User talk:Sitush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

... or panic madly and freak out?
Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

Per your RX request[edit]

As requested [1], time limited.

Please Help me[edit]

On the page Kashmir.

Your edit summary at Cybernetics[edit]

Could you please expand a little on your edit comments at Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine: "I'm not even sure that this section should exist, and I'm even more unsure whether this article asserts notability for its subject"?

As regards whether the Synopsis section should exist, it seems to me to fully accord with the suggested structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Books#Article_structure.

And is there any serious doubt about the notability of the subject - possibly the most influential technical book of the 20th century?

It would be more helpful if you were to make a slightly fuller statement on improving the article on its talk page, rather than just throwaway remarks in the edit summary. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone has asserted notability now and I thanked them for doing so. They clearly saw what I meant; that you did not is unfortunate but perhaps unsurprising. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And your doubts about whether the Synopsis section should exist? DaveApter (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't be arsed, sorry. Some of it was pov-y (I fixed a bit) and I'd rather see a source rather than an editorial but I'm well aware that the Books project has some odd ideas. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

{tpsing} The wikipedia page is a mish-mash, but the subject itself is one of the landmark science-math-tech books of the last century. Will see if I can add a bit to the article sometime this week to make that clearer. Abecedare (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Firozpur District[edit]

Revisiting this after seeing various edits, isn't it actually Firozepur?[2] And the rest?[3] I see GBooks gives more hits for "Firozepur city" than "Firozpur city" so I'm thinking I was wrong, although I thought I'd checked! Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the scripts there and at Firozpur pending some sort of consensus on the talk page - the recent warring and the inability of the likes of us to comprehend what is going on is precisely why WP:INDICSCRIPT came about. Although that guidance allows scripts for places, it does require reasoned explanation for the selection.
I've no idea regarding even the English spelling. A quick Google does seem to suggest Firozepur and I've also seen Ferozpur in the past. I think we're going to have to start a COMMONNAME discussion and since it will affect at least two articles, some centralised venue would seem to be better than having people put forward the same arguments in multiple places. Could this be done at WT:INB, with a note placed on the talk pages of both articles? - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't see why not. There's also Firozpur Cantonment‎. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The only name for this article is Ferozepur [4] Lindashiers (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dougweller: I've opened a discussion at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Ramachandra Guha[edit]

The Indian edition of the e-book no longer contains the source text. Its also been removed online from Google-books in response to various DMCA complaints. Lindashiers (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case, I don't get a 404 when I click on it. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
As clearly mentioned here [5] it seems users in the UK (??? [6]) can access an old version of the e-book which has been subsequently corrected by the author. The linked version viewable on Googlebooks UK is a pirated Indian edition (see the contents and copyright notice) which is not usable outside the Indian sub-continent. Ramachandra Guha has corrected his online e-book, which is Indian edition, and the pages / content on which the article content is based have been deleted from GoogleBooks in India. Obviously the article content should reflect the updated opinions of the source. If you insist I can email a PDF of the Google 404 page with broken robot to OTRS. The official website for Ramachandra Guha's publisher is [7], whence all will be clear, so please only link to the Indian URL of Google Books for this source. Lindashiers (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Background reading[edit]

I came across the sunspot theory of social unrest back in 1986- I told a lecturer about it, as at the time there was a high point in the sunspot cycle- shortly after there was the Tiananmen Square massacre, and the lecturer jokingly praised me for "predicting" it. Anyone who takes it seriously and claims to predict significant social events through studying it is just a modern-day version of a priest studying entrails, and is not to be taken seriously on any subject whatsoever- they are (as Vonnegut says) a cuckoo clock with some of the gear teeth willfully broken off- perfect time most of the time, "cuckoo" at random times. I presume if you're banned from posting on someone's talk page, that means the someone don't read your page? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume that. CMDC is obsessed with an anti-male agenda, here and off-wiki. What I do not understand is how she gets away with it, especially the repeated canvassing and point-y asides. The sooner she is site-banned, the better for everyone (including those who really do have gender gap as their concern). She only gets involved in "right-on" topics, such as guns, Palestine and gender gap, and has little interest in improving this place. She is far from being a new user but is adept at pretending that she is or else incredibly stupid (which I doubt). - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Based on the forecast for the sunspot cycle, I predict she'll go quiet in 2020. Do you remember the days when people with unusual ideas used to write them down on scraps of paper and stick them on their windows? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I used to write on the window itself. Back in the days before central heating, when the insides were frosted up each morning. I have more trouble getting out of bed now than I did then. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Greetings. I came across this nightmare recently; I know little of these issues, so was wondering whether you could take a gander at it when you have the time. If not, I completely understand. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: - done. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks friend. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Category Question[edit]

Question about the category Category:African-American television and Category:Hispanic and Latino American media. Is it suitable to place the TV show Orange Is the New Black under those two category since the cast members and characters are a diverse ethnic mix Venustar84 (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Venustar84, Sitush doesn't live in America, so I don't if he would watch the show even if he has Netflix. As there are no instructions on the category pages, it is hard to know what should and shouldn't be there. Category:American LGBT-related television programs and Category:Transgender-related television programs are already categories attached with the article. As the cast is heavily Hispanic and Black, I would say the categories are suitable. I also think it is one of the best television shows currently running. Bgwhite (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An SPI[edit]

You talked to one of these users, I have started an SPI, see if you want to add anything: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GhanaDa TitoDutta 12:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya3 and ReddyUday are self admitted socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Reddyuday Bladesmulti (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I just found a new sock of Buddhakahika, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddhakahika. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nadar (caste) ‎' SPA[edit]

Mayan302 gets on every day, but only for checking Nadar (caste). What should be done? It is far clear that he don't fix things himself and he removes the content that is out of his reach. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: I've had concerns about them for a long time but I tend to get stonewalled on that article. I'll take another look at it. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes I will need admin help, someone should warn him. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in itself wrong with being a single-purpose account. Where it tends to become troublesome is when they try to own the article and, in particular, when they try to own the article in a manner that is inconsistent with policies such as WP:NPOV. If I remember correctly, they treated Hardgrave as something of a bible. There is no doubt that Hardgrave's study is/was by far the most comprehensive but that does not mean it is the only source worth considering etc, especially given that it was written 50 years or so ago. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Monday strike[edit]

Good idea. Why not create a sub page or Wikipedia page WP:Monday strike wit it? --TitoDutta 06:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review this deletion on Narayana Guru[edit]

You reverted to your revision on Narayana Guru undoing ~6 editors and ~20 edits done over ~30 days. I see that you have re-inserted one of the two content addition I had done. Is this content and reference (from academic book published by Oxford Univ. Press) not to be retained? Particularly when that article is in need of reliable sources! Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a way to do it without breaching WP:NPOV then of course it can be retained. I was just about to try to find a copy of the book. What you cannot do is state as fact something that is disputed by reliable sources, and that is what had been done. - Sitush (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and you need to abide by WP:CITEVAR also. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
That book is secondary reliable source from academic publication. Can you please provide the reliable source it contradicts? I will abide by WP:CITEVAR. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra 18:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
This discussion belongs in the thread I opened at the article talk page. As far as d.o.b. is concerned, there is already a reliable source that contradicts it, specifically pointing out that the suggested dates vary. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The edit made no changes to d.o.b. I will respond to the other concern raised on the talk page. Regards. --AmritasyaPutra 00:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

discussion of changes at Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan[edit]

hello, i got your reasoning but are you sure it has to be this way. you rightly said pakistan is not a monarchy, look at this Raja Pervaiz Ashraf former prime minister of pakistan. in what capacity raja is there with his name according to your viewpoint! isn't that some names are so commonly used that they have to be use in same order. as written in wikipedia honorofic policy. for example. name Mother treasa. is she really our mother?

So mayube go fix the Raja Pervaiz Ashraf article. The Mother Theresa one is a well-documented exception to the rule. - Sitush (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
sitush i just saw reasoning u gave at Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan, pakistan is not a monarchy, so obviously the person rana muhammad iqbal khan is not a monarch, he is using title in inheriting capacity. look at the official website of the punjab assembly where he holds position. sitush i think u need to be radical with pakistani culture, people don't essentially use names in same capacity you are talking about. The Pakistan (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

a request[edit]

hi sitush sir please is you can help to remove bhumihars are offspring of rajput men and brahmin women in bhumihar article .we know that this is wrong we have no connection with rajputs.its OK we are a caste or community we claims to be brahmin. but if we are not brahmin it is still OK .but please sir i have a hope that you will help to delete those edits about bhumihar is offspring of rajput men and brahmin women .please help its a request. for god for god for deity please help we are not offspring we have separate identity and claims to brahmin unsussecfully — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorrow of bhumihar (talkcontribs) 04:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is just a story, believe it or not, it is your choice. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sorrow of bhumihar: I'd be happy to remove it if the source is unreliable. I'd also be happy to see the statement qualified with something like "the community have since abandoned that particular claim" if we can find a source that says so. - Sitush (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

hey sitush i have given you many books and citation but you have not went through even a single one. you are totally biases and prejudiced. you have no job other that propagating false propaganda. Even the ashwni kumar has told it a tale which cannot be considered as evidence or fact and wikipedia is not a place to write a fairy tale when history of a community is to be written. Write some fact about community. I can also make some tale about your birth, will you consider as truth. what do you want to prove by posting that statement. If you have guts then publish the same statement in any newspaper of local language and get it worldwide accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talkcontribs) 19:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see my reply to the first post above. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Martial races of undivided India By Vidya Prakash Tyagi

Rulers, Townsmen and Bazaars: North Indian Society in the Age of British By C. A. Bayly

The Limited Raj: Agrarian Relations in Colonial India, Saran District, 1793-1920 By Anand A. Yang Man in India, Volumes 54-55 by Sarat Chandra Roy (Ral Bahadur)

Bazaar India: Markets, Society, and the Colonial State in Gangetic Bihar By Anand A. Yang

Caste: The Colonial Theories by Braja Bihārī Kumāra

Evolution and Spatial Organization of Clan Settlements: A Case Study By Saiyad Hasan Ansar

senari massacre

What ever the book I have mentioned earlier are the books found on the first page of google search. All the authors are credible. None of these books have mentioned relation of bhumihar with rajput. It is a total bias to write a tale and false propaganda of ashwani kumar. You can find a lot about the plight of dalit in his(aswani kumar), book but hardly about the plight of Bhumihar Brahmin/Babhan. He has not mentioned Senari massacre in which mcc and dalit led army beheaded bhumihar/babhan cruelly and like Islamic state terrorist organisation. If anyone is writing Wikipedia he should write all the issues not merely some defamatory and derogatory issues. So sitush if you are keen to write about babhan then you should consider all the aspect and write something holistic not merely defamatory tales. Read it sitush before giving any reply. I feel you are too hasty in reply. SO please go through all the books one by one and mention the things regarding bhumihar rather than spreading fake propaganda and fake stories which are base less and mocking. There is a story in ancient times that coal was burning on sun and that was the reason behind the tremendous energy. Why not you write it on the sun wikipedia. If you want any citation regarding this i will give you. Be sensible man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talkcontribs) 20:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already responded to you on the article talk page, some days ago. That is where this stuff should be, although I rather think that you are now repeating yourself. Please see Talk:Bhumihar#Response_to_a_comment_about_sources_on_my_user_page. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yang and bayly have not written any fictions stories and defamatory stories so you should write those things. Some more books i have mentioned above but you simply posted the disappointing answer. What ever i have told earlier is correct you do and judge things hastily whthout looking into matter. I feel you are totally preoccupied of spreading fake and fabricated rumour about community which has come out of sheer jealousy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpandey89 (talkcontribs) 05:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Caste articles[edit]

I wouldn't be surprised if you ever got sick of reverting and cleaning up these society related articles and lists.

Although the quality of these articles seems to be better than it used to be before, you ever collected the list of these articles? I have got some time now so I will probably check all of them again. As we know that both of us never had a disagreement with the edits.

Also I wanted to ask that how many articles you have on your watchlist? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The list would be huge and I've never bothered trying to compile it from the various applicable categories. However, more often than not, I watchlist when I go to a caste-related article for the first time. I've currently got around 2200 articles and other pages on my watchlist. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
for your work on caste & ethnicity related articles The Pakistan (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR customer support[edit]

Hey Sitush, just talked to our JSTOR contact, she apologizes for the delay. She has limited ability to check into your account problems, and asks that you leave a note here: The "topic" should be "MyJSTOR" and you can put "Wikipedia Library" as the institution. Hopefully they can get things fixed ASAP. The Interior (Talk) 21:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PS - drop that you are part of the Wikipedia pilot in the message body, and it will expedite things :) The Interior (Talk) 21:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@The Interior: done that. Thanks for your help. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Edit warring on India related pages[edit]

Your actions of :-

  • repeatedly concocting spurious sources for India related articles,
  • threatening other editors,
  • calling editors as SOCKS without any basis whatsoever to prejudice other editors,
  • Off-Wiki tag-teaming with a network of Editors/Admins from the UK to disrupt India related articles,
  • refusing to name the alleged sock accounts when asked to do so,
  • trolling,
  • serial copy-vio,
  • Adding political associations upon non-political persons in article space, etc.

causes me to remind you, on your talk page, about discretionary sanctions for India related articles (which are, however, yet another device devised by the North to retain content control over the encyclopedia, as such processes can be easily manipulated through cabals / cartels etc of compromised Wikipedia Administrators).

If you have content issues with sourced text I insert or delete and we are unable to arrive at consensus, the way forward is to avail a Dispute Resolution process instead of issuing such threats to chill the process. You have never availed it. You have ignored that WP:BRD is a guideline which attempts to clarify other Wikipedia policies which are ultimately derived from Wikimedia Foundation site usage terms and conditions. You have repeatedly inserted and re-inserted back factually incorrect text about Mr. Anna Hazare (a living person) and refused to provide sources when specifically called upon to do so.

There is a copyright dispute over the text inserted by you at India Against Corruption. I'll only contribute to that on the relevant Notice board / public pages as part of a formal Wikipedia process. The string of denials, lies and admissions you have made over this highly controversial copyrighted content (solely inserted by you) has resulted in a series of high-profile attacks on the article and disruption to the project. These evidence that you are an undesirable POV pusher on India related subjects who deserves to be site banned. Hence this warning.

Finally, on the issue of draft edits. As you have reluctantly and belatedly admitted that the copy-vio was inserted by you, it is incumbent on you to create draft alternate text on the temporary page linked in the COPYVIO notice. ie, if you desire that text be retained.

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on any page about social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups.

Lindashiers (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lindashiers: "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." [8] This looks like it fits the definition. --NeilN talk to me 01:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
SITUSH (wrongly) accused me of being a clone of "Zuggernaut" and "Socking" on the talk page of a highly controversial India-related article on which he admittedly added copy-vio text which I had previously reported. Sitush's entire actions after that emanate from that I established that he copy-vioed highly controversial text which disparages Mr. Anna Hazare (an eminent saintly person in India) and resulted in numerous long-running sock/meatpuppet attacks from Mr. Hazare's organisation against the specific article content/section which is the subject of the copy-vio. Accordingly, I firmly believe that Sitush is a disruptive editor at Wikipedia, hence the notice. The vast majority of Sitush's edits being on India related topics, and as he has else written that he has no firsthand knowledge of India, hence, per me, he is also incompetent to edit India related articles on such a scale, requiring such a notice for disruptive edits. PS: surely Sitush is old enough to speak for himself, or is he a minor/child that you must do so ? Lindashiers (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#India_Against_Corruption_yet_again --NeilN talk to me 02:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush work is sometimes good, he often removes poorly cited material but he is also likely to remove good cited material of articles of india and pakistan, i have noticed this. The Pakistan (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
"...but he is also likely to remove good cited material..." Diffs please? --NeilN talk to me 02:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
[9] was reverted because these additional reliable news sources contradict Sitush's previous POV edits and hacking of this article. Lindashiers (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
[10] this is where I showed that Sitush tampered with the original source to POV push. Lindashiers (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
But I didn't ask for diffs of you following in the tracks of many other disruptive editors --NeilN talk to me 04:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Both these diffs above are my original work. Am not following anybody's tracks here.Lindashiers (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
[11] Then please check this track/diff (of a sample disruptive Sitush revert) to understand how Sitush regularly POV pushes and chills all dialog which he doesn't like with "disruptive editors" (in this including 2 Admins). Lindashiers (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I do not think your diffs show what you think they show... --NeilN talk to me 04:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what do you think I think they show ? Now here is a news story of 2013 in 'The Hindu' [12] which Sitush insists on keeping/citing. Now here is a later story of 2014 in the same national newspaper which overturns Sitush's POV [13], Sitush deletes it repeatedly. Surely as a "retraction" to previously published news the 2014 news report is more credible (as per Wikipedia's own policies on reliable news sources). Lindashiers (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No, that's very misleading. The 2014 story added a clarification to the 2014 story by adding another viewpoint. It did not retract the 2013 story. --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. The previous article version is also available on mirror sites. 'The Hindu' deleted its published statement about Anna Hazare & IAC, and added the "clarification" by Sarbajit Roy (who incidentally the Hindu apparently acknowledges to be the National Convenor of the IAC). In any case, it is clear that there is some sort of content dispute for the article's text for which contradictory published sources exist. PS: Now why do you increasingly come off as an alter-ego of Sitush ?Lindashiers (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Still no retraction of 2013 story. And you'll find that attacking productive editors as you have done will get a response from other Wikipedians. --NeilN talk to me 05:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't be weaselly, its a retraction of the 2014 story. Here is the exact text which was deleted from the "previous version" of the (2014) story "Asked whether he has distanced himself from anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, Gen. Singh, who was in the forefront of the India Against Corruption, said he still supported the cause." Lindashiers (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Spurious text concerning Mr. Anna Hazare (living person), Indian[edit]

As the editor who inserted the following text in article India Against Corruption kindly review the text mentioned below for complete compliance with all Wikipedia and WMF policies applicable. Thanks.

  • "Historian and commentator Ramachandra Guha has questioned the image that has been portrayed of IAC and of Hazare. Acknowledging that Hazare had previously been successful in campaigns for infrastructure reforms at the local level in his native Maharashtra and that the IAC campaign of 2011 had an impact, Guha doubts the claims that the 2011 and 2012 protests overwhelmingly engaged the masses. He notes that liberals were concerned with a perceived anti-democratic rhetoric while socially oppressed communities, such as the dalits and Other Backward Classes, were worried that the Hindu-led movement would undermine the gains they have made through legislative reforms, such as those resulting from the Mandal Commission. He considers that the attention given to the protest by 24-hour news channels and internet resources has masked the realities, such as that popular participation at the Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan protests in Delhi was a fraction of that evidenced in Kolkata in 1998 when 400,000 marched in an anti-nuclear movement. IAC and Hazare in particular piggy-backed on and gained from discontent surrounding some coincident corruption scandals involving the government. These scandals, such as the 2G spectrum scam, were high-profile examples of the corruption that is claimed to be endemic in Indian society at all levels but Guha believes the IAC solution — the Lokpal — was a "simplistic" reaction." Lindashiers (talk) 02:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Spurious text concerning Indian social group India Against Corruption[edit]

As the contributing editor, kindly provide a reliable source for the following exceptional claim made on an India related article page, which has resulted in heavy disruption to Wikipedia caused by your inserted content. Thanks.

  • "The popular movement is distinct from a pressure group campaigning for Right to Information that bears the same name." Lindashiers (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Since its now increasingly apparent that User NeilN is fronting for Sitush, I am confining myself to this statement /section, as it seems this is the nub of the dispute. I'm also taking a break. Lindashiers (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your charge of "fronting" and be specific about what you claim Is improper about NeilN's behavior here, as it is not at all unusual for one Wikipedia editor to speak in defense of another editor who is under attack. Especially if the attacked editor is "taking a break". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm also off taking a break. Whatever I have to say about the "usual" practices of some Wikipedia cabals is already being said publicly outside [14]. I came here to report a copyvio, now you bureaucrats should deal with it. Lindashiers (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
And while Sitush is on break, please see if you can find a reliable source for the statement I have highlighted. Is Wikipedia about "content" or about "politics", "personalities" and "divas" ? Lindashiers (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I am not a bureaucrat, which is a specific advanced user right here on Wikipedia. I also do not edit or research upon the demand of other editors, as I am a volunteer who works on precisely what I choose to work on, and no more. Please do your own research. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits on Kerala iyer page[edit]

If you could explain why you have deleted so many things from that page. There are many things like local history, proverbs which have been passed over generations as a word of mouth. Be it about a group of people and other small details which only locals would know. You cannot ask for citations for such things. If you want I will provide. Revert to my version. Do you really think your version provides any detail to the reader ? Ganesh.Iyer.1008 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Alas, we cannot use oral history on Wikipedia. Please see WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than just reverting to an older version which is good for nothing and provides no information. It would be good if you could really point out to which references you want to be removed rather than just reverting to an older status. I can assure you all the information provided is genuine and everybody hasnt written books on palakkad villages for me to provide citations.

IF YOU CANNOT WORK ON THAT PAGE BY PROVIDING " MORE " INFORMATION, THEN DONT BOTHER TO REVERT THE CHANGES AND THREATEN OF BLOCKING ME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh.Iyer.1008 (talkcontribs) 21:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of what you keep adding is completely unsourced. You cannot do that and I've already pointed you to WP:V etc. The small amounts of stuff that were sourced come from things that are not reliable, which is another policy I've brought to your attention previously. Adding many thousands of characters very quickly, and with a standard of English that is far superior to that which you use in your messages, also sets off alarm bells. I'd appreciate it if you would raise any specific concerns at the article talk page, as I requested you to do. More people will see things there. - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How many citations did you really go through ? I had added more than 40 genuine citations. I did not revert to a previous version. First of all, dont judge me by the way I am typing here on your talk page. I am NOT writing an article here. After all you have been irritating me !! Adding thousand of words in that article has come over some amount of research and a lot of time, so the words used there are far more civilized.

The way you have pissed me off, by reverting to an older version of that page, perhaps the most uninformative version of that page, actually makes me think why were you even there following that page ! I wonder if you would agree to debate/reason about the information provided by me rather than just deleting and adding your version.

Have you read your version of that page? Does it give you some information/history ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh.Iyer.1008 (talkcontribs) 21:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You asked me to raise concerns in the Pages's talk section. There has been no discussion there for more than 3 years. So rather than me going there and raising concerns as you said, I would like if you could spot the errors/wrong information in my version ( section by section ). It would also explain the reason why you chose the least informative version among the various edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh.Iyer.1008 (talkcontribs) 22:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

There may have been no discussion at the article talk page for years but that is, nonetheless, the correct venue. Perhaps there has been no discussion on that page precisely because people have been spraying it about on umpteen other less suitable pages, such as this one. Article talk pages act as a hub for discussion about that article: they keep things in one place and anyone who is watching the article is automatically notified when new comments are made there. The chances of someone who has an interest in Kerala Iyers also being a watcher of my own talk page are pretty slim by comparison. Please, can we go through this at that page, one paragraph at a time if necessary. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Caste sysem in India[edit]

Dear Sitush, Thanks a lot for bringing some order to the Praveen Togadia page. If and when you get a chance, I could use your input in this issue Talk:Caste_system_in_India#The_word_.22postmodern.22. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching it. I might add a comment but can tell you now that I hate the word "postmodern". - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Same. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


What does the page say Sitush? Just let me know that. I dont trust this guy.Mayan302 (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

NOT HERE. I've got my own problems right now and, really, I've got far more reason to distrust the person causing me problems than you have to distrust Bladesmulti. I'll get round to typing it out for you but I'm in the middle of sorting out what appears to be a pretty serious attempt to smear me on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry. I gave him a better online source for the book on the Nadar talk page. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Sitush.Mayan302 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
No problem. It looks like my (very weird) situation is likely to be resolved soon. I'll try tomorrow to sort out the issue that you raise. - Sitush (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Sure. Take your own time.Mayan302 (talk) 05:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Sitush. If you are free, could you please quote the contents of the book he mentioned. He just removed the clarification tag I placed this morning.The line still makes no sense.Mayan302 (talk) 17:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


I don't see it at all, and wouldn't waste time onnthe close paraphrasing. But if you want to get a definitive opinion, leave a message with User:Moonriddengirl. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa: Thanks. BeareanHunter has pinged MRG via the ANI thread. I want some sort of consensus on the talk page, pronto, so that we can remove the template that is blanking some of the stuff. While it is there, we're effectively being censored by the meatpuppets. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

rename page.[edit]

I haven't a clue what List of village in vaishali(block) should be renamed to or if it should even be around. Could you take a look. I have to thank you and your wonderful talk page. I can now throw Hindi insults now. Except the insult started wrong. I would start out the insult with meri saas.   Hope I said that right, probably said I was a chicken Bgwhite (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

We would move it to List of towns and villages in Vaishali district which would be about the whole Vaishali district and not just the small block within this district. Well, our article on the district claims that there are 16 such blocks in it. If the list would grow to include all those, it might again need a split. Also, the current list doesn't really seems much informational. Long back I have modeled one such article List of towns and villages in Thane district. Check that.
(meri saas means "my mother-in-law", or "my breath".) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

List of Rajputs[edit]

Hey, what are you saying. on what basis can you say that This One is our mirror image? i mean look at the content and website before asserting anything. secondly, On This One, I am a barrister, i know the interpretation of self-identification. don't undo without consensus on such issues. what makes you think its not self-identification? whats the difference between a non-self identification and self-identification. In the former type source just mentions the ancestry and in later type source explicitly says that "He says such & such". source is not saying he has Rajput ancestry, source is saying, "he frequently calls upon his Rajput heritage". so it obviously implicates a self-identification. please don't ever undo things like that. i must listen a genuine argument from you otherwise i would undo your self-asserted judgement and interpretation for sure. moreover, i would appreciate to involve many people in discussion over this. Barrister at Law (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

See User:Sitush/Common#Castelists for starters. Also, OnePakistan is known to plagiarise our content, as do many Pakistani websites. The WWE thing does not show self-identification - it is PR blurb by an organisation that is known for hyperbole. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Atleast provide some evidence of your both arguments. firstly you are alleging OnePakistan without demonstrating. moreover, i didn't mention any pakistani website. go read at the end This One is registered in England and wales. Secondly, i have already seen this Castelist. why are you passing self-contradictory arguments, first you are saying WWE does not show self-identification. which i have shown you above that it is showing it. second, if you are really concerned with your argument of WWE self-identification then why and upon what basis you are saying that its hyperbole. do rational arguments based on evidences. Barrister at Law (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
i am telling you that it is a self-identification. How can you establish a universal truth for WWE? how can you say WWE doesn't show self-identification when i have already explained that it is doing so Barrister at Law (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
If you really think that WWE is reliable for a statement about caste in a biography of a living person then I think you need to take it to our reliable sources noticeboard and see if you can get consensus from the wider Wikipedia community. I'm not comfortable with it, for the reasons stated previously; others with experience may disagree. Or maybe the noticeboard for BLPs would be better.
I thought you were referring to the OnePakistan website, which is probably fine for news but definitely has plagiarised non-news items from us in the past. As I said, this is incredibly common. Regarding Emel, that looks like a magazine website with a strong religious slant. I'll have to check the item again but, aside from looking like it took stuff from us, I think that was the one that was degrading the Indian opposition with things like "those cowardly Indian curs" etc, which would ring alarm bells for any experienced contributor here. The Pakistan Army website usually gives caste/tribe details when they are known: have you tried there? - Sitush (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
who told you that Khudadad Khan was in Pakistan Army? he was in British India Army, clearly you are doing things without a deep loo over them. your allegations on has nothing to do with content of khudadad khan....+ your allegations also have no real meanings. and yes i would make sure about WWE before undoing your edit Barrister at Law (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
You didn't say what/who you were referring to and I've got better things to do with my time than try to figure out cryptic remarks. I've responded to your queries as best I could with the information that you gave me. I'm well aware that Khan was in the BIA; in fact, at one point I think I changed his article to reflect his birthplace as being in British India rather than something more modern (Pakistan, A & J etc). I don't mind helping people out but I'm not reacting very well to aggressive people right now, so the more information you give and the less confrontational you are, the better the outcome will be. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
How about you just list the names that you are concerned about here? I'll look at them again tomorrow and work out what it is that you are upset about. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Thanks for Talk:List of Rajputs[edit]

Hey Thanks for new discussion at Talk:List of Rajputs. Rajput334 00:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput334 (talkcontribs)

No problem. I'm not in a great place personally at the moment and am probably coming across as even more "harsh" than I normally do. Usually, the answer is to walk away from this place for a bit but a part of my problem is that Wikipedia is actually a pretty good distraction for me while I work through real-life stuff. This is all my fault and I'm running a big risk by hanging around. That said, I am a quite reasonable person and if I mess things up (as I do!) then I'll apologise etc for doing so. Right now, I'm off to bed and then I've got a hospital visit in a few hours' time. Obviously, you should feel free to move forward with the discussion that I started and, I hope, you can accept my apologies for any knee-jerkedness that has been apparent. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Its okay brother, we'll settle it with consensus. have sweet dreams :) Rajput334 01:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajput334 (talkcontribs)

Your edits on articles related to India Against Corruption etc.[edit]


I have registered the informational international domain name "India Against Corruption" in Germany. This can be confirmed from the WHOIS. As such I am interested in the article India Against Corruption and its effect on my affairs.

I am also the Intellectual Property Agent with "Name Defend - Institut für Geistiges Eigentum" with offices in India and Germany and business throughout the world. My Wikipedia "User Name" has been carefully chosen to conform to Wikipedia's policy on user names.

I have noted that your edits, both in the long term and those of today, are incorrect, slanted, biased, false and demean persons and organisations connected to India Against Corruption.

I observe that your recent edits to these families of India related articles are done without "consensus". I shall be reverting them all to a stable restore point. As my account does not have necessary permissions as yet, kindly wait till my account is 4 days old and has 10 edits, so that we can discuss these matters and arrive at consensus.

I encourage you to email me to confirm our respective bonafides.

BRUENTRUP AT NAME DEFEND email: claus DOT bruentrup AT gmail DOT com

Name Defend IPA (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It's funny that you say your username was carefully chosen to comply with the username policy, because it doesn't. Writ Keeper  14:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Away again[edit]

Monday has come round and I'm off again. Should I do anything related to Wikipedia, it probably will involve an analysis of this. - Sitush (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Harassment policy[edit]


The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.

Please stop violating this policy regarding me. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You don't want Sitush to read and think about the ideas expressed in your blog? You might want to make it clear that you're not the Carol Moore from the Atheist Law Centre though- that person had a connection with Larry Darby. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Carolmooredc, I don't see the violation. Either bring it up on the proper forum and ask for oversight, or leave it be. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Sitush links to my website above. As a continuation of my self-made "official" warning (since I don't see a talk page template for harassment), note that Sitush has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[15] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[16] In a recent ANI someone else brought on Wikihounding of me he emphasized I'd linked to my (now severely outdated) website way back in 2007-8[17][18], urged people to "do some research" on me[19], and even wrote: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[20]. If Sitush thinks there's a WP:COI, he should join the other two who went to WP:COIN. I will take your advice and take it to WP:ANI if he keeps following me around, casting aspersions, confusing WP:COIN with WP:POV, etc. Unless someone else takes it to ANI first, of course. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him. is your typical misrepresentative rewriting of history, Carol. Please also include the diffs where I apologised for forgetting the ban that you had imposed. I don't look at your talk page often, so it is easily done and I even suggested a remedy at ANI (and you can still do that for me - I don't mind you sticking my name in lights if it makes things more comfortable for you).
I haven't followed you anywhere on WP. I know you have expressed concerns about imminent nuclear armageddon etc but please can you try not to be so paranoid about little old me? Some pages - Jimbo's, ANI, ArbCom etc - have long been on my watchlist; some others - your talk included - never have been, IIRC, and deliberately so. You do your own thing most of the time and I've had better things to do with my time than keep track of your antics. Occasionally, you pop up on a watchlisted article or I happen to see something on another talk page and follow the link, as with GGTF. That is not hounding and you've also really got to drop this attitude of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you about anything is automatically a hounder etc.
The website link is because I'm looking at reviving the BLP for you now that some additional sources (including in books) have emerged, eg: mentions about your Waco conspiracy theory and your sunspot theory for cycles of anti-government activities etc. I'm still trying to read through them and assess which ones are reliable and which ones are not; we'll just have to see how much comes out of that process. At least one member of ArbCom is aware that I am looking into the possibilities of sourcing such a revived BLP. There are several messages from you on the web where you mention that the previous BLP was deleted and say, seemingly ruefully, that you'll have to "wait to be more famous. Maybe now you are more notable, although not remotely famous.
What is already obvious to me from reading the thousands of hits on GSearch is that you've got a lot of people who have problems with you in the real world, allegedly because of exactly the same sort of behaviour that you are prone to adopt here: trying to drown out others, an insistence on leading, a tendency to throw around heaps of paranoid criticism when you feel slighted, causing people to get so upset that they leave the activist group that you've taken over etc. As someone in your own political group, who later stood for Congress, said "Carol has displayed an amazing ability to alienate people, even those who would want to agree with her, with her sharp and incessant criticism. [She] does have the professional experience to do a good job ... Yet she has said very little about this during her campaign, instead choosing to define herself by whom she opposes and what she is against. Furthermore, her style makes it clear that her interpretation of our Principles is the only valid one in her mind. This style means that the more she opens her mouth, the more she loses votes." Obviously, a lot of the possible sources cannot be used - blogs that call you a nutjob, for example - but some things will be ok, like those that praise the Waco book or your "anti-Israel" position, and what appear to be your own writings where you admit to defrauding misleading (stricken in favour of "misleading" - see note below) the IRS by using false names. It will, of course, be neutral and reliably sourced; if it happens to indicate that you have substantial conflicts of interest then that will be just because you have. But any substantive complaint about COI that might be made by me would go to by email the Arbs, not COIN, because there really would be outing issues. Suffice to say that you have described yourself, among other things, as a "full-time activist" who has been involved in "radical feminis", "libertarianism" etc - any full-time activist is bound to have COI issues here but it wouldn't make you any less suitable as a BLP subject. And if you'd like me to provide support for what I've said above then by all means I will do so via the Arbs and they can pass them to you if they deem fit. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
First, the business about false names is untrue and libelous and remove it immediately.
Using the excuse that you are going to create a defacto "attack page" bio on me - to excuse your obvious malicious views of me which can be illustrated with diffs galore - is quite transparent. I'm still just another (pretty much retired since 2007 with a lot of profiles that need updating) activist and I doubt my bio would survive a third AfD, even if you could find a bunch more RS than I had in the last one. So just stop the harassment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
You are posting stuff from off Wikipedia for reasons that do not appear clear.... Not cool. Not cool at all. If that is OK with the goose....the gander will do the same and then where will that leave us?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I am beginning to think Jimbo did not need to apologize to you.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thinking isn't really one of Jimbo's strong suits though. Reacting in a self-interested way to whatever is the issue of the day and then promptly forgetting about it is more his style. For instance, what has he done about "doubling down" on this alleged gender gap problem, apart from his usual nothing? Eric Corbett 23:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
MM, I'm not the one lacking "honor" here. That is the person who has been doing the rabble-rousing for years and editing articles where she has massive conflicts of interest. CMDC, see this. Now, sure, that one might be a fake & I'd apologise if it was but I can provide lots of supporting evidence to explain why it seems not to be. I take no pleasure in doing this and I had no intention of writing an "attack bio" - that would seem to be your paranoia all over again. The quicker you drop your own attack mode, the less references to external websites I'll need to provide because, honestly, I'd rather just write a neutral BLP and not have all this rubbish flying around. I only bring up the link in this message because you claim I'm wrong. Right now, I'd say it may still be borderline whether you are notable or not but there are certainly more sources than there were at the last AfD. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously at this diff you are referring to a story I wrote at an advocacy site about a 1970s incident where I write: I snapped and became convinced the IRS was about to grab my meager possessions. I moved my valuables into a spare room fixed up as my “roommate’s” room to “fool” the IRS! Luckily, I soon ran into someone who had had many tangles with the IRS. He reassured me the IRS first had to put a lien on my assets and that for a $2,000 debt they don’t take your stereo and second hand coat or put you in prison. This has nothing to do with giving the IRS a false name, it was just a panicky move I made one day until reassured and had nothing to do with the IRS visit "a few months later."
REMOVE THE LIBEL. I've already reported it to WMF rather than fight with you about it. And reread the policy about Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. An article written by an editor who has written as many nasty things about me as you have is defacto an attack bio. And see the WP:COINs already done on me that showed nothing. Just POV. To quote one of your favorite sayings "only an i*%^t" doesn't know the difference between COIN and POV. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, crap. You ask for it, you get it. From the same article: "They caught me at one permanent job after just a year. I immediately gave my two weeks notice. The bookkeeper gave me forms to fill out so the IRS could calculate how much to garnish. Noticing the forms permitted one to claim dependents, I wrote down the full number allowed, claiming Mohandas G. Moore, Gandhi Moore, Martin K. Moore, Corretta S.K. Moore, etc. The bookkeeper looked at me strangely, but filed the paperwork. Miraculously I kept most of my paycheck!" You have claimed, of course, to be in part philosophically a Gandhian. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that I said "appears to" in my first response. I quite deliberately didn't say that you had defrauded. Now, can we drop this, please, because the more you challenge, the more I'll have to respond and I'd much rather not do. - Sitush (talk) 00:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
So finally you bother to explain what you meant after you did all that opposition research and you found something about my 1980s nonviolent resistance you think is relevant to my editing on Wikipedia??? Why not go looking for the evidence that everyone you hate on Wikipedia has smoked pot next? I guess everyone on Wikipedia will hear through the grapevine now that Sitush is a Snitch. You've made you jacket, now wear it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
By the way I just wrote back to WMF and said what you were doing might not be technically libel. Of course, it sure is a lot of other things most editors would not like and would see you site banned for. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I think most editors would be glad if you were site banned Carol, as you're nothing but a pain in the arse. Unfortunately though, although fortunately for you, that's not yet one of the pillars. Eric Corbett 01:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sitush: It is understandable that people occasionally get emotionally involved in some cases—there are so many ways of being clueless that sooner or later we each encounter a particular variety that gets under our skin. However, you need to switch your computer off and walk away for a day or two because needling people ends badly (for an example of how the community feels, see here where people are saying that there should not be a list of people who are banned because compassion is our guiding light). I am not going to take the time to read the above and work out if something is libel, but an editor is making that assertion and the simplest would be to remove whatever it is that concerns them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hold up. I just wanna make sure that I'm getting this right. @Carolmooredc: you've:
  • Come up with a new warning (personal harassment)
  • Written to the WMF about Libel
  • Considered the post above by Sitush harassment
I've gotten that right, right? (I'll wait for you to answer before I continue). Dusti*Let's talk!* 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Dusti If you read what I said, what he originally said sounded like libel. The link he sent me, without bothering to identify what he was referring to, sounded like gross misrepresentation. When he finally told me what it was, it sounded like obnoxious snitching/outing, and thus I told WFM in these exact words: FYI, after much prodding he finally explained what he was talking about - a 1980s incident of war tax resistance. i.e., not libel but Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information which reads:
The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. If redacted or oversighted personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator – but not repeated on Wikipedia: it will be sufficient to say that the editor in question has a COI and the information has been emailed to the appropriate administrative authority. Issues involving private personal information (of anyone) could also be referred by email to a member of the functionaries team.
Those of us who didn't know better than to sign up with our real names really should not be constantly hounded and baited like this. If he thinks there's a COI on some issue, go to WP:COIN. Snitching on people's past activities is incredibly tacky and I'm sure would be piss off many editors. I'll have to see if this is something worth bringing to oversight, a process I am unfamiliar with. I thought you had to go to WMF to get bad stuff taken out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Carol, I've stricken "defrauding" above and replaced with "misleading". Will that do for now? Is it slightly less harsh, perhaps? I don't think it was libellous but agree that it can be toned down. I'm not interested in your accusations of "snitching" because Wikipedia articles are not censored and what I've said above is a review of some of the stuff that can/cannot be used in a revived article about you. That review was in response to your own queries and accusations.
I know that you got into some difficulties when you decided to edit the old BLP but, please, if this one ever sees the light of day then confine yourself to its talk page. I'll draft in it my userspace and you will be welcome to comment there. I absolutely guarantee you that my aim is neutrality. All this talk of "attack bio" and "opposition research" is tremendously lacking in AGF, in part because I've written nothing other than a few off-wiki notes yet and in part because I have a bloody decent record here for writing fairly and researching well. Pre-judging something as you are doing is immensely unfair; commenting on the draft and seeking consensus at that point is fine. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, then we'll all just forget about Sitush writing: "I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[21]. Bye. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 10:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
You've already mentioned that in this thread - I know you like repeating yourself ad infinitum but it is not necessary. You've also take it out of context (what's new) and you are making a link between two disparate matters: one is your activity on Wikipedia, the other is an article about your "real life". I'm about to post a starting point at User:Sitush/Carol Moore. It will likely take me some weeks to sort this out because there are thousands of sources to evaluate and I'd rather it didn't go live and get deleted straight away as a recreation. Feel free to comment on it. - Sitush (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your claims here are ludicrous. It is not a "thinly-veiled attack", nor "obvious harassment". You're just sort of forum shopping again, repeating the same stuff. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol - I was going to come back and tell you how ridiculous I think this is and how much of a waste your posts are for the servers, but I see now that that too would be a waste. This entire thread started because Sitush stated he was going to check out your website. It's not his issue, my issue, or WMF's issue that you decided to read into it. It's not his issue, my issue, or WMF's issue that you signed up using your real name, that you've posted pictures of yourself that are easily grabbed by googling your first and last name, or that you've decided to get a domain name with your first and last name which almost guarantees that every top hit is actually going to be about you. If you were that scared about being outed, you would have already requested that your name be changed and you would have quietly moved on. Instead, you've started a hissy fit and have drawn many more eyes to the situation. Stop with the bullshit, and move on. Otherwise it may appear that you're not here for the right reasons and you would prefer to be more dramatic than necessary. Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey Dustie, I am actually flattered that User:Sitush considers me the |Carrie Moore Nation of the prohibition of incivility and harassment on Wikipedia and even wants to write an article about me to demonstrate the credibility of the cause. (Gosh, if she's a relative, I wonder if she knew my granddad allegedly got rich running liquor from PA to NYC?) Maybe I should go out and generate a lot of RS media about myself for him. Ha ha ha. NOT! Face-smile.svg Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Carolmooredc: Is there any reason why you are raising the same point here as at the MfD? And you are sort of forum shopping/canvassing the MfD at CSD, the Bio project and BLPN? - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
And for clarity, before you maybe make another false accusation, I got those links via this, not by stalking your contributions. Why you didn't notify me of the MfD is a bit of a mystery but, hey, the article isn't exactly a stale userspace draft and so I soon saw it. - Sitush (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Keep up your work protecting the Wiki from the trolls! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, TRPoD. For clarity's sake, I should point out that this almost certainly has an immediate connection to the India Against Corruption farrago and nothing whatsoever to do with the shitstorm going on above. (I don't think I've seen anyone accuse CMDC of trolling but I don't follow much of what she does and wouldn't like TRPoD to be tarred by association). - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

My Goals[edit]

Kristine here. My goal is how to learn Wikipedia in a suitable fashion. If categories are inappropriate for me to use; I will ask you about them. Venustar84 (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, Kristine. Good to see you back in action! - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Contents vague[edit]

Hi. Kindly review Vishwakarma Day, which contains certain information which is vague, unclear and unsourced. -Rayabhari (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've not seen that one before, Rayabhari. There are a host of problems with it, other than the obvious lack of sources. I'll do a quick clean and then see what I can find. Searching for Vishwabrahmin, Vishvakarma etc might be necessary - there are various spellings and a disputed claim to Brahmanic caste status. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Creating BLPs[edit]

Howdy Sitush. Are ya sure it's a good idea to create a BLP of someone you 'might' be in dispute with? GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a shit about being in dispute with anyone. Nor about whether I agree with something that I write about, eg: my past bios of scientific racists. If someone thinks it is not-neutral then fair enough, otherwise leave me to it. I've been in disputes with plenty of people but I'm not usually one to hold grudges. The grudge all comes from t'other side.
Being ecumenical in my disputes, please note that I was also in dispute with MilesMoney, who was pretty rabidly opposed to CMDC. What I'm half-expecting to happen here, though, is for a pile-on from the gender-gap people at the MfD. I'll be very pleased if they can restrain themselves. - Sitush (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Okie Dokie :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "I don't give a shit about being in dispute with anyone." You should give a shit. Why the fuck I even got tied up in any of this GGTF trolling is beyond me, I've tried to give up on wikipedia drama. Apparently Carol is a magnet for drama but she's still a human being. There's so much we can do to improve Wikipedia, but so many choose to spend too much time in the non-mainspace high school cafeteria instead of the library.--Milowenthasspoken 15:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed too many do spend too much time in the "non-mainspace high school cafeteria", Milowent, of which CMDC is one. I don't. Have you bothered comparing my edits with hers? I'm usually somewhere > 70 per cent mainspace; I think Carol would be lucky if she hit 50. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea[edit]

Sitush, I notice that you're preparing a page about Carolmooredc in your userspace, and going by your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore, you intend it as, eventually, a mainspace article. Compare also the section above. You know how we're very strongly recommended not to write a bio article about ourselves, for easily understood reasons? Well, I think the same reasons apply to writing a bio about somebody we're in bitter Wikipedia conflict with: objectivity in such a case is just too much to expect of ourselves. Supposing, just as a hypothesis, that you passed the WP bar for notability and started a bio of yourself in your userspace. No, just indulge me for a moment, I know the hypothesis is pretty wild, but it's meant to be an analogy. If somebody complained about you writing about yourself, would you come back with "AGF, for God's sake. This is a genuine effort, and I can't see a single peacock word in what is said thus far. If you're notable then you're notable. WP is not censored" ? Or with "Your rationale appears to be entirely based on the assumption that I cannot research or write articles neutrally… I'm bloody good at this article writing lark, even if I say so myself". I don't think you would, but those are some of your arguments at the MfD. Surely you see the parallel? In autobiographies, it's not just a matter of peacockery, but of much more subtle issues of tone and of what details are selected to be in it. And it's the same with your page on Carol. I've read the page as an uninvolved person, indeed if anything as more of what Carol unsubtly calls "one of your admin friends", and the choice of quotations from her writings looks as if it might be a bit skewed to be unflattering. All right, so she said those things (some of them back in 2005), but why are they in particular appropriate as biography details? (Why quote the article subject so much anyway?) Yes, you're bloody good at this article writing lark, but you're still not the best judge of what should go into a bio of your adversary. Please blank the page or put a speedy tag on it, and I'll oblige. Bishonen | talk 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

Nope, Bish. We'll have to disagree on this one. It is in development and CMDC is welcome to comment on it. It may well end up being an article about her book but that depends on how the weighting works out. Aside from biographical details (where WP:PRIMARY is ok unless the claims are extraordinary), I'm trying to avoid using her as a source. Where have I failed to do that? - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a little too much bad faith going on here. So many individuals are assuming Sitush cannot AGF and write a balanced article and if I were him, I'd be offended. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
COI editing isn't automatically bad-faith editing: on the contrary, most people who edit with a COI are doing so in good faith. That doesn't mean that we don't discourage them from doing so. haven't read the draft yet, so can't really form an opinion, but on the face of things, Bish's opinions seem pretty sound. Writ Keeper  16:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Sitush, I'm not going to try to pinpoint any details here. If you don't see the general terribleness of the idea, nor my general point about the quotes from Carol that you've included, I'm instead going to propose an IBAN on ANI. The standard, symmetrical, IBAN. I frankly don't know if one has been proposed already and been rejected, I haven't followed this issue that closely — life's too short, and there are other, better ways to depress oneself on Wikipedia — but I think it has become urgent now. Unless you want to change your mind about the bio page? I'm sorry if that sounds like a threat. Actually, I think an IBAN would improve both your lives. Improve several other people's lives, too. @Dusti: Yes, fanning the flames and stirring the shit is surely better than trying to get your head round my analogy biographies/autobiographies, let alone trying to refute it. Bishonen | talk 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
In what way has it become urgent? Eric Corbett 17:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Good point, Eric. I don't suppose it has, really. By "urgent" I think I meant to say "I've snapped". Bishonen | talk 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC).
I think it's become the opposite, considering how the MFD vote is going. Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
(multi-ec) Ok. Feel free to propose an IBAN. I really don't see what the issue is here: you seem to be suggesting that I might not write this thing neutrally but there are a couple of issues there. The first is that there is nothing to stop someone adding/removing stuff (except for CMDC, I have no difficulty with people doing so provided that there is some sort of explanation); the second is that you have no idea just how many sources I've read and, in particular, how many "nasty" ones I've rejected. I can email you some examples if you want but I'm really not happy with posting them here because the web is full of crap about her (as indeed it is about me).
Anyway, I'm off out shortly: got a computer to fix. You know my name - (Redacted) - and you or anyone else is welcome to dig around the web for me, although I suspect that you'll find more with the Sitush monicker, including the infamous claims that I'm among those paid by Prince to edit here. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 17:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

You've made a big mistake. Eric Corbett 19:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, as expected, it is turning into a kangaroo court. There aren't many people involved in the discussion who are approaching it as they are supposed to do and, yes, it does look like another GGTF-centric pile-on. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It would appear as though some sensible people have come around now and I don't see any clear cut consensus for anything to be done - other than that draft be deleted. I'm going to bite my tongue there and go meddle in something else. Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
There is scant policy-compliant argument even for the draft to be deleted. I've addressed all of the concerns that might just possibly be based in policy. Indic articles would welcome your meddling - they're desperately short of scrutiny. - Sitush (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That controversial draft in your userspace[edit]

Hi Sitush.
I can't read your mind, so I don't know why you created that draft in your userspace. If had been created by anyone else but you about anyone else but CMDC, I wouldn't give a damn. But it was created by you and is about CMDC, and there is a manifest history about, well, "issues" between the both of you. Mate, it just is an monumentally bad idea to have this in your userspace.
I most strongly urge you to

  • ask for a WP:U1, or
  • move it into article-space, or at least the draft-space

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I created it in userspace because it is going to take quite a while to develop and because if I'd put it straight into mainspace then it would have been deleted as a recreation. I've already said that I have no objection to people editing the thing where it is. The idea of putting it in the Draft space hadn't crossed my mind at the time. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, you'll see other drafts in my userspace and my history should show that I've done this sort of thing quite a lot over the years. It is, I believe, good practice to develop articles there. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Two Way Interaction Ban[edit]

Sitush - Carolmooredc has said she would take a two way ban. Would you be willing to volunteer for one as well? That would essentially also be a topic ban from the Carol Moore article and you'd have to move it to draft space or another user's userspace (I'd be willing to hold onto it for the remainder of the MfD if necessary). Can we do that and get this drama over with?--v/r - TP 19:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is long, sorry. I've been out, saw your message a couple of hours ago and haven't looked at ANI since before then. I have had a think, though, and I appreciate that this has dragged on. I've deliberately ignored a fair amount of it and I don't intend to comment further in the ANI thread unless there is a particularly egregious issue. My sense is that the whole thing will be shut down as "no consensus", with some bits being a clear "no". And the MfD should fail because there are practically no valid policy-compliant reasons to delete, just a load of emotion.
This proposal would amount to an admission of wrong-doing on my part, It would also tie my hands more than it does hers, especially since I am trying to prepare an ArbCom case, she knows it and she is the one who has been gobbing off for weeks, if not longer. The amount she has done today, with the bad faith and the number of erroneous statements sprayed across umpteen pages, I'm surprised she hasn't been given a 24-hour cooling-off period. First she supported Bish's two-ban, then she proposed a one-way against me in relation to the draft, then she chimes in on a proposal regarding Eric Corbett, then she starts putting loads of incorrect stuff in a proposal to block me, then reverts to supporting the 2-way. Can't make her mind up, whereas I have been consistent and have noted what I intend to do next. Doing that may itself delay development of the draft but ...
... I don't mind anyone else helping out with the draft article, as I've already said, but I've been through a lot of sources and I'm willing to bet that no-one else will get through even half of them because so many turn out to be crap fringe-y stuff and because I have vast amounts of time on my hands. OTOH, I actually need the help because I can only see bits of some of them, notably at Some of the statements that are in it at present are effectively placeholders for things that might be developed once the sources are evaluated. So, I can use all the help I can get but I'm not submitting to a situation that would effectively make me another SPECIFICO and, probably, cause the article to be dumped due to apathy and, perhaps, vested interests. It feels like people are being picked off here, mostly by a lynch mob siding with a demagogue. And, for the sake of clarity, please note that SPECIFICO and myself have disagreed a lot and sometimes severely but never with the angst that CMDC creates. There is a common denominator here and with many other recent palavers, and it is not me.
I'm still waiting for Carolmooredc to explain her comment that the skeleton draft is "rife with inaccuracies" but she won't and I'm pretty damn sure that is because it isn't. Why should I be a fall-guy in a situation where one person seems to be leading an entire cohort up the garden path and seems almost never to substantiate their accusations in a valid manner? (That is a rhetorical question - I'm not expecting an answer.)
For reasons that should be pretty well known to the regulars here, I'll also be requesting oversighting of my name disclosure here as soon as the ANI is resolved. I have no problem with disclosing it as and when, in the spirit of collaboration etc, but I've been subject to death threats etc as a consequence of things I do here (nothing to do with Carolmooredc) and the less it gets about, the better. - Sitush (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I was a little surprised when you posted it openly. May I suggest removing it from the page sooner rather than later, to reduce the number of edits that have to be oversighted? All the edits between the posting and the removal of the name would have to be deleted. Writ Keeper  23:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I did it as an act of good faith, Writ. Feel free to arrange whatever is needed to make it go. That would be appreciated. Is it possible to copy that and the subsequent messages, oversight and then paste everything back but with the name asterisked? If that would work, it would at least preserve continuity of some sort even if not obviously so in the history. This is admin and oversighter wizardry and I've never seen the buttons to do it and thus have no idea how it works. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
A two way interaction ban is no admission of guilt at all. It basically comes down to this, you two don't get along and everyone is better off if you don't talk. That has nothing to do with one of you doing anything to cause it, it just means that you, her, and all of us don't have to deal with two people who don't get along. It's better for you, it's better for her, and it's better for us. Now, as a matter of fact, that ANI discussion is not going in your favor despite the proposals being opposes. The summary of the discussion is going to be very negative toward you overall. You should look at the ANI discussion as a strong warning. A two way interaction ban is your best chance of the next discussion not resulting in at least an iBan if not worse.

Bottom line is this: You will be less stressed if you and her do not talk anymore. It's as simple as that and your support of it could and should amount to simply that. It's not a matter of saving face, admitting guilt, or anything from this moment past. It's about this moment on. Simplify things for yourself, volunteer for an iBan.--v/r - TP 23:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's your opinion, TParis, and you are entitled to it. If the discussion summary is very negative then so be it. One thing is for sure, you've neither seen me nor spoken directly to me: I'm not in the least stressed. A bit frustrated that CMDC has got away with such a ridiculous number of misrepresentations etc, yes, but not stressed. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're handling this stress free, that's great on you. I certainly would be dealing with a high level of stress. Despite that, many editors on ANI are feeling a bit of stress about this issue. I'm not sure how our lack of prior interaction matters here, we are both fully aware of each other. We have the 'prevention not punishment' manifesto here because our primary goals are an encyclopedia and not to punish people or any other interpersonal issues. For the encyclopedia and - from the outside perspective of the guy who pretty much turned around both sanction discussions about you - for yourself, please volunteer for the proposal if nothing else than to show good faith. It is entirely in everyone's best interests that everyone agree to this.--v/r - TP 00:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, TParis, although I've seen you contribute to past ANI discussions involving me, I can't recall any that came close to me being sanctioned. If there were, then I assume that you acted as any other decent admin would have done and I thank you for that. There is no point in showing good faith by agreeing to a 2-way IBAN when the other party has shown little such faith at all and is playing games. This is going to end up as an ArbCom case request and I'm not agreeing to anything that might prevent me being a participant. Sure, I'll probably take some hits in that hearing also but there is more to Wikipedia than just trying to please most of the people most of the time and that, right now, seems to be the purpose of your proposal. Well-intentioned, I have no doubt, but less a resolution of the big issues than a sweeping under the carpet. I might regret this decision but there we go, sorry. I've got some principles and can honestly say that the draft article is being treated with discretion: there is much that I know from my research thus far that will never go in it and the same would apply whether the subject was a Wikipedia editor or someone who had never heard of this project. I've no desire to drag up crap etc just for the hell of it, nor to extol someone/something for a similar reason. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, so what if the ban were to specifically exempt Arbcom participation and/or filing?--v/r - TP 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that Carolmooredc would agree to that. In any event, I'm off to bed and so this will have to wait until tomorrow. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
She has agreed to a two way ban already, but I can try to talk to her about this. I'm willing to go back and forth between you two to work something out that benefits everyone.--00:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've revdeled the edits in question and sent a request to Oversight (who might well decide that simple revdel is sufficient, given that this was a self-outing, but that's as may be). The intervening edits' contents aren't lost in this process (either revdel or oversight, they're pretty much the same in end result); they just become undiffable.Writ Keeper  00:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Doubtless, I'll now have to live with claims of being a hypocrite but at least it improves my chances of living a little longer. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
! See Victor Hugo - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know you were a national hero who had a stroke. Sorry to hear that....I guess?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No, an apocryphal story relating to the publication of Les Miserables (excuse the lack of accent, it is nearly 0200 here and I need my sleep). The extension of life issue was raised earlier in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah. Got it.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Since you are working on a Arbcom case, please consider adding Neotarf and Evergreenfir as parties. They both have graduated from the CMDC school of filing bogus reports and playing the victim card. The former is by far the worst of the two, having already invoked Godwin's law to help smite those who have done CMDC wrong.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sitush, as someone who values what you do for WP I urge you to listen to TParis; he's talking sense. Even if you don't follow his specific proposal, find some way of stepping away from this whole situation and go nowhere near CD. What she does will catch up with her in due course - you don't need to throw yourself under the train to hasten it. Also, the crap that TParis revdel'd this morning says to me that this standard fare WP conflict is intersecting in an unhelpful way with the non-standard fare conflict you face in the other areas of your WP work. The latter's significantly more important for WP, and I suggest for you also. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
    • DeCausa is absolutely right here Sitush. Please, this isn't worth it. Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
DeCausa, I think you're referring to Writ's revdels on my talk, which I requested, or I've missed something? What I'm going to do is add a bunch of Google search phrases (not links) to the draft talk page + a link to the prior AfDs. The latter because they, too, have sources, and comments from at least one person who has been involved with her at a protest rally. Then find out how to move it into Draft space. I've already said that I'm happy for people to edit it, so where they do it doesn't matter. I'll not edit it further, nor comment in the inevitable subsequent pile-on AfD.

I'll continue my own stuff off-line in relation to an ArbCom request and I'll my utmost not to comment about or interact with CMDC outside of that or any other Arbcom process. I can't 100 per cent guarantee that I won't because she tends to write pretty egregious false accusations but, bearing in mind the ArbCom request, I should be able just to add any of those to my evidence. I think that is the best I can do and people are just going to have to trust me on it. - Sitush (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the draft, after a slight cock-up (learn something new every day, this time within minutes of my first coffee). Off out on a job in 10. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, that didn't last long, did it? I'm not touching the article but given CMDC's complaints about my refactoring for sense (in line with REDACT compliance), I've no idea why she would refactor more generally. She's poking, perhaps. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I give up. The sooner someone gets to grips with the mob, the better. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ah, it seems that the problem was one search term. It was a valid one and nothing to do with her owning a gun - "carol+moore"+"gun+owners"&oq="carol+moore"+"gun+owners". Another false accusation, then. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, not sure why that link does show the search but the sooner someone stops false charges being sprayed around, the better. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
That's never going to happen here. Did you notice that earlier today at AN/I I was accused of having created this article? Eric Corbett 13:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No, Eric, sorry. I'm trying not to look at that disgusting display of mob mentality right now. Too many clueless people in the mix. For one thing, the US-centric lobby obviously don't realise that here in the UK a search for "gun owners" doesn't necessarily impute anything in particular. - Sitush (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand. "Gun owner" doesn't necessarily impute anything anywhere so far as I can see. Having said that, a couple of years ago I had a blazing row on the doorstep with a bailiff who'd called to demand payment for a bill I didn't owe. After about 15 minutes of argey-bargey, with him threatening to break into the house and seize whatever took his fancy, and me telling him where he'd find his legs if he tried it, we both called the police. Unknown to me the lying toe rag told them that I'd been threatening him with a shotgun I don't have. It had the desired effect though, as within five minutes six policemen turned up, and eventually sent him on his way. Happy days. Eric Corbett 14:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ha! That sounds like a serendipitous moment. According to you know who, having that in a list of useful search terms to use with her name imputed that she owned one. A. E. Housman once said Three minutes' thought would have told him he was wrong, but thought is irksome and three minutes is a long time. Ditto for GSearches, it would seem. - Sitush (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I think ya'll just need Jesus. Do ya'll have a couple of moments to talk about our wonderful lord and savior?Dusti*Let's talk!* 15:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather not discuss Jimbo: he is a big part of this problem and, I believe, another of the Libertarian persuasion. Take a trip round the Libertarian articles and you'll find a whole series of walled-gardens, particularly on biographies. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Sitush: going back to my original comment and your reply: no the revdel was TParis's (about 7 this morning) not Writ's. I assumed you were aware of it. If not, I hesitate to draw your attention to it (it was extremely unpleasant) but it does illustrate how those that are seeking to put RL pressure on you on the Indic side of things are using this conflict. Email TP perhaps. DeCausa (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa, TParis: Sorry, I should have updated to say that I had seen the TParis revdel after responding to you. Getting extremely unpleasant posts here is common; if there was a suggestion that might actually impact on me (you'll know the sort of thing I mean, not mere "your mother's a whatever" type of comment) then perhaps I should be aware. Thanks for alerting me to it: Echo is behaving very oddly at the moment - Erik Moeller emailed me last week to explain that there are a lot of changes being put through by the developers. - Sitush (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
YGM regarding the material. On the iBan topic, I've asked Carolmooredc if she'd agree to an Arbcom exemption.--v/r - TP 15:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks re: the mail, which I'll check in a moment. Re: CMDC, I wouldn't worry about it: let her hang herself if she wants. I've no intention of engaging except in the egregious circumstances mentioned above. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sitush: Carol has agreed to an exemption for Arbcom. The iBan would be a two way interaction ban provided that any Arbcom action including filing, commenting on, enforcement, clarifications, ect are exempted. Such an iBan would include talking about each other, commenting to each other, writing articles about each other, reverting anothers edits, and commenting on ANI cases involving one another. Violations would be reported via email to an admin of your choice that you trust or Arbcom. If you agree, we're set and everyone is happy. It'd probably be much easier than the two way ban that is being discussed on ANI right now. Again, it's not an admission of guilt. It'll simply mean you two don't care much for each other and want to just avoid each other.--v/r - TP 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to avoid her in the sense that you mean, though. That's the problem. She wants me to avoid her because that would suit her: she "wins" because I'm censored regarding her interests and she has no interest in mine. In any case, she'd probably soon find a way to invoke sanctions on me - just look at all the misrepresentations she has made in the last 48 hours and the way that even a few admins have been taken in by them. She has been running around like a headless chicken, making false allegations, whipping up support and whinging everywhere, whilst I've kept it tight: basically, ANI, MfD, draft talk. Having just looked at the ANI history, I see this - Happily bio's gone and a voluntary two way interaction ban going into effect soon. Geez... Either she just can't stop herself from misrepresenting or you've told her that I am up for this thing, which is not what I said in the first place: I needed time to think and, yes, I was dubious that she would not accept an Arbcom exception. My ability to assume good faith regarding her has disintegrated in the face of the enormous amount of bad faith etc coming in my direction.
I've not read any ANI thread today, merely looked at the edit summaries. I've no intention of looking at it while the righteous hangers-on and civility-obsessed brigade are involved in that thread, so they can do what the heck they like. I really don't see any difference between an enforced IBAN and a voluntary one. Except that it is enforced then I might be able to point to the illegitimacy of it (the baying mob) at some future date, whereas otherwise I have indeed admitted "guilt". It isn't as if I care whether people like me or not because, if it were, I would have long since abandoned the Indic topic area, where hatred flows daily and is far more vitriolic than anything Carolmooredc has seen.
  • I won't be reverting her again even though she has seemingly no grasp of TPG
  • I won't be on her talk page, which I do not watchlist anyway and from which I am one of many whom she has banned.
  • I won't be following her around because I never have done so in the stalking sense. But I do need to be able to check her history for the ArbCom thing. There is seven years' worth to trawl through
  • I won't be pinging her or using {{u}}, {{user}} etc, outside of ArbCom.
That said, I don't see why I should be restrained from even mentioning her name on my talk page or at ANI. I'm happy to not refer to her or her actions anywhere else, so all she has to do is ignore this page unless she ends up at ANI again (and I won't be instigating a report about her there). But if people want to talk to me about her and her little shouty gang, why should they effectively be prevented from doing so due to my inability to respond? I suppose it could be done by email but that seems to be not in the spirit of this project. And if no-one wants to speak to me about her then nothing will be said here, will it? I'm not yet senile enough to be talking to myself, and there are plenty of talk pages that I simply ignore.
This situation has arisen out of a specific issue, ie: the draft article. Our interactions have been far fewer than people think, in the broad view of things. If she didn't run around so much whenever she feels slighted, the noise level would be very low. She has pretty much been told that recently even by people who favour her. She may need to get a grip of her emotions, a behavioural trait that is not something for which I or anyone else should suffer sanction. It is the running around and almost congenital misrepresentation/inability to comprehend that cranks up the volume and gives the impression that there has been some excessive interaction. - Sitush (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, those feelings are all fine and dandy about what you think you should or shouldn't be restrained from doing, but the option is about to be taken away from you and with a lot more negative connotation, less good faith, and a whole lot more restrictions. What I'm suggesting is not scratch free, but it's certainly better with the bludgeon that ANI is discussing. I'm hoping you can see that and see how this benefits you. One way or another, you are not going to be allowed to discuss her. Whether it happens on ANI in this discussion, the next, or you volunteer - it is coming. Can't you see how doing it the way I suggest works to your benefit? Especially if this goes to Arbcom, your good faith attempts to work out a resolution will be noted.--v/r - TP 18:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't looked at ANI, like I said, so I've no idea what the blugeon is or how that differs from what you propose. I'm sticking up for a principle here and, no, I don't see how if would affect ArbCom: a sanction was enforced rather than a sanction was accepted? Seems like the same thing to me: a sanction. I'm not massively familiar with the US legal system but this looks rather like plea bargaining, which is a pretty difficult thing for a Brit to grasp. Perhaps I am being particularly dense; if anyone would else would like to comment, for or against, then I'd welcome further input. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(and since you ask...!) Looking at all this dispassionately, I tend to agree with Sitush that the ban is effectively a one way punishment. Clearly carolmooredc would be perfectly happy if Sitush is not allowed to mention that user on Wikipedia. But, the ban would prevent Sitush from writing an article on Carol Moore and would prevent Sitush from monitoring carolmooredc's activities on Wikipedia which, apparently, he feels is necessary for the betterment of this site. The main upside of an interaction ban for Sitush is "this is just a website so who cares and I can get on with my life in peace." So, the choice is (a) give carolmooredc what they want and I (sitush) don't give a damn about this website anyway; (b) don't let carolmooredc damage the site in the way that I (sitush) think they're damaging the site; (c) let the community decide what it will and I'm willing to live with that. Note that I'm just presenting what I think sitush's choices are - I personally have no opinion on carolmooredc though I do have a lot of respect for sitush. (Also, I don't actually see enough level of support on ANI for an interaction ban anyway but I've long un-watchlisted it so am no expert on what goes on there.)--regentspark (comment) 18:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Sitush, many will tell you that this isn't a hill worth dying on, perhaps they already have, but many of them would be afraid to die on any hill, so fuck 'em. The most important thing here is self-respect and how you feel about yourself. Nothing else matters really. Eric Corbett 18:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the proposal on ANI to impose an interaction ban on Sitush, as of this writing, it's 6 in favor and 16 opposed; is that the bludgeon being alluded to above? OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to the two way ban that has 16 supports, 13 opposes and the last 5 consecutive were support which might show a turning of the tide toward support.--v/r - TP 21:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
It might show many things, not the least of which would be Carol's repeated canvassing and forum shopping. Eric Corbett 21:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure Sitush will be as good as his word but someone else just can't help herself.[22] It's a very difficult decision but only you can make it and nobody should think any less of you whatever you decide.J3Mrs (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input so far, all of you. I am going to ponder this overnight and will repeat what I said somewhere above, ie: I am not remotely stressed about this entire situation. I am approaching it rationally. I'm 99% sure of what I am going to do but I've just had a quick look at the ANI, bearing in mind TParis's analysis above. I only looked at the 2-way bit because I really do not want to read all of the bad faith/pile-on stuff, and it is late here anyway.
I notice something that I've seen before and it must be a nightmare for any closing admin: when various proposals are made, there is often a tendency for !votes to be cast in the most recent proposal and not in any that precede them. There are times when that is intentional - I did it myself in the recent SPECIFICO ban and I made it clear that it was my intention. But there are other times when it might just be a "human nature" thing, whereby people head for the active bit of the discussion. An example of that occurs here: I've no idea what J3Mrs thinks about the 2-way IBAN but I have my suspicions based on the comment above. J3Mrs has not !voted in that section, only in other bits, and I think that there may be others who have also done this. It might be deliberate, which is fine, but it is definitely unclear. Whatever happens, I pity the person that has to close the damn thing but also assure them that they'll get no ranting/badgering or whatever from me. I've seen that happen before, too. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not deliberate, commented in the wrong place after a long, long day. J3Mrs (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It's no big deal, J3Mrs. Like I said, I think this happens quite a lot. I also think that quite often people assess and !vote at one point in the discussion but do not follow it thereafter, so when a new subsection opens it is only the diehards (who are usually involved to some extent) that re-!vote. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to take my chances, TParis. I've explained above what I will do and obviously that precludes recreating the bio, so anyone objecting on the basis of that is basically supporting a punitive measure. I've also explained why I think a voluntary IBAN is a bad idea and I see nothing in the above comments from others to make me change my mind. Please accept my apologies for wasting your time here. I really should explain my position in the ANI thread but am due to go out shortly. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
(Shrug) Fair enough if you want to take your chances, it's not time wasted, it was a worthy effort.--v/r - TP 17:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, I finally got round to posting something in the ANI thread today, ultimately linking to this thread, and I now feel like I am being railroaded in what I'm pretty sure is a disingenuous manner. Is there any point in me continuing at all when this crap is allowed to go on? - Sitush (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"doubling down"[edit]

Regarding your question on "doubling down": the term comes from the card game blackjack, where you make an initial bet, and then can later decide to double that bet for a single additional card. When used as a metaphor, it means that the party in question is increasing their personal involvement (and thus personal risk and potential effect on their reputation) in a task. isaacl (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. I had seen the phrase before but didn't understand it. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously an empty phrase in this particular case though, since neither Jimbo nor the WMF has subsequently done anything. Indeed it's difficult to see what they could do. Eric Corbett 13:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course they've done nothing. The belief that Jimbo might actually do something about any hobbyhorse issue being promoted on his talk page, rather than platitudinising etc, is a triumph of hope over experience. This all began as a Gardner initiative: she has now gone, leaving the community to pick up the pieces from her failed systemic bias initiatives. The damage her ideas did in relation to the Indic topic area, where she also sought more inclusiveness but didn't think it through, is another case in point. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

St John's Church, Manchester[edit]

Now duly promoted. I enjoyed the article very much and it was a pleasure to review it. I didn't mention it on the review page, not wishing to drag a kipper across the track, but St John's so reminded me of St Luke's in Liverpool, near my old school, that I wondered if they might be by the same architect, but plainly not, given the dates of the man who did St Luke's. Tim riley talk 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for reviewing it. Hopefully, some more information will turn up in due course. I think some of my family were married at St Luke's very soon after it was built but I'd have to check my records. They moved from the Walton area to a cess-pit in Salford sometime around the 1830s, while other sides of the family made somewhat longer journeys to enjoy the rain (among them, from Bangalore, Antigua and Germany). - Sitush (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Round 357[edit]

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_India_Against_Corruption_editor --NeilN talk to me 03:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Why we do not just block on sight is beyond me. They think they're so clever now that they've got my name but they're obviously unaware that I've recently moved to a completely different town, a long way from my old address. That's why I was so much less active during the daytime for a period earlier this year. They can try serving legal papers if they want but there is no online trail and I've always been unlisted in public documents etc (eg: telephone directories). I pity the other people living around the country who share the same name, though - there are several and if anyone gets served, it will be one of them. That said, if the IAC are friendly with the NSA in the US then I suppose they might just be able to track me, although not from the snooped phone records because I've never telephoned anyone, ever. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
There are some strange people here. I may have mentioned this before, but an administrator now desysoped once sent me a picture of my house with my car parked outside, to prove to me that he knew who I was in real life. Eric Corbett 13:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
That story is new to me, Eric, and plain weird. If the IAC people try calling on me, it won't be to take a photograph. In fact, something has just struck me: as is common, I was asked about neighbourly relations by the new occupants of my old place. There was no problem on that front but perhaps I should have mentioned that someone from further afield might be turning up with a serious piece of weaponry at some point. - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
He didn't actually turn up in person, it was one of those Google street view things or whatever they're called. But in fact that admin is one of the reasons why I haven't attended any of the Manchester meetups since the one I met you at. I really couldn't tolerate being in the same room with him. Eric Corbett 14:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sitush, if you'll pass on further upcoming IAC sock/meatfarm names to me, I will block on sight. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC).

Thanks, Bish, but I won't see them. The latest pseudo-innocent machinating at ANI is the last straw. I've deliberately ignored it for days and when I come back to make a closing statement, she's straight in there with fabrications again. I've no idea how much long the project will put up with the "playing dumb" act, especially through strategies such as multiple refactors of messages. Plenty of people realise that there is a problem and that it really isn't me but until the community wakes up and does some about it, I'm gone. You've just lost a 75% articlespace contributor to a 70% non-articlespace crapstirrer. Mail me when the community comes to its senses, please. And if it doesn't then I don't want to be a part of it anyway. I'm here to build and improve content, not create a utopia. - Sitush (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a very sad state of affairs. Sitush and Eric are less able to attend Manchester meetups for a number of regrettable reasons, and Bishonen is less able to act on undesirable editors who might be behind the problem, for related reasons. Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry, and I wish you both all the best. I am sure Bishonen will be keeping an eye out too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The serious problem here is that these real-life threats are simply ignored by the civility warriors. Eric Corbett 00:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for issuing threats of violence towards other users. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.   Mike VTalk 02:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Indefinite edit block? Oh, what is happening? --TitoDutta 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Mike V: Threats of violence? Diff please. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
They have been RevDel'd but I assure you they existed unfortunately :/ Dusti*Let's talk!* 03:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It appears the threat has been revision deleted. I just read it and it is a serious threat of violence. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) For last 15 minutes, I have been trying to find the edits. No hint at ANI (I could not read the full discussion) or Arbitration. Most probably it is the three deleted edits in this talk page. Chillum, could you send me content of those edits to my email (using Wikipedia email)? I assure I'll not post anywhere in Wikipedia, but I really want to read. TitoDutta 03:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC) One line hidden that became irrelevant after the edit-conflict. TitoDutta 03:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, thank you, I'll ask after sometime unless I get any clue from this discussion. I am really surprised. --TitoDutta 03:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Chillum, could you let me know what page it was on? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Nevermind, I found it...I suppose it could be read as a threat, but I'd be just as inclined to take it as somebody who is angry and tired. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The threat has been revision deleted, as per standard practice and as allowed by policy. I agree with Chillum that such comments are revision deleted for a reason and shouldn't be shared with others unless there is a highly justifiable reason to provide it. Unfortunately Tito, saying that you "... really want to read" the comments suggests that it's only for personal curiosity. As such, I'm not willing to indulge your request. Mike VTalk 03:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Nothing much really, he just got fed up and called it quits. Unfortunately, he also made a loaded response to Demiurge’s comment above which like Adjwilley said, couldn't necessarily be perceived as a credible threat of violence per se.  NQ  talk 04:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Given Adjwilley's comment, as well as what Sitush has been going through w/the IAC thing mentioned higher up this talk page, I'm inclined to believe that this is a case of admin overreaction. Rev/del should probably be saved for when there's absolutely no doubt. (i.e. "I know where you live, and will slit your fucking throat", posting of real-life addresses, with credible threats of violence, and those type of things.) LHMask me a question 04:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW I saw it and I'd be jumping on this if I thought I could argue in Sitush's favour. I know emergency@ was notified and they're investigating as well. Dusti*Let's talk!* 04:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Some people just don't appreciate good quality articles apples.
  • Sitush was baited (as he has been for the past fortnight) until he snapped. Given the history and MO, I believe that was a certain editor's plan from the beginning. Not the first time, won't be the last. A sad indictment of WP. We're losing constructive editors in order to keep some of the least productive and most disruptive. Reaping, sewing and whatnot. Stlwart111 05:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Stalwart111 hit the nail on the head. This is a serious loss to Wikipedia. Everyone has a breaking point. But I've looked at the deleted post and although it's a heated response to Demiurge, it follows Demiurge's 'theme' and because of that I don't see it as a real threat, just an ill-considered response. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ...and then rev/del'ing the "proof" used for the indef block, preventing any scrutiny from those of use who don't happen to have a few extra buttons associated with our accounts. LHMask me a question 05:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I saw it before it was rev-del'd and I knew what was coming. A year (or more) ago I stood alone and urged WP:ROPE in the face of an angry lynch-mob who wanted Sitush's aggressor indef-blocked. Biggest mistake I've ever made and I regret it to this day. Sitush is simply the latest in a string of editors she has since forced away from individual wiki-projects or "the project" entirely, myself included. For what it's worth, I'm sorry - for that and for this. Stlwart111 05:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I've read the offending comment. Had it instead been directed at me, I wouldn't have been even slightly worried about impending homicide. It's not directed to me, and I'm still not worried about homicide. This is largely because I've read it and understood it in the context of the comments that immediately preceded it on the very same page. (The remarks are about one or more disputes. I've no idea what these disputes are about, and currently am not particularly interested.) ¶ I think I may divulge that one thing Sitush wrote in the deleted post is "Fuck Wikipedia" (or something very similar). This expresses a mood that many excellent editors find themselves in from time to time. While in this mood, a contributor is particularly unlikely to return to point out that their earlier wording had been figurative. I hope that, after resting a bit and giving Wikipedia time to cheney itself, Sitush does return for this. ¶ I don't remember encountering Sitush until early last month. After I'd laboriously turned an utterly little wretched article into a wretched one but lacked any hope of improving it further, Sitush amazed me by converting it into a good little one in double quick time. Sitush is (or can be) an excellent contributor, I'd be delighted to work in tandem with them in the future, and if they'd contemplate aiming weapons at me, no biggie. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC) .... fixed typos -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It is completely unsatisfactory that we're just supposed to accept Mike V's verdict without being able to review the evidence for ourselves. What a fucking joke this place is. Eric Corbett 09:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a great tragedy and a great loss. I hope that Sitush will realize that despite his own viewpoint that he was not getting stressed, that is precisely what happened. That he was baited mercilessly is not at issue, but nothing Earth-shaking was being contemplated by the lynch mob: at the worst, a 2-way interaction ban with some exceptions (by the way I opposed it). There was no implication of fault attached to Sitush. It is disconcerting to see your name dragged through the mud at AN/I, but there would have been no long-term damage, unlike this action. I hope once he cools down, he realizes that Keep Calm and Carry On is the motto to follow on Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot work in theory, but in practice many things get done. Kingsindian (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingsindian, I think you've misread my "lynch-mob" comment. That relates to a more-than-year-old discussion about CarolMooreDC (might as well call a spade a spade) who was facing an indef-block. That had nothing to do with Sitush but demonstrates the length of time she has been a problem. But she is a protected species around here and is free to accuse, misquote, misrepresent, refactor-for-disruption and play the victim with impunity. There is barely an editor left who has called her to account and "lived to tell the tale". Case in point. Stlwart111 10:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is designed to be stressful, to provoke reactions such as this. How long does a case typically languish at ArbCom for instance? Eric Corbett 10:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
@Stalwart111: I was not responding to you at all: notice the indent. These were simply my own thoughts on the matter. I came to "lynch mob" conclusion on my own. Kingsindian (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
All good KI - I thought the choice of words was designed to be a reply. I can certainly understand us coming to the same conclusion. Stlwart111 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • What the fuck is happening to this place? I can't believe this...yet here it is. If the editor made a real doesn't matter if they intended to carry it out our not. But....I am truly shocked by this...I really am. What the fuck happened to professionalism? What kind of a place are we supporting here? Jesus...this isn't supposed to be like this. OIts an encuclopedia not a war zone!--Mark Miller (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The revdel was acceptable I suppose, but the block was certainly a case of admin overreaction in my opinion. As Adjwilley, Stalwart111, Dougweller and Hoary (three of them with access to the comment, as have I) and others argue above, Sitush was baited until he snapped. Treating the revdel'd post as a credible threat of violence is just foolish. Mind you, it may not make a whole lot of difference that he's blocked; Sitush wanted out in any case, and I'd be surprised to see an unblock request any time soon. I think he may actually be tired of seeing everything he's been doing for the encyclopedia go for nought the way it has been happening recently, including a mealy-mouthed passive-agressive attack from Jimbo and escalating from there. A classic case of Wikipedia eating her children. Bishonen | talk 11:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC).
    As often is the case, Bishonen explains things very well. You can add me to the list of people with access to Sitush's comments who disagrees with the block. Sitush is one of those rare editors whom I trust. He is smart, incisive, and always there when I need help. Hopefully, as others who have left Wikipedia in great anger and frustration, he will eventually miss Wikipedia (strange as that might seem) and want to return. At that point, he can be unblocked, and we can put yet another sorry episode behind us, at least partly anyway. At some point, Sitush, if you're reading this, take care of yourself, relax, and enjoy your real life.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    I'm afraid you may be correct. The unpalatable truth for those such as Jimbo is that Wikipedia needs Sitush far more than Sitush needs Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 11:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • You know what.....baiting is a fucking sad excuse. Really....someone was baited into reacting with a threat of violence? Didn't intend to carry it out? Who the fuck cares...the threat was real. Lets have a good old fashioned wheel war now. Unblock them. It is within the power of the admin corpse to just ignore this and bring them back right now. Do it. Why not...after all...who cares whether or not administrators are ever taken seriously again? I might...but then who the fuck am I? Just someone trying to get both of these people to stay away from each other. I know...lets block the one who was threatened. After all....we don't yet have enough drama, do we?--Mark Miller (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      Baiting is a fucking sad modus operandi, but it's all too common here. Eric Corbett 12:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Excuses seem more common.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I am afraid Mark Miller is reacting to something which is a bit different from the reality. Nobody is excusing Sitush's behaviour: explanation is not justification. No admin has overturned the block (though people are free to question the wisdom of it, as they have done), nor has anyone blocked the person against whom the threat was made. The comments here are simply from people who think of the situation as a sad event. Kingsindian (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
No. I am reacting to the facts, I also asked if anyone wanted to do what I have seen in the past...war over the block. I am not asking for it to happen or saying it will. I am questioning the wisdom of the threat itself. I find it shocking coming from this particular editor. However...I do believe some are asking, or suggesting that this will simply be overturned. I seriously do not know if the standard offer applies in these cases. if so....I urge Sitush to form a good unblock request...and support them doing so. with a good unblock request...perhaps we can allow Sitush back. I am afraid however...that this may not be an option the editor is even willing to make. After all.....they do have their own sensibilities that...perhaps means they will think this place a ship of fools....and decline to further participate. Can't say that I would blame them, but hope...actually hope they can somehow find their way back here.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
As much as I might hope otherwise, I suspect Sitush will simply join the growing list of editors forced from this project by Carol Moore. I desperately hope he proves me wrong. Stlwart111 13:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd be surprised to see an unblock request any time soon — Quoted @Bishonen: — Same here. The last part of his deleted message indicates that he is tired with Wikipedia and may not return soon. I have been searching help pages to find out if a third editor can make an unblock request, I have not found anything still that allows or prohibits it.
    If I had to judge here, I would have blocked Sitush for 3 days — 1 week for harassment/personal attack/threat, not indef. --TitoDutta 13:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This is the dawn of the new order. Sitush has been subjected to intolerable harassment since Jimbo Wales identified the serious long term content builders as the main problem on Wikipedia. Sitush and another particularly able editor have been selected by Wales for special attention. Such behaviour towards able content builders is now acceptable, indeed necessary, on the grounds that able editors tend to be dishonourable and toxic and need banning. Examples need to be made, in a kind way of course. Ideally the remaining able content builders will leave of their own accord. The non content-building, politically correct, social networking users that drive this revolution will become the future of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
The effect of teams is more likely to become the downfall of Wikipedia. Every team can hunt down a individual editor and defeat him, as many administrator fail to see the group-patterns and act like they are dealing with a lot of individuals instead of one group. The Banner talk 14:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm#Responding, the requirements are clear:

  1. "Treat all claims seriously" - It is irresponsible to choose not to take a threat of using a gun seriously.
  2. "Email the Wikimedia Foundation with details so they can contact the relevant authorities:" - I believe this has already been done(Dusti mentioned that it was).
  3. "Contact an administrator privately to remove the revision from public view and have the user blocked." - An admin was available and rev-del was completed and the user blocked
  4. "Consider blocking users making active threats of harm to others and removing the talkpage and email access. If in doubt, contact the office." - The block has been done, not talk page revocation, this could be added though if any such threats continue.

To those suggesting we not take it seriously, that is simply not an option. All threats must be taken seriously particularly when it mentions a firearm.

This block was letter for letter inline with the policy while also going with its spirit.

Now that the foundation has been made aware of this incident they should look into it. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to quibble a bit, but before I do, I respect Mike V and you both, and I'm not saying that Mike acted outside policy or that your agreement is "wrong". Let's put the policy aside for the moment and look at it from a real-life perspective. Let's assume the threat is credible. It seems to me the most important thing is to contact the authorities. What happens on-wiki doesn't come close to being as important. Now let's look at the policy quotes (I haven't looked to verify their accuracy, but I trust you) and your interpretations of them. The first two are fine. However, three and four are in conflict. One says block the user and the other says consider blocking the user, meaning there's discretion as to whether to do so. Finally, nowhere do I see that an indefinite block is mandated. I should probably go read the entire policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I've read it. A couple of things. It's not policy; it's an essay. Second, you quoted accurately from the box at the top of the page. However, the body isn't 100% consistent with the box. That's it for now.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
But there is no requirement for an indefinite block. I've raised this at WP:ANI#Request review of block of User:Sitush — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs) 16:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I've just seen this, and looked at the edits in question, and add me to the number deeply regretting this. Sitush, I hope you realise a lot of us do value your contributions. I can't say I don't appreciate why you might prefer to stay away, but personally I hope you change your mind. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This is really sad. A prolific contributor blocked because of a non-threat threat - a poorly thought through response to baiting but not a blockable offense. This is what results from all the toxicity that ANI generates and, as User:The Banner points out, the inability of the admin corps to see group patterns - the forest for the trees so to speak. Sitush, I hope you stay despite all this. --regentspark (comment) 21:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you![edit]

Gaufre biscuit.jpg Take your time and hope to see you back soon. The Banner talk 10:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have jacked it in[edit]

Till you get unblocked, pure fucking bollocks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


Geez, I leave WP for a week and it goes all pear shaped. Sitush, vaya con Dios. You have done more for the writing of an encyclopedia than almost anyone else. I hope you return, but fully understand why you might not want to. If you do come back, please be careful what you say. But since I know it was a one-off intemperate remark, I've unblocked you. There's no sense in having this account blocked if you're gone.

Respectfully, --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Finally, some sense. Well done. LHMask me a question 21:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Seconded. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto. I only came across you yesterday with your excellent Church article, and I think your absence is a great shame. Cassiantotalk 21:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Ditto. DeCausa (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Phew. Wise move Floq. Now, hopefully, we can get less drama and more content editing. --regentspark (comment) 22:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    Exactly this. I had only added ANI to my watchlist for this and the removal of Flyer22's rollback. Both situations unfortunately cost us prolific content editors, and for what? Both instigating admmin actions have now (correctly) been reversed. And ANI is again off my watchlist. LHMask me a question 23:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your courage Floq. If this was the trigger for the drama then the block was, in the context, an unskilful over-reaction. Unskilful behaviour from the admin corp is very common, and will continue dogging Wikipedia until admins as a group are willing to reform the mess they have created. They need to find ways of constituting a proper disciplinary and resolution board for content builders. The members of such a board need to be able content builders who are suited to the task and can build and retain the respect of other content builders. It is perfectly possible, indeed easy to do this if there is a will. But it needs more admins willing to look at what works best for Wikipedia rather than merely what offers the most for the admins. If change cannot happen then Wikipedia is being held hostage by an admin takeover. It is not something the community can do anything about, since admin matters are now wholly under the control of legacy admins and the drama board habituates. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


The pignons Tunisie.jpg Liberation Tea
Hej,don't scare us like this. Hafspajen (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Flocky, love you, vaya con Dios... you too. Hafspajen (talk) 21:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)