Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Welcome to the incident noticeboard
This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so.

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Click here to start a new discussion thread

---

Noticeboard archives

Legal threat by User:Uboater at Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine#Connection_with_trust

Dealing with UBoater

Editor objecting to inclusion of sourced content now says "Unless you remove the section, which is clearly in breach of the british law of subjudicy, I will have no alternitive other than to persue a libel by litigation cace against you." PamD 15:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

And a direct threat of litigation has also been made directly against Wikipedia and myself here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. As usual for LT blocks, it is indefinite. But the user may be unblocked by any admin (without prior consultation with me) if they determine that the threats have been sufficiently withdrawn. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone else please keep an eye on the blocked user's talk page. I've been in discussions with him, trying to get him to understand that he has to withdraw the threat without trying to renew it in the next sentence. The discussion is ongoing, but I'm going to need to leave the computer for a hour or two, and will thus be unable to respond in a timely manner to any more responses from him. So if one or more other admins would keep an eye out for further responses, and continue to assist him, including unblocking if the other admin(s) feel that a sufficient withdrawal has been made, it would be appreciated. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I took a quick look at his talk page, and I praise higher powers that I didn't press F7 (spellcheck) by accident. Had I done that, my computer would have self-destructed. It must be some sort of unofficial world record. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's perhaps worth noting that Uboater self-identifies as "Capt.Richard Williams", the person the disputed content is about, so it's natural that there will be an emotive element to this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Their statement "I was arested, but have not been charged with any offense." makes it clear that it it is a personal matter. They are thinking in terms of British law, not Wikipedia guidelines, and I don't think you are going to change their minds on this. The user's contribs show they have a singular interest at Wikipedia, and their interest is in their own reputation. I don't see this getting to the point of unblocking because the user's self interest is greater than their concern about the process here, and they are basically giving an ultimatum that if we do thing their way, they will consider not seeking legal action. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Back. I agree that it looks unlikely now that they will withdrawal the threat sufficiently to meet WP:NLT. Should a heads-up be given to the WF legal team? UK vs US or not, I do not see him giving up on this, and that means that there will possibly be something or other coming at the project at some point over this. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how his last statement ends, "Simply remove the ofending comments and I will withdraw my legal challange," shall we simply ignore him? He's not abusing his talk page so I don't know if there's reason to block access to it, yet there's apparently nothing to be gained by continued engagement. --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I left a note, in one sentence. I propose we simply leave this be until the captain retracts. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have accepted a withdrawal of the legal threats, and unblocked Uboater, with a warning to avoid any more mention of any potential of future legal actions on his part. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with the article

• Legal threat though it is, the material is improper and a violation of BLP Do no harm. The arrest is over the tax concerns of the owner of the Uboat replica in an unrelated venture. Apparently it happened on the boat, but as our article explicitly says, it has no other connection. I can not see keeping this material here, and I have deleted it. if he wants to think we removed it as a result of his threats, we can not stop him, but he did have a justifiable complaint no matter how improper was the way he pursued it, and the removal is in accord with our policy. TransporterMan justifies the sentence on the basis no RS says it is unconnected. The true policy is that it must be removed until there is a RS saying it is connected. We do not include negative information of this nature while awaiting a source for it. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a certain irony to all this, given that the editor in question first came to the attention of many editors by spamming another story about himself onto Royal Armouries Museum and various other articles. He is now unblocked and has the sourced news item removed - he appears to have won. PamD 08:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Would a cut-down form of wording: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat when a man was arrested on board in January, 2012, in connection with an alleged multi-year £1 million VAT fraud." be acceptable in BLP terms, with the existing sources? It was the boat which made the headlines - if he had been arrested in an ordinary house the press would not have been interested. PamD 08:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Or the form the editor himself said he would be "quite happy" with: "Additional media attention was drawn to the boat on January 26th 2012, when Capt. Williams was arrested on board the boat and his personal possessions were searched. This arest was in connection with an alleged £1 million VAT fraud, dating back 7 years, involving false sales of disability equipment. The only connection with U-8047 TRUST, which is just 10 months old, is that Capt. Williams was on board the submarine museum at the time of his arest" (spelling, date format, and self-awarded title to be amended)? PamD 09:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pam, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter what the user is happy with. It matters how we handle unimportant criminal events that happen to get a little publicity. If he wants to hide his arrest or flaunt it--presumably for publicity, it doesn't matter. He can be as foolish as he likes outside Wikipedia. We have our own reputation, and we're not a tabloid. Let's say of the the faculty whose bios I often work with wants to put in his bio, possibly for his street cred with his students, that he was involved with drinking or drugs as an undergraduate. It doesn't go in, unless he's so famous that everything about him is pertinent or its actually relevant to what he's famous for--e.g. Kary Mullis DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

But this is not a bio. It's an article about a (probably only marginally notable) minor tourist attraction. It featured in newspapers apropos of an arrest; an editor added that fact; a WP:SPA editor removed it; it was replaced (several iterations); the SPA threatened legal action if it was not removed; he was blocked, he was unblocked, it was removed. Ah well, there are more important things to fret about than this pretend submarine. PamD 22:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP material is BLP material, regardless of what kind of article it's in. And it's not about whether or not he "won" - if he got what he wanted, and the result is what we would want in line with Wikipedia's policies, everyone won. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyond that, Mr. Williams is quite right in that the arrest is incidental to the submarine. For pity's sake, we don't include in building or location articles when arrests take place there, even of famous people, never mind of folks without articles. Were Williams to qualify for his own article, sourced info of his arrest would be pertinent. In the sub article, it's well below superfluous. No one would dream of including the info in, say, the Buckingham Palace article were he arrested there.

Beyond that - and worth an "Ahem!" - we are here to determine what is right to do, not to score points off of other editors. Of course WP:NLT violations are pretty much at the top of the scale for misconduct here, but to not apply perfectly reasonable edits to articles because someone who narked us off could claim victory? To use an uncle's pithy phrase, we shouldn't get our asses in it that much. Ravenswing 17:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The subsequent history of the article is quite interesting - the original editor replaced the BLP content at one point as it had some of the little Reliable Sourcing for anything about his boat. The article is now much shorter and includes much less promotional content about a rather minor tourist attraction. PamD 11:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Repeated ban vio

There have been repeated interaction ban violations by Darkness Shines... A block was issued on one (which was removed when he convinced the blocking admin that he wont do it again). I have clarified this with the same administrator (Salvio giuliano) so that I'm not taken as wasting community's time or initiating an interaction through the report. Salvio has said it is a clear ban violation but I've to report it here for further action as he's not available. There have been clear massive taggings on my contributions at other articles too. Tagging the whole article for improvement is one thing, but these were specific tags on my additions repeatedly. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I didn't know then if they were violations and ignored them, but now since I've clarified them, these should be reverted as ban violation (or I should be allowed to revert such vios if they are declared as such). The current one I reported is here: [7]. There was also an intentional overwrite of full article [8] and then a self revert... there've been too many self reverts recently... I ignored them as it can happen when rollback is mistakenly clicked or one doesn't know whose contribution it was, but this one was deliberate overwrite of full article for whatever reason. Please refer to the clarification discussion here which I had with Salvio for the context. Can some one please drop the ANI notice too as I don't want to violate IBAN. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified. Dru of Id (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• currenly on my mobile there is nothing in the iban which says adding tags was. It allowed. I do not think it a violation. Will comment further when I get home Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Was DS blocked for this at all? Or, if I may be so bold, DS, why the fuck would you want to do stuff like that? Were you drunk? Never mind, I don't want to know. Salvo, you seem to have been appointed as the arbitrator here. If you can get those two, and the associates, away from here, there's a barnstar in it for you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Salvio said he's too busy to do anything about it now.--Atlan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No block was issued for the said edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Drmies, except... Why is TopGun editing so many articles Darkness Shines has started in the last week (I believe all of the examples above)? Surely, if adding {{cn}} tags is an interaction ban violation, then finding multiple articles created by the other editor and editing them in a way designed to annoy them is one too? Perhaps it's time to block both indefinitely (well, that's me, I suppose others might want to be lenient and start with 1 week or 1 month) as "far too focused on scoring points against the other and getting away with it"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I asked for a clarification previously at ANI... and I was told, IBAN didn't mean first come first serve and we could edit as long as we didn't interact. I made sure of not interacting. Some of the articles were either mutual, one got a history merge and another was related to articles I was working on. Salvio has acknowledged that I was not hounding. I'm minding my own business. But I didn't even report those tags for so long till I clarified this with Salvio today on another one of those. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually User:Mar4d is looking for trouble big time with DS. See the history of the articles started by DS: 1 and 2. It is quite annoying as Mar4d has i. e. edit warred this unreliable blog-alike source into the infobox which is run by an involved party which refers to one side as "freedom fighters". Any attempts explaining to him that an impartial source is needed have brought no result so far. Can someone please provide his/her input on the validity to use that source for the infobox? JCAla (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

How's that related here? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Home now, I will point out that if TG did not know that adding a RS tag was a violation then how would I? He just wrote above that this was just clarified. Quite simply That is all I have to say. BTW Drmies yes I was quite quite drunk and had been for about a week. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's just great, and you're really helping your cause. I hope you know what to do next time. Drmies (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)x2 If I may, WP:IBAN states that undoing the other editor's edits is violating the Interaction Ban. Adding to them is not. This technically is not an interaction ban violation although I am curious why DS was editing while being drunk like that. However, bringing up this thread is an interaction ban violation on TopGun's part.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,422,448) 19:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Bringing this thread up is not a vio... reports of violations and clarifications are not violations. I was recently told to self revert a text which was deleted by DS, added by another editor and then again reverted by a third... that was not as of his edits but an addition of another editor deleted by a third. I was told it was not a technical violation but a violation in the spirit of the ban and blocks will be issued for such. This is a similar case. And I brought this thread up after administrative advise. If these edits are a violation, they should be reverted or I'll assume I can make similar ones in future. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Editor X is not permitted to:

  • edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
  • reply to editor Y in discussions;
  • make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
  • undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

  But if administrators told you that this was OK, then I am going to leave it at that.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,438,475) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, they did. [9]. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  Cyberpower678, you need to read a bit further. There are exceptions to the ban and this report, requests for clarification, etc. all fall under those exceptions. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

  And I completely missed that section, Facepalm. I am going to seclude myself into a dark corner and feel ashamed of myself for making myself look like an idiot.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,440,246) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, drink more so I pass out, then I will be unable to make such a fool of myself Darkness Shines (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Propose a total interaction ban between these two. If one of them edits an article, the other MAY NOT edit the article, the talk page or bring up the article anywhere on Wikipedia. They may not discuss each other anywhere on Wikipedia. Should they have concerns about an article or about the other editor, they may post a request to a neutral admin, detailing their concerns. ONLY at the request of that admin may they add to their initial request. They obviously can't stop it on their own, so this makes it EXTREMELY difficult for them to edit WP at all. Too bad for them. Ravensfire (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a ridiculous proposal... not only will it create complications where we're both editing but also be against the rules of an interaction ban. If some one violates a ban he should be blocked. I've initiated no interactions. I'm in my full right to report a violation... this will prevent me from making valid contributions because of the edits he is responsible for. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Or else we're going to see this again and again. I had HOPED that the original 1RR would have sent a message to leave each others' articles alone. I had hoped that the IBAN would have helped enforce that message. Clearly, TG is poking DS, and then coming to ANI when it finally happens. DS is just as wrong in their own actions. That is NOT how this community works. Either it's IBAN + no common articles or block them both indefinitely - this puerile bullshit cannot continue (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What poking? Diffs? I've not participated in this. It is him who tags and reverts around my contributions. Btw, have you even read the report? I came here because an admin told me to do so. Is there anything other than entrapment you guys know of? If this happens, wikipedia will soon be left with only the Arbcom and the vandals. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know if these were copyvios or whether that comes in the exemptions of IBAN (I didn't see any), but this edit directly removed content (ref) which I modified in the article.. unprovoked & uninvited. [10]. So I'm not the one interacting or poking. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• This is stupid, I did not even look at the article history, I looked at the contributions of a new user[11] as it struck me as a little strange that his first edits were to create an article, given the amount of socks pervading this topic that is hardly a surprise. And he popped up on my radar along with the article with this edit[12] And they were most certainly copyright violations Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've had enough. Every few days one of this pair is dragging the other to a noticeboard for violating some rule or restriction, usually immediately after they've made the same violation, and the petty point-scoring is as irritating as it is mature. I completely agree with Floq's comment—can anybody give me one good reason why these two shouldn't just be blocked until they grow up and realise that Wikipedia is not a battleground? Because I'm seriously considering it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

WTF? I have brought two complaints here to the best that I remember, and I withdrew one of them. I am not dragging anyone here nor am I point scoring, I removed a copyviolation. Just fucking block me and be done with it, I have done fuck all wrong. I added a rs tag to a primary source and it got brought here, that was my huge crime I remove a copyvio and it gets brought up here. FFS read what he wrote I don't know if these were copyvios he should have bloody checked instead of whinging here. I am as sick of this shit as you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I just checked the archives, I made one single complaint which I withdrew as a show of good faith. The other posting I made regarding this IBAN was a request for clarification[13] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Why the heck are my edits being modified or messed on with when I'm not doing the same. This definitely needed reporting. The talkpage notification I got for IBAN does not say that I could tag the contributions or revert copyvios as exemption (even this wasn't my contribution I formatted the references and they got blanked). I'm an established editor. You have failed to maintain the IBAN and instead blame me for bringing the report here that too when one of you says 'its a violation go to ANI'! And then proposing article bans... If my contributions weren't hounded in the first place We'd never have most of those mutual articles. Yet my proposal was rejected as retaliatory without checking out the diffs. Wikipedia will be shooting itself in the foot if the community agrees to escalate this ban when the administrators have failed to maintain it in the first place and neglected the violations. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Right, this is straight from the human rights watch report[14]

  Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security

forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against civilians by assaulting residents and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community. This is the content I remove

Since the government crackdown against militants in Kashmir began in earnest in January 1990, reports of rape by security personnel have become more frequent. Rape most often occurs during crackdowns, cordon-and-search operations during which men are held for identification in parks or schoolyards while security forces search their homes. In these situations, the security forces frequently engage in collective punishment against the civilian population, most frequently by beating or otherwise assaulting residents, and burning their homes. Rape is used as a means of targetting women whom the security forces accuse of being militant sympathizers; in raping them, the security forces are attempting to punish and humiliate the entire community

This is a blatant copyvio, how the hell can I get reported for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• So tell me, is filing an SPI a violation of the IBAN?[15] Darkness Shines (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to block both User:TopGun and User:Darkness Shines at least 6 months

It seems that based on the community opinions, that community imposed 1RR and IBAN is not working because although minor improvements through these restrictions have been observed, these two parties are still dragging wikipedia down into their battlefield. I am hereby proposing, as a neutral editor, that in order for things to calm down, that a block of at least 6 months be placed on both editors in hope that by then they will have calmed down.

Voters have 3 options. Support, Support Indefinite, Oppose.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,557,263) 15:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose: hiding admin failure to maintain the IBAN and negligence on not blocking on IBAN vios under the carpet, disrupting constructive contributions and seems to be the pretty much easy solution for you guys since you cant handle it yourself even though you impose it. Blocks should be made for the violators. There's nothing wrong with reporting a violation. And ridiculous to have one admin send you to ANI to report a vio and another one block you for the same. [16] --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose: In my opinion, DS is more aggressive about pushing his POV than is TopGun and this would be unfair. However, regardless of who is at fault here, there is a lot of useful content, particularly on Pakistan and Bangladesh - both undercovered areas on wikipedia, being added by both of them. My suggestion is that we issue a topic ban on Pakistan related articles to DS and a topic ban on India and Bangladesh related articles to TopGun. Mar4d and JCAIa are around to help ensure honesty in the other work they do. Hopefully, wikipedia wins! --regentspark (comment) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose: I think TopGun can be reasonable when he wants to be. I'm not so sure about DarknessShines. Either way, both have undeniably created good content on some articles and I think this remedy would be too harsh. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Ridiculous proposal. I think it is the admins' job to enforce the IBAN and put sanctions when things go wrong. But blocking for six months would be a loss of productivity for Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose - these users work just fine when the other isn't around. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative topic ban proposal

TopGun is topic banned from India and Bangladesh related articles and DarknessShines from Pakistan related articles. I believe that this is the better solution for wikipedia and that this will effectively separate the two editors, who are both adding useful content. --regentspark (comment) 16:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support. This should effectively separate these two. I have nothing much to add, rgpk has covered most of what I wanted to state; both are useful editors otherwise, so this topic ban should work out well. Lynch7 16:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
2. Support. Part of the reason for these users edit-warring with each other is presence on common pastures. Far too much time is given in editting these conflict issues articles which could definitely be spent in improving the national WikiProject articles instead. Their edits in overlap area between countries are accompanied by conflict with a variety of users on a number of issues, hence their productivity is low too. I'd much rather see Top Gun editting Pakistan related articles which have no chance of him getting into edit wars then be banned outright or even blocked for multi-months. Similarly, I'd really be happy to see DS volunteer to improve a variety of WikiProject India articles too. AshLin (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
3. Support: I think this will be more effective than the current interaction ban which doesn't seem to work. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   Question: The justification given in the proposal is that of an interaction ban as it does not show an disruption on my part on those topic areas... how is that relevant to a topic ban. To keep two users separate you have to enforce a topic ban properly rather than putting on a topic ban just to keep them away even though the disruption is not due to the topic areas rather due to violations of interaction ban. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   No we don't have to "enforce a topic ban properly" -- editors need to be mature and sufficiently self-aware to avoid conflict. The alternative suggested above -- blocking both editors, would also work quite well for the perspective of the community. Nobody Ent 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   So it is easier for the community to block both editors (or in this case get a topic ban on both while the issues are not by my work on topics) if one keeps on violating the interaction ban (as per reports, blocks issued and as pointed out by admins) which was placed in the first place due to the hounding of the same. Wikipedia will be shooting itself in the foot. Not that it would matter anymore after this action, but after acknowledging that DS has been acting more aggressive in a comment above, the proposer is proposing a ban of two topics on me and one on him. Anyway when all this can happen for making a report that an admin tells you to make because he feels a user violated IBAN, anything can happen around here. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

4. Support While either or both editors may be frequently correct on content, too much of an emphasis on winning -- with too frequent trips to dispute resolution boards -- than achieving consensus through discussion and compromise. Nobody Ent 22:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
5. Support per AshLin. They've got to be kept apart -- right apart -- because this spectacle makes it impossible for less embattled editors to contribute in these areas. --Stfg (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   Do you know AshLin is a part of these disputes? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   Several people are involved in these disputes to varying degrees, but this is not about personalities, it's about protecting WP from the effect of these battles. All I believe is that the proposed topic ban is the minimum necessary first step, for the reasons already stated. Then we'd have a chance to see who is capable of behaving themselves and who isn't. --Stfg (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   Without any diffs of my disruption in the topics especially after this interaction ban. And then the involved parties !vote in to get past their content disputes, gets so easy. The first step would be to actually block me or DS if IBAN is violated. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

6. Support. Regentspark, this is a great idea. And let's keep the interaction ban. And maybe we can add an ANI ban. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
7. Support with fireworks, cake and many celebratory clowns. I'm fed up of this, it's hard to be involved with WP without being forced to read about these two weekly. I know many will disagree, but it seems clear to me that TopGun is here only to further Pakistani national sentiment. The community seems willing to tolerate that, but it causes problems when he insists on bringing that chip on his shoulder to topics relating to India and Bangladesh. This topic ban will stop all that. I can't comment on DS because I'm not particularly familiar with him. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

   Please provide diffs for your vague statement where I was POV pushing and not just giving my own entitled opion with references? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose mine: I have substantial contributions to India-Pakistan conflict articles... these issues are not because of these topics rather because the IBAN wasn't being enforced properly. If the IBAN is strictly enforced, this can be dealt with. None of my contributions in India or Bangladesh related topics have been violations of IBAN or with any other issues as such... this with the only aim being that of separating us will be unfounded. The IBAN is enough to keep me from not interacting with DS on any topic at all. But I doubt it is for him so I'll support the ban on his side as I'm not the only user he battles with on Pakistan related topics (others have also asked for his topic ban). I provided a long list of diffs of hounding before the IBAN proposal too, they should be counted. Also refer to [17] and Salvio's comment below. [18] --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   This statement of "substantial contributions" is very controversial and includes such biased, badly referenced and outrageously worded hate articles such as Rape in Indian-administered Kashmir which are bound to create flame wars and edit wars. This editor is better off editting Pakistan related articles only. AshLin (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   That is not my contribution, have you even checked the edit history? I only formatted the references! And just because you disagree with my opinions or have content disputes doesn't justify a topic ban. I think the bad faith accusation on content I never added is enough to put it upright that getting opposing editors topic bans is not the way to get past content disputes. And Darkness Shines's IBAN violations do not imply that I can not edit India and Bangladesh related articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   TopGun, you can continue to work on Pakistan articles but not on things that overlap with India or Bangladesh (like the Kashmir abuses article). You are a valuable contributor to Wikiproject Pakistan, an underserved area, and I'd hate to see you kicked out of here. But, let's see what the community says.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs)

   The "not" for contributing to these areas has not been justified in the proposal atleast for me. Simply to separate me from DS without having any evidence of my disruption in these topics is not understandable. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose I am an anon user who previously had an "encounter" with Topgun on the 1971 War page, available to admins, et al, here:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971#Content_removal

   Rather than simply applying a one size fits all approach to both Topgun and Darkness Shines, perhaps it might be worthwhile if a single neutral admin invests just a little bit more time to investigate a single edit war between DS and TG to understand the pathology of the conflict in detail--perhaps even the edit war on the 1971 indo-pakistani conflict. The truth isn't always somewhere in between. Based on my own interactions (highly negative) with TG, I think a close investigation will help overstretched admins better understand what exactly is happening and why DS appears so ardent and combative (unfairly, in my opinion) in the eyes of some of the commenters here. I don't have anything else to add but that. And as you can see from my significant comment history in December, I really have no interest in becoming a permanent contributor here, particularly after my experience on that page. These are just my two cents as someone who really likes the wikipedia project, but has found that the enabling of TG's reflexively creates and almost necessitates "DS's"--however well-intentioned the latter may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose - but only in favor of my alternate proposal below, which I think is better. Support if my proposal is ignored. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• It is hardly possible to write articles on any with some reference to the other. For instance, Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War could never have been written as it obviously refers to Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• DS, there are many hundreds of articles on India and Bangladesh that make no reference to Pakistan whatsoever. But, let's see what the community says. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Topic ban Darkness Shines, but why TG? I fully support a topic ban on Darkness Shines for Pakistan-related articles. There is a history behind me supporting this. In fact, I've raised the point of topic banning DS from Pakistan articles numerous times. But I cannot quite understand what disruption has TopGun caused in India-Bangladesh articles to get a topic ban there? Mar4d (talk) 07:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  PS: Darkness Shines topic ban should also include Afghanistan, so as to prevent further contributions to Taliban/militant movement related articles. Mar4d (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I was about to add that too. On the other side, no one seems to be giving any explaination of what disruption I've caused on India or Bangladesh related topics. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Topic ban TG, but why DS?, I could ask re above. DS has been contributing very good content to Afghanistan-related articles (i. e. writing the whole Taliban economy section) whereas TopGun has mainly tried to keep silence about Pakistan's support to the Taliban which led to endless discussions. JCAla (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  You support a ban on me because of the mentioned disagreement? I just hope the closer is an experienced editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  No, as you can see, I did not cast any statement, neither under support nor oppose as of yet - you may have noted that I wasn't involved in any of the recent actions (1RR restriction, IBAN, etc.) against you here on ANI. This was exclusively in reaction to what Mar4d wrote above and in what you have now joined. You two are clearly going over the top by mentioning an Afghanistan topic ban. Therefor I said, if any such thing were to be considered in the slightest, you gotta check the contributions history of both user with regards to Afghanistan-related articles. DS so far has made valuable contributions to Afghanistan-related articles such as rewriting the whole Taliban economy section. JCAla (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  This was the header you put on "Topic ban TG, but why DS?" which says it all along with what you said. The interactions are as much in Afghanistan related topics as they are in Bangladesh or India or Pakistan articles. But like I said, IBAN should be enforced... the ban is only as good as the enforcers. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If it was enforced properly, you'd be blocked right now for filing an SPI on Darkness Shines. JCAla (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be as ridiculous as this. That SPI is not against DS, I only mentioned the sock. I emailed the clerk on his advise... but like Salvios advise of coming here, that brings no good either. I don't give a damn anymore. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla, there is no point of having this topic ban if DS is not prohibited from editing Afghanistan/Taliban articles. If DS will continue to edit the Taliban article, then so will TopGun. Then the actual question would be, is this topic ban even practical? Mar4d (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Topic ban Darkness Shines, but why TG? I support an indefinite topic ban on DS and maybe JCala (above) Darknesshines is extremely uncivil even when you try to be civil with him [19] he gets away with abusive language as many users just ignore his abuse several user echoe my sentiment including regentspark about his POV pushing and stalking of TopGun and intentionally interfering with the edits of others example Mar4d wanted to create an article on Human rights abuses in Kashmir Darknesshines attempted to hijack his idea and went on to explain that "The article is not, nor will it be a hit piece for nationalist POV pushers to beat India with" [20] after its creation he was itching for retaliation and created the article [21] which clearly is desperate since barely a paragraph has been written and is a clear retaliatory creation NerosRevenge (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I am a little surprised to see that this thread has evolved into proposals to block both TopGun and Darkness Shines and, now, to topic ban them... I have to confess I was the one who suggested TopGun to report Darkness Shines' violation here, because I could not properly investigate it, but thought that a short block was indeed appropriate.

  I have grown somewhat familiar with these two users and I honestly don't know what a good solution to this issue would be; they are both very good editors and they create good content in an underserved topic area, but both have an issue with battleground mentality. The best solution was, in my mind, the interaction ban, but to enforce it against all violations is a rather time-consuming job. The imposition of a topic ban would have the very same problem, I fear: people trying the boundaries of the restriction and, then, the occasional violation would lead to long, drama-filled threads.

  The easy solution would be the imposition of a block on both TopGun and Darkness Shines, but babies thrown out with bathwater spring to mind. I have to admit I don't know what the best way forward is  – it probably would lie in just enforcing TopGun and Darkness Shines's interaction ban, but that would take time... To quote one of my university professors, sorry I only came bearing questions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  IMHO "babies thrown out with bathwater" isn't the right way to think about this, because it implies that TG and DS are the baby. Really, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and perhaps Afghanistan are the baby -- why does need it be TG and DS who nurse it? Almost certainly, their battles are inhibiting other good editors from giving their efforts, so that however good they may be at researching and writing, the net effect is negative because of the loss of other contributors. In support above, I suggested that we might then see who else can behave themselves and who can't. It was meant to hint that it may very probably not end with these two, though it should start there, because there's other battleground behaviour going on here. FWIW I agree with Mar4d that Afghanistan should be taken into consideration too. I also suggest the IBAN should be strengthened so that they cannot both be editing the same article or talk page, and that any attempt to game that by starting things "to piss off" someone else will be taken a dim view of. --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate my comments above, it is pointless to keep brainstorming solutions without properly diagnosing the problem.

Yes, DS's frustration is apparent to all by his occasional unfortunate selection of language. But it needs to be understood that he has reached out to multiple admins multiple times to prevent the abuse of sources on wiki pages. If an article says one thing, but a pov pushing user uses it to say another (or uses obviously pov sources to slant articles), there is a problem. If admins refuse to see this and choose instead to penalize DS on technicalities (i.e. "DS, you discussed TG on another users talk page so you are banned"), any human being will start to get frustrated with the system. That does not justify his choice in language, but his intentions are much, much better. A user's contribution to wikipedia should not be based on his/her quantity of contributions, but quality--let this be the judge of whether the baby is actually being thrown out with the bath water. My strong recommendation is that a single edit war be studied from start to finish (replete with a reviewing of individual sources) so as to understand the origin of the problem. TG has had issues with multiple editors unallied with DS. DS's problems seemed oriented around TG and TG allied users/socks. Just forcing both sides to observe a truce or ejecting them from the UN altogether without taking into account which party is the aggressor is not governance or diplomacy. --IP 98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate to alternative proposal to above

As the administrator who oversaw a good portion of this debate before finally giving up, I think the above sanctions are a good start, but don't show the whole picture. I am proposing alternate sanctions which are similar, but different in content as I think they will be fairer and more likely to nip bad behavior.:

• TopGun cannot edit India-related issues. The only caveat is that we should avoid wikilawyering; if it is obviously non-controversial to a neutral observer and neutral administrator (e.g., reverting vandalism, adding the birthdate for an Indian actor, etc.), then the editor should not be blocked for it. This caveat is to be construed very narrowly.
• Darkness shines cannot edit any Pakistan-related issues with the same caveats as above for controversial edits.
• Neither can edit Afghanistan-related issues with the same caveats as above for controversial edits.
• Neither can edit Bangladesh-related issues with the same caveats as above for controversial edits.
  • Administrators should keep in mind that Bangladesh was once East Pakistan, so TopGun might accidentally make a controversial edit regarding pre-civil war issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support - As nominator. Also, one thing I haven't brought up is that I think several other users might benefit from an IBAN. I'm not going to name names, but I did already once in my (failed) request for arbitration. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing, personal attacks and edit-warring

User: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Right-wing politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
ERIDU-DREAMING is a single purpose account that edits almost exclusively on "Right-wing politics". He has edit-warred on the main article and posts long essays on the talk page, without providing sources and is offensive to other editors. Other editors have discussed these issues with him, but there has been no change of behavior. I would like to seem him warned against soap-boxing and personal attacks. (Edit-warring if it continues can be handled at the edit-warring noticeboard.)

Examples of soapboxing: SPOT THE SOPHISTRY, A Leftist Definition, False Definition, Do Leftists comprehend the Right? These are just discussion threads begun by ERIDU-DREAMING within the last month. All of them are expressions of opinion, hostile attacks on other editors and without sources for improving the article. A review of the talk page and archives shows that this is part of a consistent pattern.

Other examples of personal attacks:

• "a numerical majority of Leftists - such as the Far Left The Four Deuces, the manifestly Left of centre Rick Norwood, plus moderate Leftists such as R-41 and Little Jerry)"[22]
• "Your judgement about which sources are reliable and mainstream seems to be entirely determined by your Leftist political beliefs, which is also Falconclaw's observation. I would add that it is pretty evident that your knowledge of the "Right" is approximately zero. I suggest therefore that you limit your contributions to Left-Wing politics"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Right-wing_politics#Why_was_the_bias_tag_removed.3F

Another editor and I have have discussed the matter with ERIDU-DREAMING.

• I would appreciate it if someone would just close this section down with the Wikipedia "hat" template, because it is so obviously intended as a soapbox - and these are opposed by Wikipedia.--R-41 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[23]
• The purpose of the talk page is to discuss changes to the article not the subject in general. Your comments are soapboxing and I request that you stop. TFD (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[24]

TFD (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is true that I have contributed rather more to the talk page on Right Wing politics than planned, and in the last few days I did get excluded for a day because I reverted a controversial change to the article. The Four Deuces (as usual) tried to get me banned for life (later he made up the claim that I was taking on different identities even though he knew this to be false given the nature of the edits) and he succeeded (for a time) in getting the ban extended to a week - until this was reversed) and I recall that it DID take several weeks of discussion on the talk page a few months back before the claim that the Right = Fascists was addressed. During that time The Four Deuces hid my posts, deleted my posts, accused me of being a sock puppet, in fact it is hard to think of something he has not accused me of, in order to promote his claim that the Right are extremists. It is to the VERY GREAT credit of Wikipedia that somebody eventually enforced a process that corrected him.

I took him through the major scholarship in this area but anything which contradicted his (I have to say) extreme views was dismissed by him as marginal scholarship, even though I used the leading scholars in the field!!! To avoid being accused by him of being a sock puppet I registered as Eridu Dreaming.

I ask any disinterested reader to view the section about which The Four Deuces and R14 are objecting on the grounds that it is soapboxing to see if they agree with them that it is not an attempt to directly address a substantive question (namely is it correct that Classical Liberals can be described Right-Wing) and instead is nothing more than an emotional and irrelevant outburst which justifies R-14 moving the text, hiding the text, and in the case of The Four Deuces, bringing me to this tribunal, in order to get me banned. I DO admit that I said that Rick Norwood (one of the editors) hates Republicans, but he assured me some of his best friends are Republicans, and so I withdrew it! But my intention (at all times) is fairness and accuracy. I DO believe that some are importing (unconsciously in most cases) their political prejudices into this particular article.

All I can say is that it is much better than it was!

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a curious mixture of truths, half-truths and untruths. Could you please provide differences to support the statements you make. For example, I did not try to get you "banned for life". I reported you to the 3RR noticeboard and the blocking administrator considered an indefinite block.[25] You need to be careful when making accusations against other editors, which is why I have brought this matter to ANI. TFD (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to be careful when making accusations against other editors TFD that is rich to say the least coming from you. You accused both myself and ED last year of being one and the same person, and pursued other false claims against myself. Your primary motivation in doing this appeared to be that you couldn't countenance the idea of other editors of a perhaps right-of-centre persuasion contributing to certain articles. Your accusations, of course, proved to be false and you refused to apologize. So here we are again, with another round of allegations, which now appear to be motivated by the fact that you cannot handle the fact that ED has bested you in argument, and as "revenge" you are seeking to have him sanctioned or censored in some way. Vindictive, childish, and unpleasant. Jprw (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The great thing about Wikipedia is that it PRESERVES the editing record (yes that means your record The Four Deuces) and so you had better be very careful if you start playing the innocent, or for that matter accusing me of half-truths and falsehoods. To address your specific example, if your intention is not to get me banned for life, fine, but it certainly WAS your intention when you (falsely) accused me of being a Sock Puppet, and as soon as only a couple of days ago you were (again falsely needless to add) accusing me of being a dynamic IP, which sounds a pretty serious allegation to me, even though you knew full well that the IP in question could not have been me since that editor took a different position from me, and as far as I am aware carried on after you had got me blocked! I appreciate that you do not like having your Right=Extremists view challenged, but Wikipedia is (or at least should be) about trying to give fair and accurate account of the topics (including political topics) in question, not using them as an opportunity to express your prejudices. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion about sockpuppetry can be found here. You admitted sockpuppetry but no action was taken because you had registered an account. TFD (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that is what is called a LIE. Why would I say I was a sockpuppet if it is untrue? Why if (as you claim) I confessed to being a sockpuppet was no action taken? If you feel obliged to make false accusations try to make some sense. I used to make a few contributions to Wikipedia (it never occurred to me to formally register) but when THE FOUR DEUCES started deleting my contributions on the grounds of his completely made up charge that I was a sockpuppet (of somebody called "Yorkshireman" I recall) I decided to formally register as Eridu Dreaming to stop this happening. I have made no attempt to pretend to be anybody other than myself, why would I do such a thing? Does sockpuppetry mean the time (before I registered as Eridu Dreaming) when I would every now and then contribute to Wikipedia? The charge (not for the first time) is completely made up.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I am another user who has noticed that ERIDU-DREAMING's contributions as noted by TFD above are all examples of disruptive editing and repeated uncivil behaviour. ERIDU-DREAMING has violated Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing - particularly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing by denouncing the opinions of users he describes as left-wing, he has been hostile to users he has described as left-wing - including launching personal attacks against them and refusing to consider their input which is in violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and has essentially stated that users he deems to be left-wing do not have valid points because they are left-wing and assumes that users are acting in bad faith to misrepresent right-wing politics, this is blatantly discriminatory. He has called users "far-left" and called one user a "Republican hating Democrat" - though he since withdrew this when I complained that this was extremely offensive. He asked a sarcastic and condescending rhetorical question "do leftists comprehend the right?". ERIDU-DREAMING has engaged in slandering, condescending, and offensive behaviour and is in violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.--R-41 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that R-14 is charging me with 1) Disruptive Editing 2) Uncivil Behaviour.

No doubt R-14 will denounce this as grossly patronising (and he may be correct but it is that is not my intention) but in my opinion R-14 often makes thoughtful contributions to the "Right-Wing" article that directly address some of the issues. However (as he has admitted) he does sometimes lose his temper and resort to shouting (so to speak – typing in bold letters) if he does not get his own way!

The "disruptive editing" claim relates to the fact that I deleted a sentence which claimed that it is “generally accepted” that the Right = advocacy of hierarchy justified by tradition and natural law. Now the irony is I originally put in that sentence (or at least its original version) but now realise that it is false, since it does not apply to ALL on the Right; which now also has the meaning of Classical Liberal. R-14 uses a couple of sources which claim that the Right is a preservationist politics which seeks to defend privilege, and got very cross when I pointed out that if somebody says something (even in a sociology textbook!) that does not mean that it is not controversial. What he calls “disruptive editing” another editor might call an attempt to improve the accuracy of the article.

As for “uncivil behaviour” I personally have NOT been offended by R-14's outbursts, accusing me of “cheap emotional sophistry” of “worthless crap” of being a supporter of Thrasymachus (a proto-Fascist) and of course of “soap boxing” (justifying it seems hiding my text, moving it, but failing to address any of the points raised by it) although I am guessing that had I behaved in the same way towards him he might have accused me of uncivil behaviour! The strongest thing I called him I recall is that he is on the “moderate Leftist” which since he had earlier identified himself as such hardly seems to amount to an insult.

I do believe that there is a problem if a few editors assert there is a “consensus”, when there evidently is no such thing, especially if the topic is inherently controversial, as politics tends to be; and I am concerned that the small group who agree amongst themselves about the definition of the Right are all on the Left politically, and they have ignored (SEVERAL) editors who disagree with their “consensus” about the meaning of Right-Wing.

P.S. As for the "insult" that I described THE FOUR DEUCES as "Far Left" I think his latest comment "As I said before, the term "right-wing" entered the language (both French and English) c. 1900 to describe the faction that sat on the right in the French assembly. Following the Second World War it was used by (left-wing) social scientists to describe groups they saw as fascist. These groups denied they were right-wing and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing." gives a fairly clear idea where he is coming from politically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERIDU-DREAMING (talk • contribs) 14:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that the talk page is all-too-frequently used for soapboxing - and not just by ED. Comments such as That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs. and no sane politicians today call themselves right-wing by other editors would seem, IMHO, to be "soapboxing." So much for this mal-use of this noticeboard. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I never said that ERIDU-DREAMING was alone using emotional sophistry, the user Rick Norwood that ERIDU-DREAMING identifies as left-wing has used sophistry commonly during heated arguments between him and Falconclaw - Falconclaw is the primary culprit of sophistry on the article, almost every comment he has posted has been sophistry. So ERIDU-DREAMING's accusation that I have personally attacked him is false, I have criticized the improper discussion behaviour of multiple users. I never said that the right-wing necessarily "defends privileges" as ERIDU-DREAMING alleges, I provided scholarly sources that state that right-wing politics accepts social hierarchy (as an inevitability and reality) based upon natural law and tradition.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING has repeatedly personally attacked users due to his characterization of them being "left-wing", he now is making excuses for calling TFD "far-left" simply because TFD takes a very traditional outlook on what right-wing means - the original right-wing of the post-revolution French legislature. This doesn't prove that TFD is "far-left", and even if that was his political persuasion, why does that enable ERIDU-DREAMING to denounce him and all the users he labels as "left-wing" as automatically having invalid arguments and should be ignored because they are as he says "left-wing" and therefore must be trying to discredit the right-wing - that is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith because is assuming a conspiracy by left-wing users, and calling for ignoring left-wing users is calling for censorship. This is purely uncivil discriminatory behaviour that is completely against the policies of Wikipedia:Consensus and his repeated use of soapboxes that are designed to specifically denounce those particular users who he describes as "left-wing" is not only a violation of Wikipedia:Consensus, but is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.--R-41 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that this whole business smacks of a cabal of editors ganging up against another editor who is simply standing up for his own views and not afraid to question those of others. Unpleasant. Jprw (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you want to exclude me from the charge of sophistry, fine, but your source DOES claim that to be Right-Wing is to seek to defend privilege "contemporary sociologists, for whom 'right-wing movements' are conceptualized as 'social movements whose stated goals are to maintain structures of order, status, honor, or traditional social differences or values' as compared to left-wing movements which seek 'greater equality or political participation.' In other words, the sociological perspective sees preservationist politics as a right-wing attempt to defend privilege within the social hierarchy."

I think that is pretty clear. (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)).

And the incivility in the other direction is also apparent (calling anyone a "nut job" is, I rather consider, "incivil") The fact is that all who engage in such incivility on that article talk page should be stopped from such behaviour, not just one person on one side. And the issue boils down to one simple fact: There is no "one size fits all" definition of "right wing" in the first place, and no "one size fits all" definition for the "political spectrum" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just warned User:Rick Norwood to stop his aggressive and disruptive sophistry against right-wing people he has characterized as "nut jobs" and I have also warned User:Falconclaw5000 to also stop his aggressive sophistry. I have told both of them that if they continue their disruptive behaviour and inability to pursue consensus and NPOV, I will report them. Now then, back to the topic here, ERIDU-DREAMING's edits.--R-41 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown - Disruptive Editing, Hounding & Forum Shopping

With great regret I must report that an editor Dennis Brown is commiting disruptive editing in violation of WP:HEAR pretty much thumbing his nose at admins who have settled and [26] archived an AFD case and closed two redudant ANI charges based on the same AFD case (his & "others" forum shopping for duplicate outcomes) [27] and [28] where he again tried to bring up the same argument a THIRD time. In addition to the disruptive editing (which I will discuss below) by him that has happened after the AFD was settled, this clearly was forum shopping by him to try to get an additional result after the initial AFD discussion and other redundant/duplicate ANI discussion was closed. He attempted on that (third complaint/second ANI proposal) he called "Bot archived too soon" to resusitate the first case after multiple admins basically told him it was over.[29]. Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards, or to multiple administrators, is unhelpful. It doesn't help that he is trying different forums in the hope of finding one where his constant complaining about ONE issue will get multiple outcomes he is looking for.

It's been hard, but I have restrained myself and held my tongue hoping that this one sided attempt by him to harass me would end. Clearly it has not. I have patiently waited and not reverted his malicious edits and I haven't responded to his repeated attempts at forum searching (even when he did not notify me that he was doing this third attempt at regurgitating the same dead horse argument, as required by ANI). But it is clear that this is a pattern and that he does not plan to stop because he did not get his "my way or the highway" desired outcome from ANI and dispite he got what he wanted from AFD, which was a very good article being deleted (which I have my suspicions was done by a faction that sided with him through false consensus).

He is told (by) Nil Einne (talk) at 19:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[30] that:

"As stated, if you repeatedly reopen a discussion people may tell you to stop and failing that, take action...You should also bear in mind it may negatively affect people's opinions of you if they feel what you're doing is unneeded, but again this is no different from opening a discussion in the first place. Perhaps most importantly, you should consider that a lot of the time the 24+ hour limit works well. Given the activity of ANI, if no one has replied in 24 hours, it very often means the discussion has reached a natural ending point, even if it's technically unresolved. I had a brief look at the very long discussion and from the little I saw, I admit I think this is probably the case here...I don't think any adminstrative action against the other editor is likely yet, therefore there's nothing more for ANI."

But he won't let it go.

I'm coming here because in the last discussion I tried to reason with this very angry editor Dennis Brown who told me not to talk to him on his talk page (he has a warning on his user page for no one to leave messages for him on his talk page). I cannot go there and leave a message for him, because he will get angry an spin it into an attack. So that's why I am coming here.

After the closed AFD Discussion and and after the closed first duplicate ANI discussion, and during his third attempt to cause trouble on the ANI board by trying to drum up a third forum, Dennis Brown tracked this user's recent contributions and blanked or reverted many of them clearly as part of his vendetta against this user. I am concerned not just because he seems to be hounding this user specifically and selectively reverting my contributions, but because on the articles he is changing, he is making gross deletions to biographies of living people. He is randomly blanking huge sections of content even on a page of a well known Academy nominated actress, another well known actor, and an Award winning film distributor:

• Here he blanks all the credits off a biography page [31] that I had originally created here [32]

• Here at he blanks the entire credits of an Academy Award nominated actress that have clearly been built up by various users over a long period of time [33]

• Here at he removes major credits from a cult actor's page with no regard as to the cult value of each credit he is arbitrarily deleting [34]

that I had contributed here on 14 Feb 2012 01:38 [35] and here [36].

• Here he removes more content from another page I contributed to and which he then tags as a stub: [37]

• Here he removes another credit from a page [38]

• And this morning he has started blanking sections of another page I have contributed to, removing titles and credits at will to another living biography:

• here [39]
• and here [40]
• and here blanking an entire columns of credits [41]
• here [42]and
• here [43]

These edits show a pattern of targeted disruption and an unwillingness of this editor to accept the outcome of the AFD and ANI. While editing of content on Wikipedia to make it more encyclopedic is encouraged, deleting valuable content and basically vandalizing of articles especially biographies of living people is not. I think he is in violation of "no angry mastodons" WP:NAM trying to bait this user into reverting his hostile and vengeful edits, in order to try to stir up more trouble. The user is clearly Wikihounding by singling out one editor, and going to multiple pages or topics I may contribute to and/or create, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit this user's work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to this contributor because he didn't get an outcome he wanted out of a duplicate complaint that he made on an ANI forum.

One reviewer Ravenswing said here: [44],

"Dennis - you've expounded at tremendous length here, on various talk pages and at the AfD as to your POV on Catpowerzzz's style. Either you've made your case or you haven't, but it isn't a filibuster in the other direction either.

Because this problem is continuing, because this user is well versed in Wikipedia and knows the damage he is doing (he is not unaware) and because he is clearly out for revenge, because he also doesn't seem to listen to admins who have continually suggested to him that his AFD case has been resolved and that his blatant forum searching is not a good idea and that basically he should "let it be." I think this user needs to hear from admins, possible be blocked and his reverts (and possibly those of others who are in his faction) need to be restored. This is tendentious behavior in that he continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point, which is to drive away a productive contributor per WP:DEPE. - Catpowerzzz (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment For reference, the recent ANI regarding Catpowerzzz can be found here. It may also be helpful to review Nil Einne's post on Catpowerzzz talk page following the ANI discussion:

"Whatever the 'wrongs' of others you've been involved with, it seems clear several uninvolved people, upon looking at the history, have concerns about your behaviour and your explainations generally haven't helped (if anything they appear to have made things worse)."

The AfD to which Catpowerzz refers can be found here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is our collective fault, really, for not solving the problem in the last ANI thread, but foolishly hoping that things would die down after the AFD ended. I suggest correcting that error now by telling Catpowerzzz in no uncertain terms to stop this, and back it up with blocks if it continues. The report above is so full of unfair descriptions and mischaracterizations of other people's comments that it can't be the result of errors in judgement, it is the result of intentional misleading. I do not see any problematic edits on Dennis Brown's part in the diffs above. When an editor has shown that their edits are problematic, it is not harassment to look at their edit history and fix the problems they're causing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Here we go: Catpower blocked for 12 hours by way of the boomerang--i.e., persistent disruption and now a bogus charge. Immediate cause is this edit and its summary--a false charge of vandalism. Given Catpower's editing pattern I have no reason to assume that they won't persist in such vindictive edits, where a content dispute is turned into a vandalism accusation. That the ANI report here is without merit is clear enough; perhaps Catpower will now understand that this should be over, that they should start listening to sound advice (some of which was removed here). As for the block and its length, I encourage your scrutiny. Drmies (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not long enough. I suggest one hour for each word in his OP as an appropriate formula.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (Nodding at Floquenbeam's description), I previously characterized this behavior here [45]--I've never used quite that language before, but there's a persistent and even malicious misrepresentation of events. Thanks to Drmies. As a betting man my money is that this will continue until the blocks become more severe. Then I'd suggest keeping an eye peeled for socks, especially at Chris Innis and associated articles. JNW (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, more eyes on those articles, please. See also the conversation at the editor's talk page: this combination of promoting and playing the victim really bothers me. Also, JNW, thanks for bringing this to my attention in the first place. Seriously: fuck thank you very much. I'm going to need a very expensive Belgian tripel. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Anything I can do to brighten your day. Belgian it is. JNW (talk) 01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• I figure I should at least weight in for the record, being the object of the complaint. I feel that the edits I did to the articles were proper and improved them, and I still do. Many of the movie links were actually pointing to different movies by the same name and the article was more list than prose. I did exactly what I would have done with any article, adding a reference, turning lists into prose, etc., taking extra care to make it obvious that the edits were contribution, not retribution. I did ask about reverting the ANI archive here, but concluded that if an administrator didn't feel it should be brought back, I wasn't going to be aggressive and do it myself, even after I was basically given formal "permission" to do it. While disagreeing with the lack of conclusion in the prior ANI, I do understand the reluctance to formally close it: it was a long, messy, ugly and long-winded affair, with everyone agreeing on the problem, but with no simple, obvious solution. All that matters is how we move forward. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Holy crap, do I resent my advice to Dennis being brought in to attack him ... the more so in that his response to it on my talk page was "Yes, you are correct that I can get a bit too wordy and perhaps redundant at times, and your point is well taken. I appreciate your direct but polite input." Funny, it doesn't seem that Catpowerzzz mentioned that response. If, as he implies, he might wash his hands of us on this account ... well, I can live with that. Ravenswing 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• I was alerted to this ANI by Catpowerzzz, after he/she noticed that Dennis Brown had recently done some edits on a stub article I started.[46][47]. There's clearly a pattern of behavior here on the part of Catpowerzzz that works against his/her case. I've been had the experience of being accused by others [Yakushima adds] of "vandalism" in what was actually a content dispute, and I find that kind of behavior repulsive, needless to say. However, I have to wonder if Dennis Brown is utterly blameless in how inflamed these disputes have become. In the accusatory edit that resulted in a previous block against Catpowerzzz[48], Dennis Brown appears to me to be violating WP:PRESERVE -- a policy. A list that might violate some style guideline is not ipso facto a candidate for simple deletion. WP:PRESERVE says "If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented. Was what Dennis removed in that edit to Karen Black "good information"? Did it "have some value"? Yes: it's filmography, for a significant actor. And Wikiproject Film has put significant effort into how to present so much of what is (as Dennis Brown puts it in his edit summary) "already at IMDB" -- see e.g., Filmography Tables[49] at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. I've come to expect filmographies in WP articles about film actors, and I believe that's true of most users. The guidelines for filmography say nothing about the percentage of red links, or about which works qualify for inclusion or exclusion. I suppose that if a film has somehow not, in the years or decades since release, become the subject of an article, one could reasonably say that listing it is not "good information". But even on such reasoning, Dennis had the option of simply deleting the red links. To be clear: There's no question Catpowerzzz needs to dial back the wikidrama. I won't defend to the death the right to complain in such a manner -- it's indefensible, and I'd support progressively longer blocks on Catpowerzzz with each such transgression. But that's not actually the issue raised in this ANI. Dennis's behavior (which includes wholesale deletions of information from articles) is. And here's what I see: Dennis needs to learn to not simply hack significant pieces out of articles in violation of WP:PRESERVE. I've experienced this first-hand. In the case of a recent edit to Paving Wall Street that removed references, his edit summary was "not about this book".[50] In fact, at least one of the references he removed actually does contain significant material about the book[51]. Now, admittedly, Boston Globe's pay-per-view summary didn't reveal that fact. But when in doubt (and when an article has clearly been put together by someone who's trying to be careful about having reliable sources), it's better not to swing the axe quite so impulsively. This issue of overzealous deletions is, of course, quite apart from how Dennis tagged Paving Wall Street. I stand by the edit summary on my revert: in that case, the "tagging was somewhere between overzealous and non-sensical".[52] C'mon, Dennis: you're saying I'm supposed to supply inline citations in a one-sentence stub article about a book that (at this point) says little more than that the book exists, when the references are mostly reviews of the book in reliable sources? Just to pick one absurdity in that tagging. Yakushima (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You've brought up the issue with Catpowerzzz in two different posts, [53], [54] and now here. In a nutshell, I tagged an article, you removed the tags, I never did or said anything about it. You then chewed me out on my talk page [55], and I just let it go without reply. This is the first time I've replied to anything you have said, ever. You have only talked at me, or about me. You never bothered to ask me about it on my talk page or the article's talk page, which has yet to exist. You instantly assumed bad faith or incompetence in my actions, using phrases like "overzealous" and insults like "Dennis Brown apparently suffers the imperfection of a need to hide his mistakes." It is almost like you are trying to pick a fight with me, and I'm just not interested. Dennis Brown (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are incorrect about chronology here. I "chewed you out" on your Talk page BEFORE (3:08-9[56]) I took down your tags on Paving Wall Street (3:11[57]) -- the way you portray it, I was unsatisfied that you were insufficiently provoked by my removal of your tags, and therefore went to "pick a fight" with you. I was admittedly a little snide in that "chewing out." However, being a little snide and asking sincere questions in the same post are not mutually exclusive; assuming that they are (as you apparently did in your edit summary [58] is an WP:AGF vio. In any case, if you really thought your tagging was correct (as your edit summary's implicit claim of having an "explanation" clearly indicates), it would only have taken you a few seconds to revert my change. I did not "instantly assume bad faith or incompetence". I noticed some incompetence, remedied it, and then asked why you didn't take more competent action. There's still some possibility, I suppose, that I'm wrong on one or more of the several points I brought up. In any case, the major issue here is: why do you serially violate WP:PRESERVE on contributions made by an editor (Catpowerzzz) you have some bad history with? Two wrongs don't make a right. If you didn't know about WP:PRESERVE until now, then fine: own up to that, and under WP:AGF it's quite an acceptable excuse. If you did know, but misconstrued it, ditto: just explain your misunderstanding. If you believe you have an interpretation of WP:PRESERVE that's superior to mine, then by all means, let's discuss it. But bear in mind that you really got off on the wrong foot with me: bad tagging and a WP:PRESERVE vio on an article I have in progress, on a subject that you apparently know nothing whatsoever about. I could (and probably will) be in favor of banning Catpowerzzz for life, and I'd still have a problem with your behavior. Yakushima (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I will leave the sincerity of your "questions" to the reader to decide. The chronology you describe is irrelevant, all your actions took place the day before I removed your comments 3 minutes apart, making them simultaneous for all intents and purposes. Chronology wasn't my point anyway, your over-reaction is. You could have simply reverted me with summary "rm tags, don't apply, take it to talk if you disagree" (what most editors would have done), but instead added your own wikidrama with all the posts. This is an ANI, it isn't a talk page for an article. If you want to discuss the content of an article, you should have done it there but you chose not to. If you seriously think that anything that I have done rises to the level of misconduct, or as you state above "incompetence", then by all means keep talking here in this forum, or better yet, appeal this ANI and demand action be taken against me for the edits you describe. I'm confident something good will come of it. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You still fail to respond to the main problem I see: serial WP:PRESERVE vios on material supplied by an editor you had very recent unpleasant history with. Now you've used incorrect chronology to characterize me as wanting to pick a fight with you, but when I point out it's incorrect, you don't apologize, or even admit error, you just say "it's irrelevant." FYI: I wrote to you directly about your tagging on Paving Wall Street, on your talk page, because it really looked like you simply don't know how those tags are supposed to apply -- and if so, well that's not a good thing in a new page patroller. Taking it to the article's Talk page might have meant you'd miss out on a lesson you clearly need. I have not (until now) accused you of actual "misconduct". However, if your recent comment on my talk page is any indication (where you say Karen Black was such a "bloody mess" that it would have been better to have no article), you clearly still don't understand WP:PRESERVE. Whatever the "mess" was, a simple (if overstocked) filmography is just a simple list. It seems to me that, at this point, there's only one way you could fail to understand such a simple policy as WP:PRESERVE: you still haven't bothered to read it. No matter how many times I point it out to you. And that's as troubling as anything I've seen from you so far. This ANI is about your behavior with respect to articles Catpowerzzz edited. The unpleasant fact: what little merit there might be to Catpowerzzz charges depends on whether WP:PRESERVE was knowingly violated. All you have to do is say, "I didn't know about WP:PRESERVE." Fine. This is Wikipedia: under AGF, ignorance is an excuse. Well, you do know now. Go read it, then tell us (if you can) why what you did doesn't transgress that policy. It's really that simple. Yakushima (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• You are doing exactly what Catpowerzzz did, mischaracterize my contribs and words. I will leave it to any admin to simply read and respond accordingly. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the diff you forgot to include with your quote: [59] Dennis Brown (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since my comments were brought in to this discussion by Catpowerzzz (but I was not notified) I'll offer some clarification. My suggestion to Dennis Brown was intended to convey that I felt it unlikely any decision for action would be reached at ANI barring new evidence or new behaviour, so it would be pointless to re-open the thread. He? seemed to take this onboard since the thread was never reopened. In fact AFAICT, Dennis Brown didn't open any action against Catpowerzzz since my suggestion they drop the issue at ANI, although I did suggest an RFC as a possibility if necessary. So there doesn't seem to be any real relevance of my comments to Dennis Brown, all evidence suggests my message was taken on board by him. (Note my comments didn't discuss interacting with Catpowerzzz outside ANI in any case, nor did I intend to suggest Dennis Brown should avoid any articles Catpowerzzz had been associated with.) On the other hand, as Ckatz pointed out, I also suggested on Catpowerzzz's talk page that from a quick look at the ANI thread, things didn't look good for them. They needed to take the advice they'd received on board or would likely find action taken against them. Unfortunately unlike with Dennis Brown, it doesn't sound like my advice to Catpowerzzz was taken on board, hence them opening this ANI thread and leading to the boomerang block. Nil Einne (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson

Without initially naming names, the Thomas Jefferson talk page has, in my opinion, been difficult concerning the discussion of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Discussion has often turned into caustic argumentation and bullying of opinions on dissenting or differing opinions. Personal attacks seems to be the norm rather then respectful discussion on the subject matter. Editors team up on other editors and appear to be in collusion of opinion with each other. What can be done to stop the bullying, sarcastic argumentation, and Ad hominem insults? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Probably nothing short of empaneling several experienced editors who don't particularly care about the subject to come up with a consensus on some of these phrasings. Ravenswing 06:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ravenswing. This has been attempted many times without any conclusions. Certain editors accuse the article is biased and will not compromise until their views are in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe the best remedy is having an administrator or administrators monitor the Thomas Jefferson talk page and control the situation. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not the job of administrators to be arbitrators of peace. Admins are only equipped with tools to enforce policy and consensus. Yes the situation has gotten out a bit heated on that talk page, but if policies such as WP:Civil or WP:3RR have been breached, then perhaps those situations should be dealt with individuality. Until then just keep up the discussion and eventually a compromise should be reached.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • If administrators are not the arbitrators of peace then who can be? If Wikipedia asks people to be nice in the discussion page without enforcing the policy that would be an open door to bullying and teaming up on other editors. Yes, things would be nice if editors obey Wikipedia rules, however, without enforcement rational conversations are impossible. Editors who do not listen to reason and act without kindess are not going to change on their own. What then is the point of being an administrator, if other editors are allowed to control the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any Administrators who can enforce Wikipedia policies that forbids personal attacks and ownership of the Thomas Jefferson article?

User:ArchieOof

User:ArchieOof is a relatively new editor who I think needs some counsel and assistance. After what I considered to be a series of hasty page moves, I posted a short (and what I thought was civil) note on his talk page[60] only to experience a barrage of edit-warring, accusations of wiki-lawyering[61][62] and assumptions of bad faith,[63][64][65][66] as well as indications of an intent of future disruption.[67] I think ArchieOof needs to learn about civility and consensus, but I am clearly not the person to help him in this. StAnselm (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, would an administrator be able to move Martha of Bethany back to Martha? User:ArchieOof moved the page without consensus, but it takes administrator privileges to revert the move. StAnselm (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You are on the right track. If it is impossible for you yourself to move it back, make sure you get a an admin to do it for you, before you or anyone else initiates a formal requested move discussion. I was involved in a similar situation, but made the mistake of starting an RM before we got the page back to its former stable state. This resulted in about two months of arguing, a mile long talk page, three different votes, a resolution that defaulted to the current page name in the event of "no consensus" which only later was overthrown by an admin after even more lenthy discussions; all just to get the page back to where it was in the first place. It was a monumental waste of time and resources for dozens of editors. --Racerx11 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Co-incidentally, there's a discussion here on this very subject. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. This is precisely the issue as your point "b" states: It puts the onus on the editor who wants to fix it, rather than on the editor who caused the problem. The RM process gives an unfair and undeserving advantage to an agressive editor who makes an undiscussed page move. If the RM discussion ends with a no-consensus, the resulting action is to default to the current page name. An unwary editor who cannot move a page back because of technical reasons (non-empty redirect histories) may initiate an RM before successfully convincing an admin to simply revert it back, not knowing they have just shot themselves in the foot or at least caused a lot of trouble down the road for a lot of other editors and admins.--Racerx11 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

PoV pushing of user HudsonBreeze

User HudsonBreeze has been removing cited material from the following articles meaningless edit summaries or stating reasons for removal on talk page;

• List of war crimes
• Sri Lankan Civil War
• Genocides in history

His/her activity seems to be not to be in good faith as comments in another talk page seems to be so. Cossde (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Notified.--Shirt58 (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Quarkgluonsoup

Enough is enough. Quarkgluonsoup (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing from the lead of The Exodus any mention of the lack of archaeological evidence, despite taking part on the talk page about possible changes to the lead. This started when xe raised a '911' call at Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard/Urgent and insisted that any discussion of the article be at the 'Urgent' noticeboard and not at the article's talk page. Xe finally relented and joined in at the article talk page, then insisting that User:Lionelt be allowed to talk first. I note that Lionelt posted to Quark's talk page asking that Quark stopped reverting, but this was ignored. The 911 stuff was irritating, but as he's been told several times to stop and I even said it might be time for ANI before this last removal, I'm bringing it here. Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

it gets worse. In seven minutes on March 8 Quarkgluonsoup erased over 2000 words of text from the major article on the American Civil War see see log. He merely said in his his half-line edit summaries that there was "way too much detail here" on slavery and on the Constitution. Actually slavery and on the Constitution are the main issues that scholars have been debating for 150 years regarding the causes and meaning of the war. Rjensen (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I was going to revert that but ended up reverting all his edits simply because they'd left a huge mess of red citation warnings. Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

His attempt to steer discussion away from the talk page is of course out of line. I can sympathize with his sentiments about the Exodus article to a degree, but he's obviously on a campaign to play up the Christian faith of various politicians and related figures (e.g. retagging Abigail Adams as congregationalist instead of Unitarian, when she can be cited for an unambiguously Unitarian statement of faith). The pattern of his edits is verty problematic. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

He reverted Dougweller's fix; I have reverted that and issued a final warning. Black Kite (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If he does it again I will indef block for disruptive editing. --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 22:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Government security badges

Is it appropriate for the project to host scans of government security badges? What about college and university ID badges? Please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 27#File:James H Trainor NASA Badge 1.jpg.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying we don't need no stinkin' badges? Because, I think that's what you're saying. If so, you might be better off saying it at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but I may stand corrected. --64.85.221.180 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Spamming by User:Yellowpigeon

Resolved: Socky sock

Yellowpigeon (talk · contribs)

Spamming the VP/proposals with some nonsense about linking to some site, the 'only place on the internet' that has discussions forums that s/he likes. Funny enough, the user has commented only on this issue, creating an account within a couple of days of the forum website being created.

I've warned the user about spam. I've removed the spam from the VP multiple times. I've also been called a 'terrorist' and a 'troll,' amongst choice epithets also leveled at others.

I reported to ARV but nobody seems to be watching, and the user is becoming increasingly abusive. Permablock needed. User will be notified on my next edit of this discussion. → ROUX ₪ 15:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Longer blocks left to the discression of other admins. — Edokter (talk) — 15:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubts that Yellowpigeon knew what he was doing all along, and isn't the innocent new user JamesBWatson would suggest he is on his talk page (no offence, James). I think it's a clear-cut case of this needing to be indef; my suspicion is that when the block expires he might well just go back to his same previous behaviour. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur. There is no way in hell this is a new user (witness the repeated comments about usual Wikipedia behaviour and terrorists and so forth), nor is there any credible suggestion that the proposal was made in good faith; the user is very clearly affiliated with the website in question and is attempting to drive traffic to it by leveraging Wikipedia's umpty-million daily pageviews. Edit-warring to retain spam, while disingenuously claiming that it's a valid proposal? Please. I wasn't born yesterday. → ROUX ₪ 19:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The following are Confirmed:

• Kukfittrovas (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Yellowpigeon (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Xcvxvbxcdxcvbd (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))

• As such, I changed Yellowpigeon's block to indef. Tiptoety ^talk 19:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Urnfield culture numerals

(I have no experience in the English Wikipedia, as I usually edit on the Spanish Wikipedia, and don't know where this dispute goes. If this is not the correct place, please tell me where I should put it.)

This is a dispute over Urnfield culture numerals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) between:

• Dbachmann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and
• ecelan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log).

I'll make a quick review of what has happened until now:

1. User Dbachmann modifies the article Urnfield culture numerals, eliminating large parts of the text [68] and the source [69], asking for sources. Dbachmann comes then to my talk page and accuses me of making up a hoax [70].
2. I included the source 5 days later [71]. Then answered on my talk page to the accusation of Dbachmann, adding some more information about the source [72].
3. The next day user Dbachmann moves the article to Frankleben hoard [73] and effectively overwrites the article [74] with what seems to correspond to the German article de:Bronzehort von Frankleben (not unrelated, but not the same subject as the Urnfield culture numerals at all).
4. A discussion ensues in my talk page (complete thread).

There are several issues in this dispute:

• as the accusation of making a hoax, which to me is against WP:GOODFAITH,
• or the the clear breach of WP:ETIQ, when user Dbachmann applied to me Hanlon's razor [75], calling me stupid or a crook (I can choose).

I could go on, but I'd like to centre the question on what I think is an evasion of Wikipedia rules: Dbachmann has effectively deleted a sourced article without using the tools that he is supposed to use. I don't know why he didn't directly delete the article, as he seems to be an administrator, but the correct way of handling this would have been a WP:RFD. God knows the article was not perfect, and there could be a dispute over the relevance of the subject, but the way this has been handled seems to me a way around the rules of Wikipedia, around the way Wikipedia should work.

Let me make it short: is it allowed to delete an article by moving it to another subject and then overwrite it with another text corresponding to the new title?

Thank you for your time. --Ecelan (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Metrication in the United Kingdom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

On Monday, I protected the above page for a week because of a long-standing content dispute between editors. Some of the editors requested via my talk page that the article be unprotected on Friday, which I promptly did, switching it down to semi-pp. Since then, it's all gone rather pear-shaped, with lots of invective on the talk page and so on. I'm not wild about fully protecting the article again, but it'd be nice if another admin could have a look over the article and see if there's anything we can do to nudge the contributors towards productivity and away from the path towards the dark side. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus of editors conflicts with wikipedia's NPOV policy.

Those accounts are not proxies of Grundle2600 – those are Confirmed socks of Grundle2600, along with:

• 55 fifty-five (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Friendly Freeper (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Peter 2539 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Mr. Jackson 1952 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Chess King Winner (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))
• Peas 447 (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log))

And Grundle2600 has now succeeded in storing his crap in a way that it cannot possibly be deleted. Also, Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy has been deleted per G5 and corresponding AfD has been closed. --MuZemike 23:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Mike, would you or another CU mind cleaning out whatever drawer contains his newest incarnation that appeared on my talk today? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding LGBT material to BLPs

Pass a Method (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

Pass a Method has been adding POV material related to LGBT rights to various articles, including Brad Pitt, Daniel Radcliffe, George Clooney, Miley Cyrus, and Michael Lahoud. He has been adding material to the body of the articles, but more seriously, he has been adding material to the infoboxes and adding categories, including saying that someone's occupation is LGBT-rights activist (for example, [76]). As in the preceding example, he's also been using a bizarre edit summary: "temp", whatever that means (template?). I've been removing most of his edits, although in some cases, I've reworded and adjusted them rather than completely removing them. I've posted a message to his Talk page, but his only response has been to edit yet more articles in the same agenda-pushing manner.

I'm not sure what kind of administrative intervention is appropriate, perhaps just a forceful warning from an admin to see if that's sufficient to get him to stop. He's not an inexperienced editor, although his edit history is a mite strange (lots of articles related to male sexuality and religion).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Temp is short for template. I have explained the rest on my talk page. Pass a Method talk 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've seen User:Pass a Method engaged in POV-pushing like this before, essentially adding material that is sex-related in some way, which is unsourced or improperly sourced, synthesis, or with undue weight. I've looked over a lot of the recent additions, and they are at the very least presented with undue weight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's not a mite strange to only or mostly edit sexual and religious topics, but Pass a Method is problematic when editing sexual topics at least. He is an inexperienced editor when it comes to this and some other aspects (such as policies and guidelines). Boing! said Zebedee became aware of this problem through me, when I reported some of Pass a Method's troubling edits to another editor. Among other things, Boing! said Zebedee saw inappropriate category placement, as well as inappropriate additions to the Elvis Presley and Priscilla Presley articles.[77][78][79] Here are other recent examples showing Pass a Method's problematic editing with regard to sexual topics, which led his temporary block and eventual threat to create a new account.[80][81][82] I've been suggesting that he be topic-banned from sexual topics for months now. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The threats to open other accounts and to avoid recognition are very troubling.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Just to keep it in one place, here's Pass's explanation on his Talk page: "Radcliffe and Pitt are possibly the most notable LGBT rights activists, but neither the template or lede acknowledged this. This is why i felt it should be added to either the lede or template. As for adding it to the "occupation" line, i had since corrected myself and added it to the "known for" line."

I don't know what "most notable" means in this context. Obviously, there are people who spend their lives in political activism. Perhaps Pass means that Pitt and Radcliffe are more notable than some other actors. Even if that's true - and I don't know how to source something like that - as Boing says, there's a problem with weight in the lead. If you're going to report on the non-acting aspects of Pitt or Radcliffe in the lead, then you have to do it in a neutral way because both are involved in other causes besides just gay rights. And putting it in the "known for" field is almost as bad as putting it in the occupation field. I particularly like this edit where Pass equates Radcliffe's acting to his LGBT activism. It's pretty weird to say that an actor is known for, uh, acting. To me, the edits to the infobox and to the cats are the worst because they put labels on the subject without any context. The lead information is more a function of weight and balance. The Radcliffe article has been locked because of Pass and my battle over content. If this had just been a content issue in one article, I, of course, would not have taken it here, but it was being systemically applied to many articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is also him under an IP.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not him, that's a sock of someone else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

That looks like him to me also .. who is Pass a method a sock of ? Youreallycan 20:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• In case anyone is interested, this is the latest block im aware of in a long list of blocks of the above IP. Pass a Method talk 20:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what proof you have of a connection between the two IPs, but rather than create a distraction here by making claims without any apparent evidence, why don't you go to WP:SPI with your allegations?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea if the 68 IP and the blocked proxy are related. The editor I blocked was not using the proxy. If someone feels that Pass a Method has a previous incarnation, do start an SPI. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have reported him numerous times, and he's been blocked numerous times, but he eventally returns with a new IP so i no longer see the point of reporting him. Pass a Method talk 20:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And to return to our original topic, PassaMethod, note the following -

• Do not refer to someone as an activist (any kind) unless the source supports it (that's misuse of sources)
• Do not refer to someone as an activist as their job in infoboxes and ledes, unless they work for Stonewall or Greenpeace or are chained to a tree/railings somewhere (that's WP:UNDUE
• Do not edit war. Should I find you edit warring over this again, this will be blockworthy.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bbb23, I responded to Pass a Method as that IP. Seeing as we were carrying on the same discussion, it's obvious that it's me. I have never tried to hide the fact that I always edit under a proxy, and in that discussion I mention that I only proxy-edit as well. This is why I keep getting blocked, and why Pass a Method thinks it always automatically makes my concerns regarding his editing invalid. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

And, no, I'm not IP 68. I don't edit like that. Pass a Method does, as previously stated in this section. 50.17.15.172 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the admin who fully protected Daniel Radcliffe (for three days). I had not looked at the editors' contributions to realize the same things were happening at other articles. Bbb has asked me to consider unlocking the articles, based on this discussion, but I don't yet see enough resolution here to feel comfortable with that. However, if another admin does think it's appropriate at this point, I won't object. LadyofShalott 22:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, PassaMethod, please try to use more informative edit summaries. The edit summary you used on the Radcliffe article after Bbb asked what temp meant was still unintelligible. LadyofShalott 22:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User Ajax42

See the refactoring of my comments on the talk page of Ajax42 (talk · contribs). His article edits have been editwarring and were oversighted, and my warning has been twice turned into a travesty of what I wrote. If he did this to someone else I'd block him, but as I'm the one he's refactoring... Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked. Any admin is free to extend or overturn. Danger ^{High voltage!} 19:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Money220 and User:Money2200

It appears as though User:Davis100/User:Davis1000 has once again returned as both User:Money220 and User:Money2200. Money220 has already been given a one month ban for disruptive editing, but Money2200 continues vandalizing pages. Obviously an indefinite ban for both users should be given. But may I also suggest that the article Romeo discography be locked indefinitly as it seems that most of his edits seem to revolve around vandalizing that page? Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Both User:Money220 and User:Money2200 have been indefinitely blocked for sock puppeting. --MuZemike 23:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

HiLo48 used foul languages and personal attacks at Talk:Republic of China (both in the talk page and in edit summaries) to criticise my edits that fixed his wrongly-placed comments. He insisted not to follow what points 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Indentation provide for. I would like to request for an administrator to judge on: (1) His uncivilised behaviour, and (2) The application of Wikipedia:Indentation. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

On (2), also on Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices: Keep the layout clear, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Layout and Wikipedia:Talk page layout. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments is the part you should be reading. Kanguole 23:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Indeed, 202.189.98.131, HiLo did use foul language. I'm thinking HiLo was frustrated by your insistance on refactoring the comments of others. Please stop doing that. I'll leave a note on HiLo's user talk, but I'm sure they understand the situation. Tiderolls 23:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your actions. "your insistance [sic] on refactoring.." That's what I never did. I only move mislocated comments to correct locations to facilitate discussion. No actual content has ever been changed. I don't think foul languages and personal attacks are ever tolerated on Wikipedia. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• 202.189.98.131 warned. Tiderolls 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Foul language is tolerated, although frowned upon, as it can be disruptive. However, shifting comments of the same level up or down won't affect layout at all, and continuing to move comments after being told not to is probably as disruptive as foul language is. CMD (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@202.189.98.131 When a editor places a comment directly under another to indicate a response to that comment, you have to leave it there! Moving it from that spot can and will change the meaning. It is more important to maintain who is talking to whom, than to have a perfert chronological order. Putting the inappropriate foul language aside, user HiLo is correct in the comments made to you on this matter.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't change it according to "perfect" chronological order. HiLo48's comment is still (and more neatly) responding to Niyaendi's comment after the move. What I did was consistent with Wikipedia:Indentation. What he did was inconsistent with both Wikipedia:Indentation and the practice that Eraserhead1 and John Smith followed. It's natural and indeed more desirable for all responses to the same piece of comment by Niyaendi to follow the same rule. But he refuses to understand the Wikipedia rules and usual practices. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I am the subject of this report and have only just now been advised of this thread, and not by 202.189.98.131 (if that's still his IP address - he ignores advice to register, so it could be anybody). That alone should show other editors the level of his incompetence, lack of genuine knowledge of the rules and recommendations here, and lack of interest in the advice of others. His efforts at Talk:Republic of China have been genuinely disruptive, despite repeated polite suggestions to change his behaviour by several other editors. They were obviously having no impact. I tried a more intense approach. At least he noticed, so I achieved something, but he's still behaving like a dick. I have never reported anybody. I always hope that clear and honest conversation will get the results that are best for Wikipedia. But in this case I'm really beginning to wonder. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are completely inappropriate comments about any editor, let alone an IP. Registering is NEVER a requirement. We do, indeed, have a good percentage of positive edits from anonymous users, and therefore it does NOT show a level of "incompetence". You will have the appropriate level of respect for ALL editors to the project. I acknowledge that their contributions are not fully within policy, but trashing the editor because they choose to edit anonymously is grossly inappropriate (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes I'm still editing from this IP address. Registration is only an advice not a requirement. It isn't an inherent sin for having no registered account. I tried my very best to explain the background of Taiwan and of the ROC to editors like HiLo48. They ignored it outright. They simply resist to understand the topic that they're voting on. HiLo48, in particular, uses foul languages and personal attacks extensively in the talk page and in edit summaries (and now here at WP:AN/I). He doesn't respect different views, and he labels whoever he doesn't like as disruptive. This damages Wikipedia and jeopardises consensus building. 202.189.98.131 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP, this is not the place to make comments about content. This is only for behavior issues and you have now been instructed to leave others' comments alone and stop rearranging. --Taivo (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• 202.189.98.131 blocked. Tiderolls 03:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And now still editing, from their latest IP address ... and @BWilkins you may not be aware of the background there. We have hundreds of contributions on that page from a series of IPs, posted in multiple threads at any one time, many of whom are clearly the same editor (something they do not always make clear), which constitute borderline trolling. They derail conversations, revive dead threads, lead editors off into irrelevant tangents and ask the same "what if .."/ "why does .." questions over and over again like a four year-old. They have now progressed to repeatedly refactoring the whole talk page. It's quite possible that it is also a long-banned user. They have been advised to register for the sake of clarity - and for their own benefit - and so that everyone can see who is saying what, but refuse. I don't see a problem with HiLo asking on the talk page "what the fuck are you doing" (re the comment moving) and suggesting again here - not demanding - that they register. If anything, everyone on that page has been too indulgent in answering their relentless queries and tolerating their disruption. N-HH talk/edits 17:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:SadSwanSong

SadSwanSong (talk · contribs · count · api · block log)

I have noticed over at Libyan civil war's history that this user has POV pushed something in the aricle 4 times and was reverted by at least three diffrent editors today, part of an ongoing conflict I think, just somthing I thought to bring up here, this was also brought to the talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The accusations against me are unfair. I only reverted the deletions of my text three times yesterday. I was engaged in a lengthy discussion about my additions in the article, but some editors continue to with their hard positions of deleting the content that I've added. They claim that sources and materials that are in favor of the Libyan Government cannot be added, but everything that I've added has been clearly attributed and presented only as pro-Gaddafi. Biased sources that represent prominent viewpoints can stay as long as they are attributed, which some editors do not seem to understand. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I cant speak for other editors here but looking at your edit history you appear to be going against consensus alot and making edits breaking WP:3RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he was edit-warring at Libyan civil war but stopped just short of violating 3RR. He made three reversions, not four. Some editors will count the first change, but in this case his first change only added information (although he did move one chunk to a different location without eliminating it); therefore, it didn't "undo" another editor's work. This is a hypertechnical point, though, and doesn't really go to the heart of the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems to be more troubling than the battle at Libyan civil war is a pattern of large edits by SadSwanSong that, at best, are controversial, without first reaching any consensus on the articles' Talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This editor is constantly pushing the envelope on every single page to which he contributes. Many of these "contributions" are simply the deletions of large chunks of sourced material without consensus, such as on Genocides in history. Additionally, when asked to discuss edits or called on his POV-pushing, the editor invariably either ignores the request or becomes irate and refuses to negotiate in any way, simply insisting he is right and the other editor should stay out of it. This editing behavior has been consistently disruptive on every article on which I've seen him active. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet another edit-war involving the same editor has erupted at German reunification. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, the central problem here is that the editor seems to feel that making a post on the Talk page telling everyone else how biased they are is a substitute for obtaining consensus. I also notice that all of his edits are markedly biased toward Communist or socialist perspectives. It all combines to indicate an editor who is principally motivated by pushing a particular POV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO this editor thinks that adding a good dose of heavy-handed state propaganda to an article is equivalent to balancing the article. I don't think this is an effective or nuanced approach. You can't balance an article by using a sledgehammer. But back to the point. What remedial action are we seeking from the admins regarding this editor? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say a block for disruptive, POV editing. The duration is up to the blocking admin. If he comes back after the block and continues, then he should be indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the admin inaction so far, I am not seeing it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well, sometimes it takes a bit for an admin to respond (unless it's really urgent or immediately grabs someone, there is a tendency to wait for the issue to be fleshed out), and sometimes no one ever responds, and it automatically archives after 24 hours of inactivity.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Harassment from Rangoon11

Resolved: 13tallinn blocked as a sock of Edinburghgeo. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I have been harassed by being called a troll, to go-away, and being a sock-master, alleging I am some part of a large sock operation under the name edinburghgeo, because earlier I was cleared as a checkuser was denied due to total lack of evidence, and I deny having any connection to. Can someone please tell, and ideally block Rangoon11 for these actions. thankyou 13tallinn (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

link to discussion below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Edinburghgeo

• The investigation was declined on technical grounds rather than the merits, asking for diffs of the sockmaster, which means a CU may still be issued. I have no opinion on the validity of the claim there. If his submission to SPI was in good faith and he was just mistaken, that isn't really actionable. We all make mistakes. If you think the submission wasn't a good faith submission, you would have to explain a little better why. If the submission was in good faith and we are just left with "troll" and "go away", that would be more of a case for Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, or better yet, ignoring. What is at the heart of this seems to be content disagreements, which is what the talk page or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is for. Seriously, the differences you two seem to be arguing about are minor, differing in style, rather than content. Surely you can both work it out rationally on the talk pages of the affected articles. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

incoherent editor forcing changes through

Resolved: Drift chambers, Neutral current, Furkahocean, and Furkaocean all indefinitely blocked

—Kww(talk) 03:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

An editor has been consistently inserting massive changes to the infinity article which are borderline incoherent [83]. The talk page is also full of his mostly incoherent ramblings. The users talk page is also full of his incoherent ramblings. These mass additions have been removed several times by different editors and several attempts have been made on his talk page to try and get him to engage (including an offer by me to provide some sort of mentoring which was ignored). It is almost as if the editor is editing by using google translate so that the meaning in his edits are lost. The editor has already been blocked for his incompetance already [84] ANI discussion [85] and is back at it again with the mass insertions: [86]. There may be something of use within is contributions but his additions are so close to incoherent it would be a massive job to try and sift through the 100k lines he had originally added (which he has now dumped on the talk page for some reason: [87]). IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you neglected to notify him (his Talk page is utter chaos), so I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I just saw the latest at his talk page. What on earth is he up to? Really, someone needs to give a helping hand or something to the poor soul.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Read the same thing. I see a lot of using WP:IAR as excuses, but the actual conversations drift from confusing to incoherent in at least half of the conversations (and perfectly fine in many), which raises some interesting issues. I don't think he completely understands the system here, but it is his language skills that deeply concern me. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of using psychological terms of art, I think he's bananas. Based on the last ANI discussion, where an indef was threatened if a short block didn't work, an indef seems warranted ("I've blocked Drift chambers for 48 hours; hopefully it'll be enough to focus their attention. If it prompts them to slow down and read up on site policy as intended, great. If not, I'm sure an indefblock will be forthcoming in the near future.").--Bbb23 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If I could make heads or tails of his talk page I'd do it myself, but I'd strongly suggest a WP:COMPETENCE indef... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't want to be the first one to make this claim (my last one is still running loose) but I have to agree with you. The erratic nature of the communications can't be attributed to just being drunk one night on Wikipedia, and seems to be since day one, albeit, worse on some days than others. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the history, sadly it seems that a long term block is probably needed at this point. It has been going for a while, several editors have tried coaching the user and nothing seems to help much. There is the languange barrier for one, but I think the social competence line in the competence essay hits home: Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves,... well the rest is pretty harsh but unfortuanately it's probably what has to happen.--Racerx11 (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Point of view edits

Resolved

92.40.214.87 (talk · contribs) and others in that IP range have made several edits in recent days to three articles, Help for Heroes, 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt and The Spectator that offer views on recent events, and which I personally find extremely distasteful and offensive (see [88], [89] and [90] for typical examples). The user has been warned about their behaviour by myself and others, but is regularly hopping to a different address so I don't believe reporting it to WP:AIV would do much good. Paul MacDermott (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

see also 92.40.249.158 (talk · contribs) and 92.40.230.10 (talk · contribs) Paul MacDermott (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Since the person in question appears to only care about those 3 articles, I have semi-protected the trio for 1 week. This is preferable to a range block given the targeted nature of the vandalism. Let me know if problems return after protection expires or if it moves to other articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Now from a fresh IP he's just insulted my grandfather, who was killed in Korea. [91] I mentioned it in the hope it might give him cause to think about how his actions can impact on others, but in retrospect it doesn't seem like such a good idea. Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IP blocked by ThaddeusB. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User Amarru

I have reason to believe that the user Amarru is the exact same person who was behind the user called Seaboy123 who was banned from Wikipedia.

In the Wikipedia page (Football records in Spain) he is commiting the exact same vandalism as the user Seaboy123 did.

Moreover he has called me an communist fanatic without any reason in the revision history of that Wikipedia page.

Thank you in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Since no one has replied, I will just tell you that if you think someone is a sockpuppet, the place to report it is at WP:SPI, not here. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

BullRangifer harrassment of user

I enclose this text posed on my talk page. This abusive adminis hell bent on harrassing me for launching a complaint against one of his WP:meatpuppets User:Ronz. Ronz threatened me with this action during my original complaint against him instead of offerring an apologie or peace offering. It started with accusations from BullRangifer of sockpuppetry from another similar IP.

"Are you attempting to deny that you have deceptively used multiple IPs in violation of our anti-sockpuppet policies? My mentioning that you have done so may be offensive to you, but it's within the bounds of what is allowed here. OTOH, your response is WP:Battleground behavior, which only adds to your offenses. I offered you an olive branch above and this is your response? This is going to end up with your IPs blocked, and if necessary the article(s) protected to block your access to them. I suggest you back off and refactor/delete all of your negative comments which attack me or accuse me of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. If you won't do that, then immediately start an WP:SPI against me. You have to either put up (prove I've done something wrong) or shut up (change your behavior). Once again I'm offering you a way out. If you don't refactor, and don't start an SPI against me, then I'll get you blocked for deliberate and deceptive sockpuppetry. If you want to stay here, please choose the following three-step peaceful solution: 1. refactor; 2. create an account; 3. stop the battleground behavior. BTW, please remember to always sign your talk page comments by using four tildes. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)"

99.251.114.120 (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This report seems to have no serious merit to it. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 06:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

99.251.114.120, thanks for the (non-existent) notification of this thread. Let's get a few things straight:

Notice is not required according to WP rules and stated in the titles. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the top of this page. It's in RED letters! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

1. I'm not an admin, but I do have over five years and 34,000 edits to my credit, none of them using bots. I've even survived a spurious RfA, which resulted in my adversary being indefinitely banned by the Wikipedia community. Sometime later I was even vindicated by a revision of an erroneous portion of that RfA. So, yes, I've put in my time and learned a bit around here. I currently have over 7,000 articles on my watchlist (I delete many from time to time), and they are in all types of areas, not just quackery and health fraud related topics like alternative medicine, homeopathy, chiropractic, and TCM.
2. This has nothing to do with anything done by Ronz. I haven't been following his edits closely for some time, so if I ever knew of a complaint, I had forgotten it. This happens to be between the two of us. Nothing more.
3. Ronz isn't a meatpuppet of mine, or vice versa. We just happen to share many of the same interests.
4. When you make a charge against a long-standing and experienced editor like myself, you'd better be able to back it up, so please, pretty please(!!), file that SPI against me! (I'm the peace lover here, and I'll let you continue on your warpath...) I've gotten to the point where I'd love to see you hit by a wikiboomerang, rather than the proverbial doorknob, on your way out.

Doc9871 happens to be right. Indeed, this has no merit. The two IPs are indeed the same person, and the deception became evident when one referred to the other in the third person. I have offered this IP several chances for a peaceful solution, instead of going straight for the throat by filing an SPI. I'm more interested in resolving this peacefully, but will do it if necessary. Right now I hope they just do as you, GenericBob and I have suggested. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested, this latest attack on me started here:

• User_talk:BullRangifer/IP_comments#Tit_For_Tat

Check out the links there and follow this user's edits on both IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This happens to be one instance of deception (note both IPs, one referring to the other in third person as "(s)he"). -- Brangifer (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As odd is it may seem, there's an outside chance that "162" and "120" might be different people. Both IPs are static and geolocate to different suburbs in the Toronto area. "162" has been editing the article Alkaline diet and its talk page since last August. Then in mid January, "120" drops out of the sky and joins the dispute. It's possible that they both know each other in real life and this is a case of someone "helping out a mate". It's either this or they are the same person. Two random editors living so close to each other using the same ISP who just happen to share the same POV on the same article participating in the same dispute at the same time is just too much of a coincidence to accept. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

They locate to the Wasaga Beach/Collingwood area, which is a bit north of Toronto, and not far from Barrie (where I once fell in a motel bathtub and nearly ended a nice vacation in a bad way!). You're right, and there is a bit too much of a coincidence here. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

IP editors are not allowed to launch sockpuppet investigations. BullRanger attempts to ram thins down my throat that are based on ignorance of WP:rules. This harrassment started when I attempted to make public the editing bias of article Alkaline Diet and Ronz came forward to defend his editing of the edit summaries and the threatened me with various actions. BullRanger started the sockpuppet post on my talk page. I attempted to discuss this with him but he only got nastier. 99.251.114.120 (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Another good reason to create an account. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently this misunderstanding was just a misinterpretation of terms by myself (newbie). My apologies to User:Brangifer for my trangressions and misinterpretations of his apparent helpful and patient responses. Please disregard or remove (close) this section.99.251.114.120 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sneaky racist vandalism

On 24 February, Rí Lughaid (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log)) was blocked indefinitely by Jehochman for "Antisemitic, sneaky vandalism"[92] Following discussion on the editor's talk page, he was unblocked on 25 February, with a warning to avoid contentious edits, and not to alter the neutrality of articles.[93]

Since returning, the editor has continued with similar edits; though, as they are interspersed among scores of edits about medieval Irish history, the pattern could be missed. For instance, he added to one article a comment describing LICRA (the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism) as a "Jewish lobby group".[94] On Karl Marx, he argues that to describe Marx as a German is "a great slander against the German people", and that he was really "an internationalist of Jewish ancestry".[95] In several comments on Talk:British people, he argues that novelist Salman Rushdie is "not actually British", a "controversial/hated figure... (who) doesn't even belong to one of the native British ethnic groups", and a "a very controversial person (essentially a polemicist and trouble maker who earned a fatwa and the hatred of most of the Muslim world)". On the article about British deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, one of whose ancestors was a Russian aristocrat, he is demanding that we make sure that this person was "of Germano-Slav Christian stock", since "real Russians don't consider Ashkenazis to be Russian".[[96] On the article about Isaac Bonewits, a leading US pagan of well-attested Polish Catholic origin, he is arguing, with no evidence whatsoever, that he must be described as Jewish rather than Catholic in origin, since he looks Jewish, has a Jewish name, hates conservatism and sells sex toys.[97] On the article about British political activist and journalist Sunder Katwala, he is repeatedly removing the description of the subject as "British". On the article about Sean Penn, he is repeatedly removing the category "people of Russian descent" on the grounds that "by standards of russian culture, (Jews are) not regarded as russian".[98] This editor has made edits to other articles and talk pages of a similar nature.

Although each of these edits may not, in isolation, be sanctionable, there is a clear pattern here, over many articles, of a racist argument that Asians are not legitimate residents of Britain, and that Jews are not legitimate and equal members of any society in which they live. It is clearly repeating the tendentious editing which led to his earlier indefinite block. There is also some evidence of serious sockpuppetry, which I will be happy to provide to any checkuser.

In short, I believe that this editor is a liability to Wikipedia, with an unwelcome racist agenda. He should be blocked, and not permitted to return. RolandR (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

RolandR is stalking me around Wikipedia talkpages on any article where I enquire in ambigious cases, whether the subject of the article is of Russian/German/Polish or instead Ashkenazi Jewish descent and that should be mentioned. These groups have specific Wikipedia categories for their different ethnic identities/nationalities; in Europe, Ashkenazi Jews are considered an ethnic heritage and thus if somebody in America or Britain, take David Miliband for example, is of Eastern Europe Jewish background, instead of the rooted nation itself (ethnic Polish/Catholic), then it is standard to put them in such a category. The admin User:Jehochman advised me to raise on the talk first, when I want to change something in this direction and that is all I have done there since being unblocked.

Roland's bizzaro stalking behaviour extends far beyond this however and his other statements outside of the issue of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry are deceptive and malicious half-truth, he reverted a simple change I made to the article on Sunder Katwala, who is the editor of New Left magazine and was a leader of the Fabian Society, where I added that the subject is an activist of the "left-wing" in the introduction. On the article on British people, I was confused to see an imagine of Salman Rushdie, somebody born in India of non-Brit ancestry who is very controversial (because of the fatwa against him, he is widely hated in the Muslim world) and enquired on the talk why such a person was in the box and other people agreed to change it.

Roland's oddball behaviour and personal grudge in regards to myself seems to be moviated by his own political views (he openly states on his page that he is a communist) and his racist chauvinism and bitterness against European Christians. PS - One more thing, I almost missed, LICRA is an unambigiously Jewish lobby group in France, similar to the ADL; it is specifically and openly Jewish orientated. Rí Lughaid (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Without going into the ins and outs of this further, I must point out that Rí Lughaid's statement that "if somebody in America or Britain... is of Eastern Europe Jewish background, instead of the rooted nation itself (ethnic Polish/Catholic), then it is standard to put them in such a category" is just plain wrong. We supposedly have a policy of not categorising people by ethnicity (or otherwise) at all unless it is of direct relevance to their notability - sadly though, far too many contributors consider ethno-tagging (based often on nothing more than opinion) to be a legitimate pastime. If this policy were properly enforced, a great deal of unproductive bickering could be avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Although it's tempting to ask Rí Lughaid to provide evidence of Roland's purported "racist chauvinism and bitterness against European Christians" just for the comedy value of it, I think it would be better if an admin made Rí Lughaid go away and have a bit of a lie down for a while before they make any more patently ludicrous statements about other editors. Perhaps Rí Lughaid could be persuaded to focus on other topics. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Taking into consideration that this is his second appearance in three weeks here's the last one, and he was only unblocked on condition of improving behaviour, I have instituted a second indefinite block. Sometimes life is too short. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I've just found [99] which had convinced me that we don't need this editor. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I should add that I believe that this account is a sock of Yorkshirian (talk⁺ • tag • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • SUL • checkuser (log)). RolandR (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

His unblock appeal stated "I have been unfairly blocked for completely political reasons at the behest of a stalking campaign by European-hating communist Jew (User:RolandR) and a gaggle of Brit'ish co-idealogues". We definitely don't want this guy. I'll take away his talk page privileges, if anyone thinks they should be restored feel free, but that was not a good faith appeal, simply an attack. Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

problem in the online ambassador program

Since Summer 2011 the WMF has been expanding a program to connect the Wikipedia community with university professors, who in turn would ask each of their students to contribute to Wikipedia. To make this work, the WMF set up a system of "campus ambassadors" who physically go to classrooms and "online ambassadors" who support the students online. There is not much screening or oversight for this; people just volunteer.

It seems to me that being an ambassador is similar to having a Wikipedia community endorsement, much in the same way that being an admin is. I think it would be especially problematic if there were trouble with an ambassador, but I am making no judgement about the situation to which I am about to link. Recently someone made a serious complaint about an online ambassador. We in the ambassador program got into this program expecting to help professors and students and did not establish the system with an internal complaint review process. It seems like we need one, and I thought ANI could help me find people to comment on this. Here is the problem stated on the outreach wiki; that page links back to some English Wikipedia articles.

Thoughts? I notified no one about this post because I do not think discussion ought to be here on this board and because I am not sure who all is involved. I am not involved in this other than by trying to get others to comment on it. Could I request input, please? What should this person with a complaint do? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I and others have unsuccessfully searched for a chain of command in both the IEP and general GEP. Repeated requests for said chain have been met with vague dismissals and general gnashing of teeth by staff members. I'm not sure even they know. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking at here, this is definitely not something that the English Wikipedia can resolve. I understand your frustration. The Foundation should have had a complaints procedure in place, but people always forget this. They need to put something in place now to deal with this - I can't see anyone else who has the authority. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I've posted a bit of the background behind this issue at the link given by Bluerasberry. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• More generally, it's a difficult balance to strike; the ambassador system (and outreach generally) is a fairly small young project and hasn't yet had much chance (or pressure) to build internal process & policy. We all know what can go wrong if you try to fit a small young project to a procrustean bed of bureaucracy in the hope of getting better quality. Until this disagreement, I had genuinely believed that there was enough (or more than enough) in place already, what with selection and deselection processes for ambassadors, a steering committee, and vague WMF background presence... bobrayner (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think the lack of bureaucracy is the problem, it's the lack of clarity. No one seems to know who's doing what right now, all the way up to Frank Schulenberg. If we could get our shit together and just determine who's supposed to do what in the system we already have, I think many of these types of problems would disappear. But we've been after that for months now and haven't gotten any closer, so I won't hold my breath waiting. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious editing of new editor?

Resolved

New editor user:Barrot0114 reverted edit on Anti-Pakistani sentiment which is a little unusual since that was his first[100] edit.Diff is given here.[101] The edit summary reads " rv indiscriminate pov push", which is Wikipedia jargon, unusual for a first time editor. Please take necessary action. Barrot0114 has been informedYogesh Khandke (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This user is already added to an SPI for a CU (maybe you want to add your comment there instead), so this would be duplicate report. Btw, even IPs use that jargon. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A SPI as I understand needs a sockmaster, I don't have the vaguest idea who that can be, and I cannot make wild accusations. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't about registered or non-registered user; it is about experience, and this bloke looks experienced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You should look at the investigation and the claimed sock master. Then, you should determine whether you think this user is a puppet of that master based on evidence. If you think so, you should add comments to the investigation, paying close attention to DQ's responses to the investigation so far. If not, you should leave it alone. If everything you're saying is based only on your belief that this new account is "experienced", that in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean anything. The editor could have obtained experience as an IP before registering the account, or, much less likely, could just have paid close attention to how Wikipedia works without editing. Unless you have evidence of sock puppetry, I'd stick to the propriety of the user's edits now.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF - did you stop to consider maybe it was an ex-IP who is now registered, explaining the "experience"? GiantSnowman 17:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what I meant when I said "even IPs use that jargon", but I guess this one is not one of those after all given the SPI comments, though it's not the accused user either. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is a sockpuppet of Nangparbat. He basically admitted it here[102] He is also edit warring across a lot of articles. Usual stuff for this fellow. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
• Can someone please block this sock? He has admitted it twice now[103] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Charming comments. Both of the diffs seem to indicate he's a sock, but I don't see him mentioning User:Nangparbat. In any event, you've opened an SPI, so an admin will decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• User has been blocked as a sock. He targets me on a regular basis so there was no doubt in my mind who he was. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

user re-inserting content and against consensus

The SPA User:Persephone19 is re-inserting text where in a discussion a third party also commented against the insertion. A discussion was held on the talk page where a third party agreed with the removal [104]. He has been asked repeatedly to get consensus ([105][106][107]) for his insertions but keeps inserting it. Warning I gave him: [108]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

His re-inserts: [109] [110] [111]

The user is fully aware the material is undue: His original text had the phrase These proposals do not appear to have generated discussion at a peer-reviewed or academic press level, meaning that primary sources are the only reliable material available. which is the definition of undue weight to include them [112] as I pointed out to him on the talk page [113]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I know zip about this subject matter. It looks to me like Persephone is trying to push a particular theory or theories into the article that are reflected on their website. They are willing to discuss the issues on the Talk page, but they don't accept your view (and the view of some others) that their theories are "fringe" and unsupported by reliable secondary sources. As an aside, they also remove any warnings from their Talk page. The biggest problem I see for IRWolfie is not enough editors have commented, so it looks more like an argument between IRWolfie and Persephone. The most significant support I see for IRWolfie is from User:Salimfadhley. My instincts tell me that IRWolfie is probably largely correct and Persephone is behaving badly, but it's hard to condemn editors based on instincts alone. I'm also not sure it belongs here - perhaps WP:DR would be more appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The main issue is that the editor keeps re-inserting the content when no consensus exists for its insertion; i.e two editors object to it with relevant policy based reasons whilst one is pushing for it. It would be beneficial if he was given some warning to actually engage on the talk page and not re-insert the text whilst consensus does not exist as per WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise dispute resolution also dealt with users. I will bring it over there instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)