [citation needed] tag to request a citation. When I reverted his faulty edit, I added the citation. My issue with Kong, again, is his hostility regarding faulty edits when they are pointed out to him. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Repeatedly describing edits as "faulty" also comes across as rather hostile. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
What other word should be used to describe an obviously false edit, Dricherby? Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"Obviously false" is even more hostile and suggests that the editor was lying (perhaps you're not a native speaker and didn't intend that meaning). In the case of the edit [56] linked above, removal of unsourced material seems to be a valid option and is certainly not "false". It was just an edit you disagreed with. Dricherby (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not that I disagree with the edit, it that the edit was just plain wrong, false, incorrect, untruthful, etc. Those already familiar with the pre-1986 MGM soundtracks know that Time Warner sold Warner Music Group in 2004 and Warner Music's license to issue the material has expired. Here is the edit which is at the core of the problem which is at [57] in which ChakaKong reverted an uncited, but true passage which created an obviously false passage repeating what User:Superastig, who is notorious for making false edits, made at [58]. I follow Superastig as well because of his questionable edits. If you look at his talk page's history, he deletes comments about his faulty edits. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Removing a message from one's talk page is clear and documentable evidence that the editor has seen the message, and may be presumed to have read it. There is no rule that prevents editors from removing messages from their talk pages, unless it is a block notice or reviewed unblock request and they are currently blocked - and that caveat does not apply here. Did ChakaKong continue to revert on MGM Music after you added a citation? You mention questionable edits, plural - what other questionable edits do you refer to? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I made no aditional edits to MGM Music after Steelbeard got upset. If he has ever had an issue with any other edit of mine, he hasn't stated it yet. ChakaKongtalk 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
My issue with Kong is his hostile reply to my pointing out the problem with his edit as well as his posting on the top of his talk page to all who have issues with his edits which I consider to be hostile. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, that (the talk page thing) is not really that unreasonable a concern - and you may consider ChakaKong to have been made aware of it. You cite no diff for the other thing. Now, I'm going to ask you to voluntarily ban yourself from any sort of interaction with ChakaKong or any discussion in which he is already involved. You have been wikihounding him for no clear purpose, and that needs to stop right now. If you are unwilling to voluntarily stop and walk away from this, it is likely that you will be subjected to an involuntary ban - one with far stricter constraints on your editing. You may even be blocked from editing. Please end this. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Here user Steelbeard1 clearly admits that the "faulty edit" which has driven him to wikihound me was actually done by another editor and not by me. ChakaKongtalk 14:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, clearly in reverting an unsourced change you reintroduced incorrect information to the article - and I find your lack of perfection in your editing appalling enough to recommend an indefinite block. How DARE you make a mistake? What nerve. See how dumb that sounds? In all seriousness, reverting to the status quo was a reasonable edit, and what errors were introduced were not introduced by you AND were rapidly fixed by Steelbeard when he posted the correct info with a source. That's the way these things work, and I for one have no problem with that edit. You're good. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


For reference, this previously came up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#User_talk:ChakaKong, about three weeks ago. It was closed without action. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Regardless of whether the reversion of the IP was sound or not, there is clear evidence of Wikistalking by Steelbeard. Ergo, I propose that a final warning be given to Steelbeard. If they continue their stalking after said final warning, then further preventative measures shall be in order. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I want to see Steelbeard's response to my question, above, but yeah - I'm leaning that way as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Give him some time, I'm sure he's very busy combing through every edit I've made in the past six months in an attempt to find an example of imperfection. ChakaKongtalk 15:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I've seen enough - and have asked him to voluntarily enter into an interaction ban with you and pages on which you are involved, as per WP:IBAN. If he does so - or if we have to impose such a ban - would you do me a favor and keep your distance from him as well? No need to poke at it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I will very happily keep my distance from him. ChakaKongtalk 15:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it was just that one edit and the more recent edit dispute I ran across. My issue with Kong is his downright hostility when I pointed out that first faulty edit to him. Let me ask this question to the administrators reading this thread. What would you do if you found a faulty edit, politely let the editor know he made the faulty edit only to receive an angry and hostile response which greatly offended you. I had stated that I would let the matter slide if Kong apologized, but he refused to. So now it led to this moment where I may be punished over Kong's open hostility to me. Let's make a deal. If Kong apologizes to me, I will unwatch him. There may be a remote case where he makes a disputed edit in an article I am already following, but I can't help that. I hope this satisfies everyone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd love to see a diff of this hostile response from ChakaKong. As to your question, though - if someone made a faulty edit and I called them on it, and they left me an angry note about it? I'd probably reply with something along the lines of "OK, dude, whatever." And then I'd let it go. If they attacked me personally, I'd leave them an NPA warning. But I would not waste my time following them around. Our policy on Wikihounding does not include the language "Wikihounding is prohibited unless the other editor said a mean thing to you." Now, ChakaKong may have been out of line in saying whatever it is they said, or they may not have been. But your conduct has been unquestionably out of bounds - and reaffirming your intent to continue that wikihounding in a statement on ANI is singularly unwise. You may wish to reconsider that. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
@UltraExactZZ: Here is the diff of my "angry and hostile response" Steelbeaerd has been so offended by. I simply told him that my reverting an unsourced edit was a very poor reason for him to leave a warning on my talk page. The entire exchange can be read here. ChakaKongtalk 16:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I had noted Kong's goof at [59]. When I asked administrator Gfoley4 at [60] what the proper procedure to let an editor know that an edit was glaringly incorrect should be, he replied that what I did was fine and proper. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
(EC) Steelbeard, to be honest, you demanding an apology for some vague slight against you that you haven't bothered to illustrate does not reflect well on you. My good faith advice to you is just to get over whatever it was and go about your business, and leave ChakaKong alone. Dayewalker (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, administrator Gfoley4 informed Steelbeard that "your behavior is indeed considered wikihounding. This is disruptive, and you need to stop. If you don't, further consequences may be considered". Funny how that got left out. ChakaKongtalk 16:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
If was Gfoley4's posting on the original complaint page that inspired me to ask the question on his talk page as to what the proper procedure to let an editor know an incorrect edit was made. I also asked him on his talk page to add his input here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(OD) Steelbeard, you're trying to justify your actions by quoting an admin who told you a month ago [61] that you were hounding ChakaKong, and to leave him alone. Let it go, man. Dayewalker (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That is why I asked that admin what the proper procedure to let an editor he/she made a faulty edit should be and I did do that. But Kong's reply was far from receptive. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
At this point, multiple editors have pointed out to you that you're clearly and unashamedly stalking another editor, and you should stop. Your actions here aren't helping anyone, most of all you. At the most, this was a minor miscommunication. Dayewalker (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to close this, with some notes.

    Final warning to Steelbeard: your response was way over the top. I see no "hostility" in this response--it's perfectly valid and plenty neutral. Continue to follow ChakaKong and you will be blocked. And really, if that note was hostile to you, good luck in the real world; I'm surprised, frankly, that ChakaKong followed up in a relatively calm manner to your passive-aggressive comments and actions. Chill out. In general, and especially in this case.

    ChakaKong, I suggest that you remove that rather childish "warning" from the top of your talk page. We're not in middle school anymore; this was bad enough and this just made it worse. Talk pages are made for whining and bitching: get used to it. A notification like that serves only purpose: to piss people off before they even get started. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Bidgee [edit]

I would like to inform the admins of what I believe to be continued uncivil behaviour and unfounded complaints, of which I am at the receiving end at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_Roads#AUshielding_conversions.

The entire thread should be read through in its entirety, but there are quite a few diffs supplied below with some specific edits:

  • [62] - pure adhom.
  • [63] - topic discussed has nothing to do with US Roads anyway.
  • [64] - attempt to move the discussion to more suitable place thwarted with claims of "forum hopping".
  • [65] - threats to stop contributing content if I dont fall into line, dismissal of official noticeboard for WP:OR.
  • [66] - conspiracy claims, continuing about images supplied
  • [67] - issues with unrelated topics
  • [68] - more, continued conspiracy, likely unfounded claims of COI in a recent ACR i took part in



I have already removed myself from an RfC due to claims that I personally am trying to force a specific change, which is probably the basis of the conspiracy mentioned above. I probably did make a few nieve mistakes at that RfC, but these shouldnt follow me to other discussions, and they certainly should derail them to the extent they have so far.

I will comply with any and all requests for my own behaviour to be modified aswell. -- Nbound (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Murrallli and WP:BLP policy. [edit]

Rope extended; end of the roll. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Murrallli appears to have been repeatedly adding 'Category:Indian fraudsters' to articles in circumstances where the individual concerned has not been convicted of such an offence, in clear contravention of WP:BLP policy. See for example [69],[70],[71]. After the matter was first raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎#troublesome mass addition of cats, User:Murrallli has also chosen to issue what might possibly be interpreted as a (somewhat farcical) legal threat on my talk page: [72]. Can I ask that this matter be looked into, and appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at it - but right away I see that English may be an issue. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I cannot see a legal threat but that could be just my eyes (long day and it ain't even half over yet!), can you provide a specific diff please? Never mind, found it - diff of comment being removed. GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Fierce as I am in defending my fellow editors, I have to agree that the remarks don't constitute actual legal threats. I think, Andy, that the editor (whose English is sub-par) is threatening to report you to your supervisor or something. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) After taking a gander at that lovely message left on Andy's talkpage, this looks more like Wp: CIR and WP: NPA problems, IMHO. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me, I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot to be concerned about in your edits - this removed comment, for example, would have gotten you blocked outright had you not retracted it. Of greater concern, to me at least, is that you responded to questions about what you were doing and why by flipping out and saying a lot of really angry things. That's a problem. Do you understand that this is now how things are accomplished here? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has to be concerned over my edits, I dont understand, my english is better than u, that user's interpretations are sub par, user grumpy is wasting administrators time and my time, with trivial personal grudge on me (about categories), I am not even editing those articles now, he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true??? time waste Murrallli (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the incoherent statement above, I think we can assume that this editor is either trolling or just doesn't get it. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 15:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec)Yet here we are. If you can calm down and discuss Andy's concerns about your edits, maybe you might find that there are better ways to accomplish what you want to accomplish. Everything here is decided by consensus and discussion - getting angry when questioned about an edit is not going to get you anywhere. He questioned your edits to categories, you responded by threatening to go to his house. That's a problem. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Please stop repeating yourself, comments like "he can interpret any thing, he can interpret a devil, it will become true???" do not make any sense in English. You need to listen to the good advice you are being given, or you might end up being blocked GiantSnowman 15:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Admin? Competence block? Looks a slam dunk to me.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Is it not a disparagement to refer to User:AndyTheGrump as "grumpy"? Please do not use such derogations against fellow editors. DrPhen (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Not when Andy self-identifies as a grump through his username. ;) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I've no objection to being described as grumpy - but can we try and stay on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ On topic, they seem to have stopped editing for the moment, and their contribs in mainspace (other than the category thing, which they said they stopped) seem to be okay, so I'm not sure a competence block is indicated quite yet. If they come back posting the same thing yet again, then probably. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but a contributor who shows no understanding whatsoever of basic Wikipedia policy, resorts to threats and claims of a conspiracy when challenged, and spams pages with self-evidently-false claims regarding skills in the English language [73] doesn't look 'competent' to me. As of yet we have had no acknowledgement whatsoever from the contributor that their edits were improper, and nothing to indicate that a similar problem won't arise in the future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And the instant that editor posts another aggressive or attacking comment, I'll betcha you have half a dozen admins who will indef - myself included. But that editor does have a history, over the past few months, of good editing - so I don't think the situation is beyond salvage, as yet. One calm "Maybe I overreacted, won't happen again, etc etc" comment here coupled with an agreement to stay out of the whole category issue, and this goes away. A return to form, and we get to click "Block user". Not entirely sure which it will be. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
As Ultraexact said. Given that they've stopped, at least for now, we can afford to pull our punches a bit. If they continue being disruptive, then yes, blocks will be issued. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indef for a vandal at Obama Sr's page [edit]

Blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Obviously not here to contribute, has a fixation on Barack Obama, Sr., changing the name of the president to "Dictator Barack Hussein Osama-Hitler-Stalin Un]" and racist overtones as well, altering Sr's cause of death to "too much KFC". Tarc (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

YesY Done. AIV may have been just as quick, but this works too. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Himesh84 [edit]

This is user has now removed referenced content three times (1, 2, 3) from Jaffna kingdom which is a Good Article. I have tried explaining on the talk page the need for references and that his actions amounted to original research but he just ignores me. This editor has a long history of ignoring core content policies (see user's talk page) and has been blocked a number of times. --obi2canibetalk contr 18:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I have blocked for 72 hours, for edit warring and disruption. The bright line wasn't crossed, but it's edit warring nonetheless. Note: one might expect a longer block, given their rather extensive log, but I see no evidence of name-calling or the use of racial or other slurs, which is what prompted earlier, longer blocks. If I missed them, feel free to lengthen the block. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I was looking at that and debating action myself, not convinced a "Dear friend" letter was going to do the trick this time, so I have to agree with the block. I'm a bit concerned about the overall clue with the editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Good block. I'm afraid that this is becoming a lost cause but doesn't hurt to give yet another chance. I guess. --regentspark (comment) 20:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Good comment to become famous.
        • The origin of the medieval Jaffna kingdom is obscure and subjected of controversy among historians[17][18][19][20][21] until it was sorted out by Drmies,Obi2Canibe,regentspark

User:Parrot_of_Doom [edit]

Closing this enormous pile of nothing; nothing actionable, no admin intervention required. As the last comment says, there is nothing wrong with adults disagreeing. Black Kite (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

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

I came across User:Parrot_of_Doom while browsing the DR/N @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#A_Momentary_Lapse_of_Reason. I have no stake (nor opinion) in the actual content dispute, and note that User:Pigsonthewing is not blameless, but Parrot has a massive failure of several policies WP:3RR WP:CIVIL WP:OWN WP:NPA. This failure seems willfull, per the notice at the top of the user's talk page : " One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. [...] Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else."

His fundamental point may or may not be based in policy (Do featured articles have a higher standard of consensus/quality for incoming edits?), but his application thereof seems highly inappropriate.

and edit summaries such as "This is a featured article, either cite thing correctly and consistently or I will revert your changes. I make no apology for protecting an article against degradation like this"

or comments such as "Take your threats and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. If you want to add material here, do it properly, or lose it"

A few other choice diffs regarding previous warnings of policy violations [74] [75]


And it looks like he has been reported here quite a bit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=parrot+of+doom&prefix=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27+noticeboard&fulltext=Search+noticeboards+%26+archives&fulltext=Search Gaijin42 (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Old news, and you don't request any administrative action. I suggest you not bother PoD with a notification of this thread, and let me do it. I'm closing it.Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment (edit conflict)This does not looks good. I see multiple problems with this user's behaviors. Most recently: WP: OWN problems (here), WP: NPA (calling another PotW's edit "degradation"), WP: CIVIL (refusing to discuss on the talk page) and general WP: IDHT. Something really needs to be done about this user's incivility. I fear it may create big problems in the future, especially for new editors. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    And what do you suggest that "something" ought to be? Eric Corbett 20:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    At least a stern warning. If it continues, possible future sanctions (e.g. blocks or 1RR restrictions perhaps). Open to suggestions, of course. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    You wouldn't like what I'd suggest, but it would involve acting like an adult, not a sulky child. Eric Corbett 21:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Please read WP: NPA. Calling other another editor a "sulky child" is not appropriate. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    Thank for the blue link, so instructive. Just remind me, who did I call a sulky child? Eric Corbett 21:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    (ec)So ... it's the job of the main editor on the page to just suck it up and deal with someone coming in and adding information (which may or may not be reliable) in any form the adding editor wants... no matter the fact that the article being added to is a featured article and must meet some criteria, including consistency of referencing format? Andy's not a newbie editor - he knows what a featured article is and he should know how to add reference information in different styles to conform to the style used in the article. Adding information in a style that doesn't conform to the article's consistent style IS degradation, especially in a featured article. I kinda doubt that PoD would have been nearly so bitey with a true newbie, but Andy should know better. Neither are clean here, and the best outcome would be for both of them to back down a bit. But right now I'm seeing calls for PoD to back down, but nothing about the confrontational additions from the other side. Frankly, as someone with a decent number of article edits under my belt, I find the constant demands that I clean up other editor's messes sometimes very very trying. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ PoD is quite correct to be vigilant about ensuring quality of articles. He however must do so without edit warring, making unilateral ownership decisions, and making repeated uncivil attacks against other editors. As I stated in my original comment, Pigs also has issues, but the issue with Parrot is that these isues appear to be endemic, and since he has seen fit to post on his user page that he will completely ignore all such issues, and that those who disagree should "screw off". Gaijin42 (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wholeheartedly agree. The edit wasn't particularly sound, and I know i've seen Pigsonthewing here at AN/I before. That still doesn't make it ok to direct those kinds of comments at other users. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 21:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be suffering from some kind of selective blindness. Why did you choose to bring PoD here rather than Pigsonthewing, who I believe has served two lengthy bans for his behaviour? Eric Corbett 21:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Content aside (and is the change for a band image from 1971 to 1973 verified?), this edit is just of real poor quality--I know how much time it takes to get the referencing right, and sticking in a bare URL and a "reference" like this, <ref>[[Classic Rock (magazine)|Classic Rock]]'' 2010 calendar</ref>, in an FA, that's in such poor taste that I can't fault PoD for getting exasperated. "because you don't like the formatting", as is cited in an edit summary or two, is totally off the mark: the formatting sucks, and continuing to add it without addressing the problem (PoD stated repeatedly on the talk page that he won't stand in the way of the addition of properly formatted referenced information) is...what, baiting, really. Perhaps Pigsonthewing doesn't care about another block and feels he can afford one, but we should not let him mess up an FA in hopes of other editors cleaning up his mess. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Quite frankly, Mabbett's edits were crap; the bare ref, the middling trivia about the beds and the tide roll-in, and the technically incorrect caption alteration (protip; a poster isn't the same thing as a gatefold). Bad edits + churlish non-attempts to explain oneself deserve the type of reaction that Parrot gave. Civility is a trivial concern compared with making an artcle worse than it was before one touched it. Tarc (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposal Now that a little light has been shed on this case, I think we can come to a conclusion. I propose that both editors be warned, Pigsonthewing for making bad/baiting edits, and Parrot of Doom for incivility. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 22:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    And that would be likely to achieve what in your opinion? Sometimes adults need to be allowed to disagree. Eric Corbett 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sock creating doppleganger? acct and trolling admin [edit]

See [76], would someone like to step in and block some IPs and this acct? dont think the user is online at the present. Heiro 20:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The account is blocked. Not sure about blocking the IPs, probably too big a range. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Heiro, How you doing?? and Oh Hi zzuzz. Need any assistance in blocking me? Heiir0 (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment Now they have started socking as Heiir0 (blocked by zzuuzz). Someone should probably open a SPI. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And another one (User:Zuuzzz) blocked. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
These are all User:Mailersonly. He's only about the 400th person to get a thrill from discovering that he can make sockpuppets. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we get a checkuser to shut this down at the source? --Jayron32 23:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I personally believe this guy is the 100003020240th guy to get kicks from socking. 1st place goes to BambiFan101. 173.58.104.137 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Hortobagy [edit]

I would like to raise attention for User:Hortobagy. He violated 3 revert rule dozen's and dozen's of times in the past few days. For example:

  • 8 reverts in 24 hours (Actually he created an unwanted fork article):

[77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]

  • An article had been speedy deleted, however he recreated it. His second article has been speedy deleted recently. Romani autonomy in Hungary
  • He deliberately creates unwanted forks or articles without sources. For example:[85]

Please check his contributions. Is it normal what he is doing??? Fakirbakir (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

No, IMO he's heading for a ban. While we're on the subject, this reminds me a bit of Bonaparte (talk · contribs). Anyone remember him? -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive797#4_Socks. Dricherby (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • While you folk decide what to do about the editor in the long term, I've blocked them for one week based on a report at WP:ANEW.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Gounc123 [edit]

Gounc123 has made several unsourced edits to various wikipedia pages and incorporated lots of original research into what he contributes. I've deleted the content several times and he just continues to replace it claiming it is related - which it is, but there is no sourcing for it. I'm not the only editor to have removed some of his edits due to the sourcing issues and original research: 1, 2, and 3. I've posted on his talk page several times about his edits and that I want to talk about the edits in question (1 and 2). However, he just deletes my posts, along with the other editors who have posted on his talk page, and refuses to talk and maybe come to a compromise. He posted on my talk page (here) and he uses language that is offensive and directed towards me as an insult. He has also posted on the talk page of another article where he is clearly mocking another editor or insulting (here). He also posted on that same editors page here and seemed to lash out again.

Most recently I've removed a lot of information from the 2013 North Carolina Tar Heels football team page where I found the material in question to be unsourced and largely original research, and there is still some material I left up on the page (mainly the position chart since he says he based the depth chart off of previous seasons and the spring game roster). In my edits to the page I explain why I delete the information - or atleast I believe I have. At first I let it go by since he was new to the site and everything, but his constant adding of unsourced and original research has gotten out of hand in my opinion. His conduct has also been stretching the boundaries. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment from goUNC123: I am energetically going to "discuss" this issue listed above (this comment from 5/22/13) as one editor who consistently goes around deleting information with no reason and offering to reasonable explanation is launching a full-out campaign to get me to stop contributing to Wikipedia. I have no problem when "editors" make well-informed edits/deletes that serve to add to the quality of the page, but I do think that it is a large problem for all of Wikipedia, not just me, when people just go around deleting so that they can feel some personal worth deleting content from a bedroom in their parent's house.
This is an interesting campaign from this editor that has to be under 15 years old. For one, it illustrates the vagary of the editor landscape on Wikipedia. Some editors will propose deleting an entire section by putting it on the talk page – a form of a compromise. Other editors will lash out at deleted entries that don't have a sufficient explanation. I think this dynamic can add value in some cases, but when the editor is simply deleting to feel some form of power – THAT is a problem for Wikipedia as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gounc123 (talk • contribs)
There is definitely a protracted problem with WP:OWN and WP:NPA here. The only time this editor has ever used an article talk page is Talk:2013 NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse Championship which amounts to a personal attack on Giants27 (talk · contribs).
The ad-hominem attack on Disc Wheel above based on his/her age is a great example of the problem.
This rant on his talk page, tells me that this user has no intent to contribute constructively and interact with other users. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
After his/her last comment, I don't think there is much else for me to say. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Legal Threat at Help Desk [edit]

User:Joseph2707 has made a legal threat at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Correction_or_retraction_required Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The legal threat was made as a result of a WP:BLP violation that has been properly removed by User:AndyTheGrump. Andy has also warned the user of WP:NPA. I can't speak for other admins, but I'm not inclined to block the user.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Exactly - WP:NLT policy makes it entirely clear that we don't jump down the throat of someone making a reasonable complaint about a WP:BLP violation or the like simply on the grounds that they use words like 'sue'. We cannot assume that every non-contributor is familiar with the finer points of Wikipedia policy, and to do so is a sure-fire way to escalate things unnecessarily. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Since no one has linked it, WP:DOLT should be read, to wit, "When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." --Jayron32 03:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:SpazAbiogenesis [edit]

User:SpazAbiogenesis is an obvious block-evading sockpuppet of User:MDPub13 and User:EunuchRU, both of whom have been indeffed for personal attacks, threats and block evasion. SpazAbiogenesis is continuing to post the exact same abusive vandalism that MDPub13 was blocked for.

User:MDPub13 admitted his ability and intent to engage in massive sockpuppetry.

An open SPI case exists at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AbioScientistGenesis, but has not yet been responded to. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wer900 proposing to proxy-edit on behalf of site-banned user Captain Occam [edit]

Wer900 has agree to stop proxy editing. I'm sure he will take the comments in this thread on board. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Captain Occam has become one of the most disruptive site-banned users on wikipedia. He has edited through several proxy editors including his girlfriend Ferahgo the Assassin (now site-banned by arbcom) and TrevelyanL85A2 (a cyberfriend of his girlfriend, now indefinitely blocked) amongst others. With his girlfriend he has also socked as Zeromus1 (blocked by arbcom), Mors Martell (also blocked by arbcom) and most recently it would appear through Akuri (blocked by arbitrators). Through a series of sockpuppets and proxy-editors, most notably the indefinitely blocked user Cla68, he has continued to wage an irrational vendetta against me. The sockpuppet Akuri was discovered recently for reasons connected with that. Captain Occam's editing through others has been obsessive and disruption-only. At the moment he is using wikipediocracy as his base. A user active there, Wer900, has proposed to act as a proxy editor for Captain Occam on wikipedia to continue his campaigns here.[86] I have never been aware of the activitives of Wer900 on wikipedia but was notified of their posting by the new notification process. That is a splendid innovation. If Wer900 is intending to act as a disruptive agent for a site-banned user, who has caused huge amounts of disruption already on wikipedia through proxies and sockpuppets, please could his editing be dealt with in an efficient way? Captain Occam is amongst the site-banned editors to have caused large amounts of disruption since being banned. All indications were that Akuri, a disruption-only account, was operated by Captain Occam. That account was blocked recently by arbitrators. So now, seemingly as a direct consequence of that block, Captain Occam is delving deeper into his dirty tricks bag to make mischief on wikipedia. (On the off-wiki site Wikipediocracy, User:Stanistani and User:Cla68 have encouraged disruption by Captain Occam. Stanistani is now behaving in a disruptive way on wikipedia.[87]) Mathsci (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to act as a "disruptive agent," I'm merely interested in filing a case on his behalf. I've emailed arbcom-I on whether or not such a case has been policy-compliant. If you look through my contribution records, I've not gone anywhere near Captain Occam in the past, and as stated above I'm trying to accomplish this in the most policy-compliant fashion possible. Please end this needless witch-hunt as soon as possible. Wer900 • talk 03:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I was interested in governance reform of the community, and hoped that the case recommended by Captain Occam could in some way further the construction of further institutions. Again, I've messaged ArbCom to see whether my proposed actions would be compliant with policy or not. Wer900 • talk 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In the spirit of free inquiry, Mathsci has the right to face his accusers. Since his accusers are banned and blocked, the community can't do anything in this matter. Viriditas (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Openly proxy-editing to promote the disruption-only agenda of a user, site-banned by arbcom, can only result in your own editing privileges being withdrawn if you continue. Given the history connected with WP:ARBR&I, particularly recently, it is known that Captain Occam (with his friends) has knowingly engaged in deceptive editing on wikipedia. So editing on his behalf as you admit to doing is not permitted on wikipedia. You cannot act as the agent for a disruption-only arbcom-banned account like Captain Occam. He is an extreme case. You might think it's fun, but that is not how wikipedia works. You are simply continuing Captain Occam's purely malicious campaigns. How difficult is it to understand that? Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
He may not be aware of this. Best to AGF until proven otherwise. Wer900 may have just opened a can of worms without really understanding the backstory. Maybe it is best to let this go, close the thread, and hope he drops it. I realize that this requires you to make a leap of faith, but you have nothing to lose. At this point, I think he deserves to be able to safely exit this thread with nothing more than a reminder. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Wer900, you need to stop this. Captain Occam is definitely not welcome to edit through proxies here, be it in matters of article content or with Arbcom requests or anything. Doing anything at all here on Wikipedia at his request is a very very bad idea. Fut.Perf. ☼ 03:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'm stopping this. I'l relay to Captain Occam that I cannot edit on his behalf. Wer900 • talk 04:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Wer900: "Apparently Mathsci has taken ownership of articles related to Poland" [edit]

That's here. [88] I have never edited any articles to do with Poland. Wer900 has mistaken me for someone else and has caused unnecessary offence. Is that why he has submitted a report in private to the arbitration committee? If Wer900 has no idea what's going on, he would be better off leaving matters alone. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what Captain Occam and others have told me on Wikipediocracy; I shouln't take it on faith. Again, I have no desire to extend this. Any admin can close the thread at this point. Wer900 • talk 04:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A sensible solution. Closing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Wer900 cannot come on wikipedia repeating things like this just because site-banned Captain Occam has said it on wikipediocracy. My last 2000 content edits on wikipedia have been in mathematics, on the topic of hermitian symmetric space, Jordan operator algebra, Mutation (Jordan algebra), symmetric cone, Quadratic Jordan algebra, etc. No articles even vaguely related to Poland. If Captain Occam has been making false statements off-wiki, why repeat them on wikipedia? Akuri is mentioning Wer900 now on his talk page. More evidence, if it were needed, that Akuri is an account operated by Captain Occam.[89] Not good. Mathsci (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Tabarez: Edit warring and WP:OWN on Iranian presidential election, 2013 [edit]

Tabarez was warned last night (21 May, 2013) by admin Toddst1 that "Continued edit warring on Iranian presidential election, 2013 or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice", but is at it again this morning, reverting other ppl's edits and making edits with total disregard for the opinion of others. An attitude that he has also shown on all other articles he has edited during his short but very active career here on en-WP. In spite of numerous ppl posting both stern warnings and friendly advice on his talk page (which he has blanked). He has also uploaded a fairly large number of images with dubious copyright claims, of which some have been speedily deleted as blatant copyvios while most of the others have been tagged as possibly unfree, and currently up for discussion. The uploads, the edit warring and the tendency to treat all articles he edits as his own property makes me believe that there is a WP:CIR problem, something that a period of forced rest from en-WP might help solve, by making him realize that he can't go on the way he currently does. Thomas.W (talk) 09:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I warns and I know what he said. But User:Farhikht reverted all my edits in the page. I add to page talk about the inbox but he only reverted. I add polls. You can see the page now. It's not correct. In inbox, only candidates with major chance must be not all candidates. Their name must be complete not A.M.AAA!!!! Please warns to him not me. Tabarez (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I can add that there also seems to be a language problem, with User:Tabarez possibly not understanding the advice and the warnings he gets. Which also means that there is very little meaning in pointing him to policy pages and general information for new editors. Thomas.W (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes I don't know English completely but why he reverted all my edits in other sections? I correct the names that are incomplete but he reverted. Tabarez (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
@Tabarez: I explained you many times, on your talk page as well as on the article's talk page. But the fact is that you ignore all these friendly advice and warnings. I can provide diffs of all these warnings, your edit wars, etc if it's necessary.Farhikht (talk) 11:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tabarez (talk · contribs) and Farhikht (talk · contribs) both blocked 24 hours for edit warring. I suspect this is problem is not over yet. Toddst1 (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Too little on User:Tabarez and too much on User:Farhikht IMHO, since it was Tabarez who caused the problems. For whatever my opinion is worth. Thomas.W (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Vtatultiwari move mess needs fixing [edit]

Issue resolved. User pages restored to proper format by User:Scott Martin -- Alexf(talk) 18:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Vtatultiwari has been making a mess of moving his user page to other namespaces. So much so that it got me conused and now we have two user pages, one in user space and one as: Wikipedia:User:Vtatultiwari. Granted, I believe it was done in good faith, just as a misguided user. Could use some help in cleaning it up as when I tried to undo some of his moves I may have broken it somewhat. I am not used to moves and definitely not to the Wikipedia project space where this does not belong. Anybody can take a look? Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 11:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

YesY Done. — Scott • talk 13:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Alexf(talk) 14:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Ricose [edit]

This user is continuously vandalizing articles even after repetitive warnings. His trait has been to remove the references as well as the referenced contents from an article and leaving an edit summary like removing peacocks and puffs or anything that would misguide other editors. Most recently he has been doing that in Joya Ahsan. I have successively warned the user with 3 vandalism templates on his talk page for his edits [90], [91], [92] but he kept on vandalizing the article. Further, he also went on to put a similar warning template on my talk page here. I have also found his edits being reverted for possible vandalism in the articles Tasbiha Binte Shahid Mila, Stoic Bliss etc. --Zayeem (talk) 11:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

hmm, interesting that you come to report me for "vandalism" when you're the one who was previously warned by both me and another administrator for continuously re-adding puff, peacockery and original research to articles? at the risk of repeating myself for what seems like the 100th time, wikipedia is NOT a place for inflated superfluous verbosity and personal advertising!Ricose (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't add any puffs or peacocks rather I just reverted your massive content removals in those articles. Though the articles were in quite bad shape and you were really removing puffs and peacocks from those articles but as I mentioned before you also removed many references and contents that were not puffs which you continued to do even after repetitive warnings. In this case of Joya Ahsan, you are simply vandalizing the article by removing the references and referenced contents which can be seen in the diffs given. --Zayeem (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

82.166.145.2 [edit]

82.166.145.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone try to get 82.166.145.2's attention to stop them copy pasting Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs articles into the encyclopedia please ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm worried about more than just the copyright violation, they seem to be dumping a lot of opinion into articles that isn't sourced. I've blocked three months (static IP) to essentially force them to discuss the issues. Any admin is free to unblock without notification once they are clued in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

IP reverting all edits by User:Trivialist [edit]

A user with a dynamic IP seems to be reverting all of User:Trivialist's edits. A couple of IP addresses have been blocked, but I fear that the only way to stop this may be a range block. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

--Rob Sinden (talk) 15:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
All four IPs blocked for 1 week each, though I agree this probably needs something stronger. GiantSnowman 15:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple more:

--Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I blocked these two. -- Alexf(talk) 16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Just noting my range block 81.17.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log) -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
These IPs belong to a company called "Private Layer INC". A few minutes Googling this name suggest the possibility that these IPs are associated with an anonymizing proxy. If so (someone more knowledgeable than me would have to confirm), then perhaps this range and other related ranges should be blocked for longer than 12 hours. Deli nk (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I would agree this line of inquiry merits further investigation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Also noting that I've blocked 81.17.31.192/26 (talk · contribs · block log) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I also just noticed that the range I blocked just came off a 6-month block, which expired two days ago. So I'll be extending that one to 1 year. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's one I found: 46.19.136.189 (talk · contribs). All of their edits were reverts/undos of Trivialist's edits. Worth a look ... --McDoobAU93 16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Organization: Private Layer Inc, Switzerland, net: 46.19.136.0/21 Thomas.W (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
According to the host, they have dynamic VPN really cheap. These are a common source of COI paid spammers as well. I wouldn't be opposed to a long block of their entire range(s). Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I've taken out 46.19.136.0/21 (talk · contribs · block log) until I (or someone else) have had a chance to have a closer look at their ranges. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect this may be related to my removal of affiliate links from articles about adult websites; I was contacted by an editor asking me to leave the affiliate links undisturbed. I'm not positive, but it seems possible. Trivialist (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Which editor? GiantSnowman 20:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
An anon using IPs; see my blacklist request for secure.vivid.com, and the anon edits I reverted on Tera Patrick and Rocco Siffredi which added linkfame.com affiliate links. Trivialist (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

delete my AC ASAP [edit]

I can't tell if it's simple trolling or lack of comprehension, but I've blocked for 24 hours to stop the ongoing disruption. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Look yeah...

I don't belong here

So delete my AC ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Wat r u waiting 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Judging by their edits, this person has either WP:COMPETENCE issues or is not here for the betterment of the 'pedia. Can someone step in and give them the block they seem to be requesting? Heiro 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


I just wan some RESPECT. Anyway, who was meant to understand those anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderchestfrantic (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

209.23.200.194 [edit]

209.23.200.194 (talk+ • tag • contribs • filter log • WHOIS  • RBLs  • block user • block log • cross-wiki contribs • checkip (log))

Looking at this users history and block log, is there any reason we shouldn't just block this IP for a year? Poking around the contribs, I found nothing of redeeming value. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The IP traces back to dexter-southfield.org - if disruption continues, I would recommend an extended {{schoolblock}}, given the edit history and block logs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I looked at only the edits for 2013. Because I found a couple that weren't blatant vandalism, I blocked the IP for six months instead of a year. I don't see why we need to wait.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem with Admin Cuchullain and Magic Hat Article [edit]

Case belongs in WP:DR. Not a pressing case for administrator's attention. -- Alexf(talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

It appears that the admin involved in this case, Cúchullain, will not allow the wording to change on the Magic_Hat_Brewing_Company article. The references clearly state that the Brewery is Costa Rican. Yet any attempt to allude to the Brewery initially as a Costa Rican one is immediately removed. While the article does state eventually that the Brewery is owned by a Costa Rican company it initially appears to be an american brand. This is strangely dishonest at first glance. I'd like another admin to take a look into this.... The Edits in question follow::

Lbparker40 (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • You are required to notify someone when you report them here. I've done it for you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you're in the wrong place. Try WP:DR. (Though, at a cursory glance, it does seem to me that "American brewery" is correct. Might be owned by a Costa Rican company but the brewery is in Vermont.) --regentspark (comment) 18:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Lbparker40, ANI is for problems that need an admin to get involved in, not for content disputes. The link above, WP:DR is for content disputes. It doesn't matter that he is an admin, this is about the article, not about administration. It looks like you are talking with him on his talk page, which is a good place to discuss the difference of opinion, but not at ANI. I suggest closing and let the regular dispute resolution process take place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unusual situation... [edit]

User:Barbarianbort is an account that was created April 5, 2012. Said user then created an account that failed AFC, disappeared for two months, added fake content to an article, reverted it, and was warned for it, disappeared for a month, posted a nonsense talk page comment, and disappeared for a month. Upon his next appearance, he attempted to redirect William Cosby to Bill Cosby by blanking and redirecting, and using deceptive edit summaries to cover his actions four times over a six month period where those were his only edits (for which he was not warned at all despite the edits being reverted), used another deceptive edit summary to vandalize an article, blanked a page, disappeared, vandalized a page again, and finally, posted some unconstructive/unhelpful talk page comments on several pages.

By and large, none of the above occurred in a grouping, and some actions really should have been taken at the time and and were not. Nevertheless, the above is an accurate representation of the user's entire edit history over the course of a year. The user has shown no inclination to be an regularly active participant on Wikipedia, and on the rare occasions upon which the user has "participated", his "participation" has been detrimental to the encyclopedia. The edit pattern indicates this editor will never edit enough to either incur 3RR or be reported on AIV. Is there enough of a pattern of history to block the account as vandalism only anyway? MSJapan (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

bort not Bort: Barbarianbort (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll fix that. MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted article was List of unfortunate names. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, what do AFC, 3RR, and AIV mean? Also, Miss Japan, do you have citations for what you're reporting or are you just making things up? Barbarianbort (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Problem 1, he restores an apparent hoax. Problem 2, mentioned above, he redirects an article about a politician to an article about a TV personality. Problem 3, Problem 4, Problem 5, Problem 6, ditto #2. Problem 7, bizarre addition with deceptive summary. Problem 8, testing at Test. Problem 9, adds random text to the Betelgeuse article. Problems 10 and 11, not appropriate for a talk page. Problem 12, seemingly trolling someone who resolved problems #10 and #11. I've looked at all his non-deleted contributions, and from these I strongly suspect that this is a case of WP:NOTHERE. Barbarianbort, see WP:AFC, WP:3RR, and WP:AIV. The first is a place for getting articles reviewed before creating them, the second is a rule saying not to revert (undo someone else's actions) more than three times in a day, and the third is where we report blatant vandals. Your actions aren't relevant to any of those, but your editing appears to be typical of what our disruptive editing page is talking about. Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
MSJapan points out my error with problem #9; it's actually Beetlejuice, some movie, not the prominent star. Nyttend (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Wait--so this is the best edit the user has made for us? Is there a reason, dear Nyttend, that you haven't blocked indefinitely yet? Love for your fellow man? Drmies (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Yip not over? [edit]

Recently, I noticed IP 12.53.78.125 making unconstructive edits at airport articles on my watchlist, such as this edit made to San Francisco International Airport, which adding false statistics was a reoccurring pattern of vandalism and disruptive editing that Jonathan Yip had. And as you can see, a suspected sock (which was just blocked). Unfortunatley for the IP [which is shared, but is one that Jonathan Yip seemed to have used], constructive edits have to be reverted, since it is made by a suspected sock of a banned user. Is there any way to see if there are still socks out there (both IP and users, since he had abusively used multitudes of both). Thanks for all of the help. Sincerely, WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 00:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jonathan Yip socks should be blocked on site and all edits reverted. Nothing good comes from this socker. If a shared ip gets blocked, its no different than a school block. The integrity of Wikipedia is more important than a few ip edits. JOJ Hutton 01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
True, but my main concern is that this might receal that there could still be more socks. Other than that, I agree. Thanks. WorldTraveller101(Trouble?/My Work) 01:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What to do with BLP urgent issues? [edit]

I've posted to The WP:BLP board and WP:RFPP for protection of Wade Robson (in recent news for suing Michael Jackson's estate, accusing him of sexual abuse). This page has been vandalized repeatedly for going on three weeks without protection. Maybe I'm antsy after only a few hours, but I feel biographies should get quicker attention than what is recommended on the talk page templates. Ultra Venia (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

IMO, BLPs are among the most sensitive articles on Wikipedia, and we do not as much to protect the subjects as we ought. Take this as a request for people to get more active there. Collect (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty easy on protecting BLPS (which are best requested at WP:RFPP, btw) but the last vandalism was 5 days ago. Currently, RFPP isn't particularly backlogged. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dennis. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

GigE vision and User:TeslerB making legal claims [edit]

I appear to have stumbled into a sticky situation at GigE vision. While doing RC patrol, I noticed a revert on the article by User:TeslerB, who removed links to various open-source implementations of the standard, claiming that they were "illegal software." A quick check found no reliable reason to believe the software was illegal - in fact, one of the open-source implementations has been used and cited in a scientific paper published by CERN, so I reverted and mentioned on his Talk page that he needed to contact Wikimedia Foundation legal counsel if he believes the links to be illegal. Other previous edits from the TeslerB account appear to indicate some sort of COI link between him and the Automated Imaging Association, which owns the standard - he has edited a number of pages related to the group to insert registered trademark symbols, claim "illegal content" and other such edits. He has reverted the open-source links a number of times, and possibly here as an anon.

User:TeslerB has continued arguing that the software is illegal - supported by nothing other than his own assertions - and has begun to verge on making legal threats. I have advised him twice to contact legal counsel for legal matters, and warned him about the no legal threats policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would imagine the previous IP edits, which I reverted, were also this user. --Leigh Hamilton 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=556364908"