Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Edit Filter on "Robert B. Bell"

The edit filter on this page: Robert B. Bell is oversensitive and is reporting multiple false positives. Two of the recent trips are described here: [[1]] and here: [[2]] 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:EFM might be a better place to resolve this? I see the issue is already posted there, they'll handle it. Salvidrim! 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it was archived once (see the second link) without being resolved, so I want to make sure this gets on whoever's radar it needs to be on.70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is a false positive, but there's no way to fix that through the edit filter; that's just how it goes. Why do you say that this should be in the article? "Internet celebrity" is...exaggerated at least, I'd say. Chandler wasn't notable the last time someone tried to create an article for him; what's changed? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If the false positive is triggered by the edit filter, isn't that where it would be fixed? As to whether or not that information should be included in the article, well, editors can discuss that if they want on the talk page. The point is it's not "Sonichu and other repeat vandalism," as it is reporting. According to here: [[3]] the original creator of the filter needs to fix it. Can we find out who that is? 70.241.73.164 (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MuZemike was the filter's author; I'll ping him to ask about it. Long story short, though, is that false positives are not something that can be eliminated entirely. You're probably better off discussing this before inserting it anyway; I very much doubt it's something that should go into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Given some of the recent edits on the Robert B. Bell article and the recent above IP's request to unsalt and recreate a virtual BLP nightmare on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20#Christian Weston Chandler, I conclude that the edit filter is working as intended. This latest attempt is basically an end-run around the failed DRV. --MuZemike 14:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• The issue is not the recreation of an article on Chandler, I just want to mention him on the article on Bell, and your edit filter is claiming it is "Sonichu and related vandalism," which it isn't. Other admins have agreed that my trip is was a false positive. Please tweak this to allow legitimate edits. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Five X-Bucks says all those IPs !voting "relist" there were the same chap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is it forum shopping if it's on the same forum? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing me to this. But regarding everything else you've written here: please stop acting like an idiot. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Beg pardon? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Elaborated version: Thanks for pointing me to this discussion. But, regarding your accusations of sock puppetry and associated charges, they are idiotic, so please stop making them. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, please read WP:CIVIL. Secondly, IP addresses are often dynamic. If an IP shows up requesting something of this sort, and then another IP shows up requesting the exact same thing, the duck test applies; a reasonable person would assume they were, in fact, the same person. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Um, excuse me? You're going to accuse me of sock puppetry and forum shopping, without basis, and then try to lecture me about civility? LOL. From the link you just posted: "Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others." There is a sizable community, and many outside of that community, following Chandler. I suggest you do your homework next time before being uncivil, in addition to brushing up on Wikipedia policies. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I believe the current opinion is that the collateral damage caused by this filter is acceptable. You may wish to look in to registering an account so you could be exempted. Otherwise, you can use {{editrequest}} if you run in to a situation where you want to add this to an article. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. The best course, I believe, would be for the edit filter to be tweaked, although I do not know the mechanics of it and if that would be possible. But I will look into the other options you have suggested as well. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Userpage content as a discussion topic

the monument

User:E4024 had been aggressive toward me lately. In numerous occasions he had brought up the past content of my userpage, particularly the photo of the ASALA monument in Yerevan (pictured) into discussion. Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was a military organization in the 1970s and 1980s that assassinated few dozens of Turkish diplomats around the world to reach justice in the Armenian Genocide recognition. They fought for something I believe in, although there have been few cases of unintentional killing of civilians not having any connection to the Turkish government, which was also one of the reasons why it was dissolved, because their goal wasn't to kill innocent Turkish people, but diplomats in order to force them to recognize the Genocide.

So, this user claims that "those terrorists killed a familiar of mine", which he thinks gives him the right to bring that up in every discussion we have. While I never had brought up into discussion the fact that few of my ancestors have been killed during the Armenian Genocide, while others escaped. I don't bring this up, because it is not quite appropriate to discuss such issues with anybody on an online encyclopedia, especially with hostility he has:

• first he deleted User:Proudbolsahye's comment on his talk page and wrote for summary: "Go speak to your friend with the ASALA pic"
• he complained User:EdJohnston about me stating: "Were you who told me the other day something like "it was good to have people like me (aka Turks) who could bring whatsoever positive to WP"
• in Murder of Sevag Balıkçı article, he stated "We walked 100 thousand Turks after the Turkish journalist Dink. Go make Armenian WP, stop pushing your irredentism."

Also, this is not the first time he does this. On December 10, he also brought up my past userpage content into discussion: So you removed the ASALA monument pic from your TP and even began searching consensus?

Also, during the first discussion User:Deskana, who is an admin, said the following: "If you don't want someone potentially commenting on something on your userpage then you shouldn't have it there, anyway." Don't you think it is simply absurd? It's like one of those people who tell girls not to wear provocative clothes in order not to get raped. Why dooesn't he/she follow the basic Wikipedia rules?

Conclusions

1. Instead of discussing on the article talk pages, the user prefers to avoid a discussion by discussing my userpage content, which clearly is a personal attack.
2. He/she thinks of all this in a hostile way, singles out himself for being of certain ethnicity

Myself, being an experienced Wiki editor, tried to be civil as much as possible to the end. He twice removed the phrase "Calm down, my lovely friend, and then we'll continue our discussion", first replacing with "(Personal attack removed)", second time simply removing it summarizing "Removed Personal attack per WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. BTW I am not your friend. I do not support terrorism"

I would like the admins to take care of this user. Either block him or give him a warning that next case of personal attack will result in one.--Երևանցի ^talk 17:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. the user immediately removed my notification of this discussion (which is a rule) on his talk page.--Երևանցի ^talk 17:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversial stuff on user pages is subject to deletion. Meanwhile, I am puzzled, and must ask this: How many of those who were assassinated had been part of that 1910s-1920s genocide program? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Controversial" according to whom? And what difference does it make? Of course none of the 1915 genocide perpetrators were alive in 1970s and 1980s. Though, the main organizers of the genocide (Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha, Djemal Pasha) were assassinated by Armenians, but in early 1920s, because the Western powers didn't simply care about justice as they still don't to this day. The United States, Israel, the UK and most importantly Turkey continue to deny the fact of genocide, while even in 1939 Hitler said: "Who remembers the extermination of Armenians?" and called the Wehrmacht to do the same with Poles.

Turks and Azeris also consider Andranik Ozanian, Vazgen Sargsyan, Monte Melkonian terrorists. Does it mean that I should stop admiring them as heroes or I'm banned from putting up their picture on my userpage? Obviously no. Turkey is a country that treats non-Turkish citizens of its own like US did with Blacks before 1964 and South Africa before 1994 has to be brought up to justice and if you think that killing diplomats is terrorism than it's your own problem. One the other hand Azerbaijan (that had also organized massacres of Armenians throughout history: 1918, 1920, 1988, 1988, 1990) whose President Ilham Aliyev had openly stated that "our main enemies are Armenians of the world and the hypocritical and corrupt politicians under their control". You can see the whole speech at his official website here. A clearly chauvinist comment, which is quite unacceptable in 2012, didn't get any reaction from the "cradle of democracy": the United States or the EU. What else are a nation of up to 8 million can do to survive in this planet?

The ASALA members, to whom a monument was erected in Yerevan, are nothing but freedom fighters for me and after all what had happened to Armenians you call them terrorists for fighting for justice that was never given to us, then it will be hard to talk about human values.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, I do not bring up the fact that few of my ancestors were killed by Turks during the genocide into every single discussion I have with Turkish users, because I do believe that this is an encyclopedia and it's not my userpage that needs to be discussed but the article itself.--Երևանցի ^talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If there is information on your userpage which indicates you may be biased in a particular discussion, then bringing it up is fair game. Furthermore if content on a userpage is deemed (by community consensus) to be offensive and disruptive you may be told to remove it. Prodego ^talk 06:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? You think it's rational to bring up the userpage content to every article talk page in order to avoid actual discussion? That's simply disruptive, don't you think? Also notice that it was replaced by me with another picture months ago, just because I decided to change the style of the page. It has been on my userpage from August 17 to August 22. So for 5 days it was on my userpage about 4 months ago. I still don't think it was "offensive and disruptive", but even if it was for him, don't you think it's time for him to move on? --Երևանցի ^talk 07:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, if it was so offensive for him, why didn't he report it instead of whining around. --Երևանցի ^talk 07:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm making general statements - nothing specific to this case. Bringing it up where it isn't relevant would not be appropriate for him to do. Furthermore I am not saying that this particular content is disruptive, but rather that in general disruptive content can be removed. Prodego ^talk 07:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1st complaint. WP:OWNTALK says "Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages". I do not like this rule either, but it is the rule.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That being said, what am I suppose to do when a user brings up the past content of my userpage that was simply replaced by another picture in August into discussion on an article talk page that has no direct connection with it? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

He/she is raising that you may have a conflict of interest. He/she might not be doing it in the best way, but he/she might have a point. My advice is to try to avoid contact with him/her as much as possible.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to avoid him, but he still does that in "not the best way".--Երևանցի ^talk 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, notice that labeling me a "terrorism supporter" is a personal attack. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

He/she said "Removed Personal attack per WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. BTW I am not your friend. I do not support terrorism." That is not the same as saying that you support terrorism. However at the start of this complaint you made statements that do seem to say that you are a terrorism supporter,[4] so it is hard to see why you thought that he/she was making a personal attack. Perhaps the problem is that you are making statements that other people interpret differently from the way you meant?--Toddy1 (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your last comment is simply ignorant. You realize that a monument isn't showing that I support terrorism, right? Please read my statements again. Yes, I do support ASALA's ideas and it's not terrorism, because of my stated reasons:

1. they only killed diplomats connected to the Turkish government
2. after accidentally killing a dozen of civilians they started to dissolve, because it wasn't their goal
3. the international community failed and still fails to recognize something that has been academically proven (the word 'genocide' itself was created to describe the events of 1915, see Raphael Lemkin's origin of the word genocide), which was the main cause of their actions

If after all this you call ASALA a terrorism organization then I don't have anything to say.

But again, don't you think that if he has so offended he would have reported me? Why didn't he? And now he talks about it months after. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

All normal people would say that an organisation that murdered their country's diplomats for political reasons was a terrorist organisation.

I have not expressed any opinion on whether displaying a photograph of the monument on your user page expressed support for terrorism. Your written comments on this page do seem to show that you you support terrorism.

If you are having problems with other users, the most likely reason is that you brought these problems on yourself.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me try this again, don't you think that if he has so offended he would have reported me? Why didn't he? And now he talks about it months after. What's the logic here? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good example for you. You have userboxes on your page that say "This user believes that gunboat diplomacy can solve a lot of problems" or another one "This user believes in the power of armoured divisions.". Should I bring this up in every discussion I have with you? --Երևանցի ^talk 17:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

MalesAlwaysBest

This user has just come off an unblock for editwarring. He has resumed his disruptive editing, twice moving List of Syrian Civil War slogans to the title List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans in violation of NPOV. We also have this defaming/bigoted/vilifying/propagandising slogans whose tolerated presence make a joke of WP:NPOV) And accusing editors of dishonesty[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And he has just moved it again for the third time.[6] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor blocked for a fortnight. I admit the temptation to just indef for tendentious editing was rather strong... I may still succumb to it... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Steady. "Proaganda" is not a bad word - though it can be argued that this editor thinks it is. On the headings, I wonder how we would feel about labelling days "Friday of Crushing Rebels" for example? The editor simply needs to be made to respect BRD. Rich Farmbrough, 23:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Disruptive behavior by Earl King Jr. (AN #2) and Neutrality of The Venus Project

Earl King Jr. has been disruptive on the article page of The Venus Project.

• 1. His first disruptive behavior incident noted that "he repeatedly accuses Ijon of being biased because Earl King claims that Ijon is a member of the group itself.--Bbb23" and informed him that, "Sorry, no, you dont remove other peopoles talk page comments twice on a whim. Thats grounds for an immeidate block! If you gfel it inapprooproate ou should discuss it or take it here.Lihaas" and "Earl, your repetitive comments about Ijon's supposed non-neutral position are not helpful.--Bbb23"
• 2. He reverted a constructive article edit containing encyclopedic information about the project's history that was verifiable and properly sourced with page numbers, paragraph information, time spots, and quotes, back to his incomplete and inaccurate version with the edit summary of "Remove new wordy promo version. More like propaganda from the group than literal information," which suggested a group member contacted the sources (Miami News, Lionel Rolfe, WTVJ/Larry King, and William Gazecki) to publish propaganda on their behalf.
• 3. A review of his contribution history since March 12, 2012 shows his edits primarily, if not entirely, consists of reverting and removing information from various articles surrounding the same topic. He was repeatedly informed on his self-created clean up section on the article's talk page to cease disrupting article improvement.
• 4. He reverted another edit with critical commentary by New York Times back to his incomplete and nonrepresentative version with the edit summary of "same edit, different name. No. En.Wikipedia is not a promotional mouth piece for any group or company." He was informed in the article talk page that the encyclopedic information was notable work (the Lionel Rolfe source references Madman Muntz's half million commission, Fresco's Air Force patent, Forest Ackerman nominating him for president, as told by Jack Catran), which he afterwards described in the talk page that "an exposition of their philosophy belongs elsewhere, assuming that it is sufficiently notable for other sources to have discussed it" which suggested the enecylopedic information belonged at an unnamed, somewhere else and aforementioned sources haven't detailed the project.
• 5. Conveniently, Bobrayner would revert the article to Earl King Jr.'s edit twice (equaling King Jr.'s own two times) using King Jr.'s promotional line in the edit summary of "Seems to be far too promotional." If the history/background of an organization or company "seems to be" "promotional," every Apple, Einsten/scientist invention, etc article should be reverted to their earliest, incomplete and unrepresentative edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 15:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that Ijon was topic banned from this area due to disruption? You seem to be going to AN over a content dispute. That's not the purpose of AN. Special:Contributions/NotDeletable and this account appearing looks like a potential DUCK. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

1-No, as I'm primarily concerned with article content and good faith edits being disruptively removed. 2-I'd say since his disruptive behavior was brought up in ANI before, that part belongs here, but I'll move this over to disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Our articles around the Venus Project, and Fresco, have historically had severe problems with promotion & spamminess (which has occasionally leaked out into other articles, so some of our articles on economic stuff would have lengthy praise of stuff which is obscure and fringey in the real world). We won't get neutral articles by cherrypicking from sources and then framing it as positively as possible. bobrayner (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure, but it appears that an editor (talk, that brought this issue may be using multiple accounts. If I am wrong on that I apologize now Special:Contributions/NotDeletable They may have used an i.p. address also for recent edits. My guess is the editors contribution is well intentioned but promotional or information placement oriented to the subject and so not neutrally presented. The article in question and other related articles, as has been mentioned, are problematic, with adherents to those groups making many edits that often are cut and pasted from the information given out by that organization. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Posted in wrong category, then was told to post in dispute, but this was the original destination (so the dispute should be closed).

WP:SPI would be a better place to answer questions like that, but looking at certain timestamps I doubt that the two editors are the same person. There might well be some off-wiki connection but that's always a difficult case to prove.I suggest that it's not really worth it though - nobody's hammering the revert button, there are plenty of other eyeballs, we even have a DRN page - I'm sure we can solve this disagreement by civilised means instead of reaching for the banhammer. I haven't seen any suggestion that multiple identities have been used to get around the three revert rule, and it's hardly a crime for somebody to edit with an IP and then get an account a few days later. This is at the polite and cooperative end of the content-dispute spectrum. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The dispute was closed. This is the proper board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinpfox (talk • contribs) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing

I am reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff [7]. He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff [8]. I believe that his intentions on Wikipedia with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: [9], where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS

• The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
• For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
• The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
• Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
• the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
• Soviet...the first socialist society.
• With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: [10].--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff [11]. Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Wikipedia at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,[12], Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i am sorry you are frustrated. i am also confused that you think i am still pushing the proposal when i have said twice now i am no longer pursuing the proposal. i do not intend to edit the socialism article or talk now, or in the near future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that going to resolve your long-term disruptive editing behaviour? All that does is let's you off the ticket on this one instance of such editing behaviour by us taking your word that you won't edit it now or in the "near future" (whatever that means), and I can tell this is going to happen again by the behaviour you have demonstrated today, and in TFD's report that shows you doing the same behaviour in multiple other articles. You have failed to adhere to the advice in TFD's report, you have expired the patience of multiple users with your consensus-violating behaviour. Why should we believe that such behaviour by you on Wikipedia is going to stop now when it hasn't despite people repeatedly telling you to cease such behaviour in the past?--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i hav e resolved my long term behavior by not wanting to edit articles in which the sources i present are not accepted contrary to my opinion. each article i have edited, as well as the articles i have authored have all included sources. some, like the mexican constitution in the article i created, Immigration to Mexico, are allowed as sources, some arent like here. i see the other editors point that maybe the soviets were lying to trick people into thinking they were the 1st socialist state. perhaps someone here knows the real answer to who was the 1st socialist state, what a great way to end this debate, with a simple answer to a simple question. happy new year all, if we are still here, we must be the only/intelligent friends we have left, egészségére! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable

per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. [13] the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

• source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
• source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
• source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
• source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
• source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
• source six, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 source rejected, THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW.
• source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

actually the main difference is one of us attempts to win consensus in talk before making an edit, which once it became clear no amount of sources would satisfy, i never made edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that I began a discussion with the user to resolve his disagreements, the issue of my edit is moot because it has been resolved, your long-term disruptive editing behaviour involving violation of policy at WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on Talk:Socialism and multiple articles is what is at hand here, and it has been recognized by multiple users here as a problem.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i heard you several times, however since you have not read many/all of the sources to which you object, i did not feel it quite time to close the thread. you are also a socialist according to your home page, which perhaps explains your sensitivity to this topic, i truly am sorry for any discomfort my proposal caused you. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Darkstar1st's obvious refusal to accept consensus and stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd support a topic ban on Socialism articles (broadly construed). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

actually i have accepted consensus and agreed not to pursue the proposal further, see above. please note no edit was ever made, rather a collection of RS presented on the talk page when editors objected to the previous sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about any edits, so bringing it up is odd. I only speak of your tendentious and persistent inability to accept consensus. And I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

the incident here is concerning wp:disrupt, according to the complainant. wp:disrupt does specify the term edit. each source should be given examination according to wp:weight. it was my sincere belief with the right source the edit could be made. perhaps an easier path would simply add what the sources did say, since so many think i have taken the words out of context. or maybe the topic simply isnt relevant as one editor suggests. i still feel it would serve the article by identifying the 1st socialist state however i understand it is the consensus to not include such and see no reason to continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting Wikilawyering, particularly examples 2, 3, and 4 shown in the intro of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. It says that technicalities cannot be used to justify actions that violate the spirit and underlying principles of Wikipedia. Regardless, your claim of making a distinction between "editing" of articles as being distinct from that on talk pages is inaccurate, Help:Editing includes a section on "Talk (discussion) pages". The intentions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are clear, that failing or refusing to accept consensus is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. You have repeatedly ignored consensus when it has rejected your assertions.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i wish i could be more clear, i am sorry for the distress i caused you, i will not pursue the proposal further, i have no intention of editing the article or talk page in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouting in bold and offering promises that you will not do it again are not convincing to me and appears to not be convincing to HandThatFeeds, you have ignored all complaints by multiple other users about your failure to accept consensus on multiple articles in the past. It is not a matter of distress by me, that is trivial and I am not distressed; nor is it a matter of the proposal alone; it is a matter of long-term disruptive behaviour by you on Wikipedia. I and other users are seeking a resolution to this long-term problem of you refusing to accept consensus on multiple articles. Hours ago you attempted to say that "editing" doesn't include talk pages in order to avoid responsibility of violation of WP:DISRUPT on a technicality, I showed that the technicality was false. Now you are attempting to bargain by offering promises in order to avoid topic bans that I and several other users here all agree are necessary. If you had listened to the advice by TFD, me and others in TFD's report that explicitly warned you about your behaviour and gave you one last chance to desist in such behaviour, then circumstances would have been different now, but you did not listen and continued your disruptive behaviour. The fact is that the patience of multiple users with your conduct has expired, I, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds all agree that topic bans should be applied, along with the administrator Postdlf saying he may endorse a topic ban. HandThatFeeds said to you "I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters", I agree with HandThatFeeds' conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling like this should perhaps just be closed now, and I'm not 100% convinced a topic ban is necessary at this point (though I can't say I'm actively opposed to one either). He says he'll drop it, and that promise in the context of this ANI (in which everyone commenting has agreed there is a problem) should be considered a serious one, with serious consequences if he breaks it. If he does break it, or continues the same kind of tendentious and poor editing at other articles on the same subjects, just come back to ANI and I think a topic ban then might be imposed in short order.

I'd also recommend to Darkstar that he look into a WP:MENTOR, because as I've said above, his demonstrated ability to interpret and use sources (and relevant WP policy) seems lacking. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at TFD's report and look at the multiple incidents TFD has noted where Darkstar1st has violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It shows that multiple users been over this with Darkstar1st over and over again. I was the most liberal of them in that report, I gave him advice on how to improve his understanding of socialism amongst other advice, but he didn't listen to anyone and he hasn't changed his behaviour. Neither I nor HandThatFeeds trust his promises. There are limits to patience and trust given behaviour. Also, look at how he is approaching this: hours ago he attempted to use a technicality to avoid responsibility for violation of WP:DISRUPT, saying that talk pages don't count for "editing". It is my belief that he is tactically bargaining while having no real intention to change his behaviour. Accepting his promises will cause this whole thing to have to be restarted all over again, plus multiple users here believe that topic bans are necessary - me, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I just had a look at Darkstar1st's edits. It's pretty clear that he has wasted much time and effort being tendentious, and will likely be so in the future. I support a broad topic ban to prevent further disruption. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no i will likely not be so in the future. one of the Wikipedia articles i created is considered high-importance, i plan to spend my time creating new articles of equal importance and leave the well established topics to the editors above. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming

I think we need some administrator intervention. I believe that edit warring, POV-pushing, or misuse of sources is still going on even after article was under semi-protection. The edit warring has continued. Sources like Norcross are being misrepresented. It is very complicated discussion with a lot of history but it very difficult to get on with improving the article because editors just work against each other or seem to be tag teaming or misrepresenting the sources. There are some sneaky moves to avoid detection. It is very complicated because it is partly POV pushing, partly content dispute and the article attracts editors who are either overly promotional or overly skeptical. It is hard to find editors who are genuinely trying to collaborate on improving the article. I'm trying my best to assume good faith but...

Recent edits between 25-29th Dec, 2012

• 21:59, 25 December 2012: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) added "discredited" to opening sentence
• 22:20, 25 December 2012: Reconsolidation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) changed ([ diff]) last sentence from "certainly discredited" to "certainly discredited for addiction treatment" which is directly supported by source and more in line with NPOV. The study was specific to addiction treatment. doi:10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181c5f9db
• 22:40, 25 December 2012: GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed "discredited" from opening sentence
• 00:24, 26 December 2012: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted GoodDay so that now "discredited" in back in first sentence of lead.
• 00:24, 26 December 2012:Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted: added "discredited" back into opening sentence again
• 01:40, 26 December 2012: Lam Kin Keung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removes the qualification "for addiction treatment" from the last sentence of the lead.
• 14:07, 28 December 2012: Encyclotadd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) completely removes the qualification: "In research on ineffective addiction treatments ," from the lead so that it now misrepresents the source. He incorrectly cites the Norcross et al (2006 doi:10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515) poll which was specific to mental/behavioural disorders and the rating was was between possible or probably discredited, not "certainly discredited".
• 01:22, 29 December 2012: Reconsolidation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) restores in the lead that it was specific to addiction treatment doi:10.1097/ADM.0b013e3181c5f9db
• 06:30, 29 December 2012: Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removes the qualification "for addiction treatment" entirely

So, it seems that several editors are co-ordinating their efforts behind the scenes to misrepresent sources and push their own POV.

The atmosphere at talk page is also uncivil. It is difficult to keep things on track in order to work together to improve the article in line with wikipedia policies. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My lone edit to that article was to restore (I thought) a consensus-backed lead. I haven't been involved with the discussion there, for quite a while. No longer interested, I guess. GoodDay (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reconsolidation is the current ID of a long term SPA, the original of whom is under ArmCom restriction. This is the fifth user name they have used in serial. Each new ID makes very similar edits after a long period of silence. Another part of the pattern is to bring an issue here when they know a case is being prepared (see user:snowded/nlp case against them. Its to muddy the waters. As Action Potential (one of the previous IDs) there was clear evidence of meat puppetry and todate we have had 15 new SPA accounts created in the November/December period all pro NLP. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This would really be better covered in a comment on user behaviour. As I said to you, I have already confirmed my identity through wikipedia. I'm not trying to evade a topic ban or sanction. I fully support the remedies of the arbcom case. Anyone editing articles characterized as pseudoscience are covered by discretionary sanctions which I fully support. This ANI is related specifically to disruptive editing involving misrepresentation of sources and POV-pushing. This misrepresentation of sources can be easily verified by an uninvolved third party. Your accusation that I am involved in canvassing off-wiki is false and unfounded. I have no way of confirming or denying it. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've previously asked you to provide evidence of having confirmed your identity through wikipedia and you have not responded. Please do so ----Snowded ^TALK 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll get some advice on how your request can be fulfilled without violating privacy. I actually think the best way forward would be to create a series of RfCs to resolve our content disputes one by one. We can also resolve what I consider to be misrepresentation of sources using an RfC or even third party comment (but there is multiple people involved). The issue remaining is the incivility caused by people accusing each other of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. That would be less of a problem if we held people to abide by the suggestions of RfCs. If all that fails then we can use mediation. Would you agree to this plan? What about the other editors involved? --Reconsolidation (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The SPA accounts make discussing sources impossible for experienced editors. For example, one of the problems with the apparent meat puppeting is that the steady stream of new accounts do not take into account past administration and editor discussions and conclusions. They attempt to revert changes long ago agreed, and worse bring up arguments on the talk page long ago resolved. I think this kind of disruptive behavior in context of a pseudoscience that is nevertheless complex is doing untold harm to the pro-NLP perspective in the article. --Encyclotadd (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Snowded. User Reconsolidation has tried this before under different username [14][15] I.e. User 122.X.X.X.

User Reconsolidation appears to be trying to evade COI, and using multiple serial IDs and the meat puppets to bring up the same issues repeatedly and push an obscuring "new code" version of neuro-linguistic programming. The above items listed by Reconsolidation show mostly that clear encyclopedia editing of Wikipedia does not make neuro-linguistic programming look good and User Reconsolidation does not like it. Happy new year. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You cannot accuse me of disruption because I use reliable sources, discuss my edits and seek consensus via compromise. There is no evidence that I have promoted any particular point of view so you accusation of pushing a POV or having a conflict of interest (COI) is unsupported. I strongly encourage Lam Kin Keung, Encyclotadd and Snowded to participate in a series of RfCs and then mediation if that fails. The diffs I gave above show that several editors have been misrepresenting sources with a sort of tag teaming. That is what Lam Kin Keung, Encyclotadd and Snowded need to explain in reponse to the diffs above. The current response of Lam Kin Keung and Snowded is just a personal attack. A tactic they often use in the talk page discussion. Is there are way to compel all editors to engage in RfCs and be more careful with checking the sources? --Reconsolidation (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, the meat-puppetry problem at that article, should be taken care of first. GoodDay (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I can accuse of you distruption Reconsolidation bcecause you constantly change your ID to avoid association with the Arbcom sanctions and to allow you to raise again, without any new evidence, issues that have already been handled and the fact that you run a website to promote Grindlers "new NLP". There are no privacy issues involved, your previous IDs are known and can easily be listed so why not try honesty with the community? If there are legitimate reasons then choose a neutral admin (I am sure one will volunteer) and explain your reasons to them. If they certify that you have a legitimate reason then you are covered You state above "I have already confirmed my identity through wikipedia", OK where and with whom? Or were you lying?. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm confident we can work this out. Firstly, I do not "constantly change" my username. I made it clear that I created this single purpose account (SPA) to edit the NLP related articles from a neutral point of view using reliable source according to weight. I put an emphasis on the mainstream scientific viewpoint. I have not co-operated with obvious meatpuppets or used sockpuppets, as you constantly accuse me of. I did not canvass any support for my edits except through reasoned discussion. So please stop these accusations. Having openly stated that this is a SPA actually puts my editing and discussion at a higher level of scrutiny which I am happy with. I often refer back to the ArbCom recommendations on pseudoscience related articles for guidance. I'd appreciate if you just assumed good faith for a while. I do not intend to promote or disrupt. If you want we could open an RfC on my user account when I get back from holidays. I may be able to provide additional personal information depending on the advice from an experienced wikipedian. If you think the sources I use are poor or misinterpreted then we should look into dispute resolution. As I have suggested many times, we could file a report on the the reliable sources noticeboard to get an outsider's view of the sources. If we still cannot resolve our differences through the reliable Sources noticeboard then we could engaged in mediation. If the mediation is unsuccessful then we could look at other options like ArbCom. But in the meantime, let's continue reasoned discussion. By the way, you still have not dealt with the problematic edits and reverts that you made with your buddies which was the subject of this ANI complaint. --Reconsolidation (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your wiki-identity must be clarified, first. Until then, little progress will be made at the NLP article. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The argument that I have abused multiple identities is just a distraction. I just tried to fix the misrepresentation of sources in the lead and it was almost immediately reverted (diff) and again ([16]) by User:Lam Kin Keung without discussion. Lam Kin Keung just put in the edit comment it this was "slow edit war". It is absurd that he cannot even accept a change that closely reflects the sources, see Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming#change_to_lead_-_expert-consensus_lists. I think it is more closely aligned with NPOV. This is not a simple content dispute - there appears to be a co-ordinated effort by Snowded and Lam Kin Keung to push their extreme POV by misrepresenting sources and trying to escape detection by accusing me all sorts of edit warring. When you look more closely, it is Snowded and Lam Kin Keung who resort to edit warring to protect their edits. --Reconsolidation (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This content related issue has been dealt with in the proper place; the neuro-linguistic programming talkpage;[17]. The main behaviour issue of Reconsolidation needs the answer from you Reconsolidation, concerning your serial IDs. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

At least (sneakily) you reinserted the qualifier "In research on discredited addiction treatments,"(diff). You should not have put "revert" in your edit comment if you wanted to reinsert that qualifier. --Reconsolidation (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User Reconsolidation, I am not sneaky in dealing with the long term disruptive editing you have engaged in. I also am quite able to deal with the coordinated abuse of some NLP interested editors (including your the other IDs and IPs) on the article and my talkpage e.g[18][19][20][21]. Your objections here appear to be highlighting your disruptive example, influence, and behaviour more than anything else. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. How can we work together on this NLP article, seriously? I genuinely want to work towards a good article candidate. --Reconsolidation (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Reconsolidation's multiple identities

You are still avoiding the question.

• You originally edited as User:Comaze from August 2005 and were were subject to Arbcom sanctions which you are currently breaking. Most recently yesterday with a continued slow edit war on issues discussed with your previous identities.
• You then edited as Action potential until July 2010 and redirected Comaze to that account (which is legitimate).
• From the start of 2011 to May 2011 you use User talk:122.108.140.210
• From to January to May 2012 we get User talk:122.x.x.x
• At the end of December 2012 to date you emerge again as [Reconsolidation] after a brief period as an IP

All of these accounts make very similar edits and are accompanied by the creation of SPAs (although 15 is a lot for the latest manifestation) I am others have suggest that if you have legitimate reasons for this then you should go to a neutral admin and explain them. Said neutral admin can then state their opinion. Instead of this you have stated here and elsewhere that you have confirmed your ID to wikipedia but not provided any link that would validate this. Without that link we have no way of telling if the statement is truthful or a downright lie. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

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

TeeTylerToe has posted a block appeal. Since his previous block and appeal were a result of discussion here I'm posting this here for discussion. I talked extensively with TTT on the #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. My personal conclusion was that while TTT has the potential to be a good editor, he is still unwilling to get past his disagreement with the consensus opinion on the S-76 article. Further I expect he will not be able to accept any consensus (on any article)-edit which does not agree with his opinion, and therefore I recommend against an unblock at this point. However this needs more input than my own so I am posting here. Please take the time to review. Prodego ^talk 06:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI TeeTylerToe has voluntarily suggested a topic ban on the S-76 article for himself as a condition of unblocking. I would be willing to do so under those circumstances, but I want to give some time to see if there is additional support before doing so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 08:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I came here to point out exactly what Swatjester has; TTT suggests that he will be completely away from the S-76 article, consensus (which i take to mean the talk page) or dispute resolution regarding the S-76. This being the case, i would suggest unblocking ~ after all, he'll be watched, and he knows it, so surely wouldn't be foolish enough to venture back to that topic. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Any potential unblock would need to come with a thorough understanding of WP:ROPE - and an understanding that it would be a very short rope provided. Topic-banning from the S-76 article would be a good start, although a very, very sharp eye would need to be kept out for that sort of attitude that led to the problem in the first place spreading elsewhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe's record on Wikipedia is full of raging disputes. (He has only 13 edits prior to June 2012, so it is fair to limit your attention to the period since June 10). All his past unblock appeals are still on his talk page, and you can get an impression of his attitude by reading them. His tendency to make personal attacks has been noted. In my opinion it would be excessively hopeful that steering him away from a single article, S-76, will allow him to have a productive career. I recommend declining. EdJohnston (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tentatively support unblock, with topic ban. I say this with some reservations, because TeeTylerToe has shown long-standing problems, really based on not listening, and has a pretty bad record of personal attacks. However, it was all related to the S-76 argument, and with a topic ban on editing that subject (I'd say indefinite), and on the understanding that any repetition of the same problems will lead to a speedy reblock, I think we should allow a new chance. I do have fears that the extreme battlefield mentality shown by TeeTylerToe in the S-76 dispute might emerge in any fresh dispute, but I think we should assume good faith and let's see - plenty of people will be watching, and it's easy to reblock. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock, with topic ban and mentoring. Having come across TTT before on Higgs boson, he seems to have good intentions, but does not seem to understand WP's policies. Therefore, I think mentoring would be ideal in this situation; it would help him learn WP's policies on various things as to avoid future instances of this. Of course, the topic ban from S-76 would be necessary as well given his behavior there, but I feel that he has the potential to be a productive editor if he takes the effort to learn WP's policies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

99.225.202.45

This anonymous user, 99.225.202.45 (talk · contribs), is edit-warring over sectioning (gasp).

• Revision as of 00:11, 16 December 2012 (this sectioning is no good. his 'conflict with Yugo authorities' (as you put it) including prison is an integral part of his academic career. the two are not separate.)
• Revision as of 01:55, 17 December 2012 (Him ending up in prison is part of his academic career. If he wasn't a university prof, he never would've ended up in prison despite having the same views and opinions.)
• Revision as of 06:25, 25 December 2012 (restored proper sectioning and removed Mueller's disqualification)
• Revision as of 01:57, 31 December 2012 (reverted arbitrary sectioning that disregards the context of subject's academic career.)

They appear to be so attached to Vojislav Šešelj that they've gone to really bizarre lengths at Talk:Vojislav Šešelj#Sectioning to try and argue that we can't call the part of the article that describes his incarceration - incarceration, instead we have to call it "academic career" because his academic work preceded the incarceration and, well, because.

I don't think I've seen this level of pointlessness from an actual anonymous newbie before; it looks more like User:Velebit or similar (but it's not him, at least it's not his standard ISP - this one is in Canada - could be a new entry from the Serbian Youth League or something).

Can someone else please handle it, because I'm WP:INVOLVED? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Presumably this is the same person as 99.225.203.13 (talk · contribs) ...? bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly, their first contribution was this which fits the pattern. And the rest fits my WP:OWN accusation - the previous IP added almost 50 revisions and 10 references to vseselj.com. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

More wild, stab-in-the-dark accusations, POV labeling, insinuations of bad faith, and plain blatant Joy-style bullying. I'm not involved with anything called Serbian Youth League and I really don't appreciate this flippant tone garnered with accusations of the "oh, he's so attached", "he's gone to bizarre lengths", and "he's displaying a level of pointlessness" variety. But then again, this is how Joy talks. I'm not claiming "ownership of the article", I'm simply trying to ensure sectioning provides proper context - Joy for some reason doesn't want this.

What do I need to do (other than submit to Joy's bullying) to get this guy to stop accusing me of stuff while insinuating some grand conspiracy on my part? I've done nothing wrong here.

Also, references are to an extensive interview from the early 1990s that contains a lot of biographical info. It was conducted by an independent journalist (not affiliated with Seselj), that happens to posted be on vseselj.com.99.225.202.45 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're persistently using the Wikipedia article about Šešelj to promote him and his ideas, which is prohibited by numerous policies, not least of which is WP:ARBMAC. This needs to stop. BTW love the cries of victimization, it fits in the profile perfectly. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, only in your world, and in your world only, does providing proper context of Vojislav Seselj's academic career = "promoting Vojislav Seselj". Your entire argument is a ridiculous mix of:

1. constantly switching the subject (first you complain about the sectioning then you want to include a claim that "Seselj's become mentally unbalanced as a result of prison torture" by referencing a guy whose two out of three references DON'T MENTION ANYTHING OF THE KIND while the third on is a remark by an unnamed person and the you claim that it should be included anyway because it's "accepted knowledge in non-Serbian places frequented by Seselj" none of which you can support with anything resembling a reference),

2. daily Serbo-Croat or Croato-Serb politics / bickering (you're imagining me and projecting me into someone or something that's not even there and then you're engaging in a discussion with that person or that thing), all of which you're doing because you know you don't have a leg to stand on in an actual common sense and fact-based discussion so you want to take this on a plane of projected conspiracy theories and imagined political agendas

3. and finally personal accusations "supported" by misusing Wiki guidelines and throwing them around willy-nilly.99.225.202.45 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

An unconvincing defence. It's hardly worthwhile to notify a fluctuating IP of the WP:ARBMAC sanctions so I've put semiprotection on Vojislav Šešelj. If there are actual arguments to be made, this can be done on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Sagapane

Moved from WP:AN#Personal attack by User:Sagapane

User:Sagapane abused Wikipedia:No personal attack, here, here, and here. He/she wrote

• But a turkish fascist user, who hates kurds, delated my map. I did “undo” but now my commons picture ( the map ) is removed “becoz of licenzing”
• I think, it is done by the same fascist user ( takabeg )

I'm neither a Turkish nor a fascist. Moreover I don't hate Kurds. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be next door? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have provided a hand-typed only warning for NPA. Also reiterated that they review copyright/IUP. I cannot see them as 3 separate personal attacks, it's exact same one 3 times - normally, I would indeed block due to the nationalist/racist connotations. Maybe I'm giddy over the upcoming calendar change, but I'm hoping that a stern warning will be sufficient to stop future similar behaviour (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried to give context to the copyright issue; BWilkins, Sagapane is having the (perfectly legitimate) problem of not understanding our licensing in the sense of "Wikipedia is non-commercial, the map says it can be used non-commercially, so we can use the map". You know why this is an issue, I know why this is an issue, but it isn't as apparent to a newcomer. I've tried to explain why our licensing doesn't allow for this content: in future I would request people give more nuanced copyright explanations rather than pointing people to a 27,000-character policy that may not actually address the point of confusion. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also offered what little advice I can on my talk page, having becoming involved from commenting on Doug Weller’s. I ignored the attack and unfair accusation of vandalism there because I was uncertain about the etiquette of confronting someone ‘out of the blue’ on an admin’s talk page.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sagapane has also been leaving messages on my talk, complaining about fascist Turkish users. If he continues on his current course he is probably headed into Arbitration enforcement anyway, due the fierceness of his national views. It might be a useful step for an admin to get him to agree to stop with the 'turkish fascist' language as an alternative to an immediate block for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The "fascist" comment on your talk page was before Bwilkins' warning (a fact I failed to notice before I blocked - and subsequently unblocked), so no further action or further warnings are needed unless it is repeated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs

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

---

Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) has made an unambiguous personal attack here, accusing me of anti-Jewish advocacy. There are any number of things that I would like to say to this "editor", but in the hope that ANI isnt as broken as I think it is, will something be done about the straightforward lie of an attack directed against me? I know he spends a lot of time here and has friends who will undoubtedly rush to his defense, but this is bullshit should not be allowed to stand. nableezy - 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You're advocating for an obviously racist, anti-Jewish "news agency". What other conclusion can I draw? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That isnt true, and repeating it does not make it so. nableezy - 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It's not clear that the edit you cite is a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? In what world is saying somebody is advocating for racism not a personal attack? nableezy - 18:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The same world where someone can call an opinion a lie. Tiderolls 18:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding? Accusing another editor of being an antisemite isn't a personal attack? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It would likely be, but I haven't found that yet. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you please say what exactly you think somebody engaged in anti-Jewish advocacy is if not an antisemite? For the record, an antisemite is somebody who has prejudice against Jewish people. nableezy - 19:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said opinions weren't sanctionable, Malik. Tiderolls 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

An opinion? An opinion that Im a racist? I cant call that a lie? What is wrong with this place. If accusations of racism are acceptable, there are a few things Id like to get out of the way before my New Year's resolution of being more civil takes effect. And no, that isnt an opinion. He made a statement of fact, a false one, that I engage in anti-Jewish advocacy. A false statement of fact, whats that called again? nableezy - 19:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Reading the diffs and comments above, the only person that said anything about you being a racist appears to be you. I think Bugs said you were advocating for an organization. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, so being an anti-Jewish advocate, whats that? There a reason Malik also sees that as calling me an antisemite? And no, he said I was engaging in anti-Jewish advocacy. nableezy - 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugs' quote here seems Ok to me. But this seems a bit too much, unless Nableezy was specifically arguing for the inclusion of anti-Jewish propaganda in articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was not. nableezy - 20:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it crosses the line then. Bugs, will you strike that comment please? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it as a personal attack, but I wouldn't care. I guess some people can't take attacks, however I do see that reply as a personal attack and in actuality smart attack by someone who looks to be a narcissist. He really seems obsessed with being on top of everything, talking down to people and in general unpleasant to reply to. Baseball Bugs, or whoever he is, I'm worried about your mental health. --Hinata talk 20:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hinata, what you just said is a personal attack. Bad idea. Further, considering you deny mass killings ever happened under Communist regimes, I'd say you're not the person to be disparaging others. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The linked comments were comments on behavior. Their validity etc. can be debated, but such is not a wp:Personal Attack. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. WP:WIAPA: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence [emphasis mine]. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." I'd say that antisemitism is a serious accusation indeed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you elaborate antisemitism as a serious accusation? I thought that antisemitism accusations were so common that it was "medium" but not serious. Although I agree it was an attacks bugs made, antisemitism is not a serious accusation. --Hinata talk 22:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

They arent common here. Most things I have no problem brushing off, but that accusation, given the topic that I most often edit, isnt something that I am willing to ignore. nableezy - 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what wrong needs to be righted here? Are you using this as a forum to advocate that Bugs be blocked? Because that seems very unlikely.--WaltCip (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The wrong? How about the accusation of antisemitism that remains on RS/N, the author of which is happily editing along as though he didnt in fact make a rather cowardly accusation without basis. That wrong enough for you? And yes, he should be blocked for it, though I dont dispute the final sentence. nableezy - 22:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A block is absolutely appropriate. Whipping out the "well you hate Jews" card in a debate is a sucker punch if there ever was one, and in contentious areas like Israel-Palestine, such behaviour should merit sanction. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A block is probably not going to do anything though. What is the logic behind blocking? --Hinata talk 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going to issue ARBPIA / Discretionary Sanctions warnings to both sides - further abuse will result in short term article or topic bans to keep you all apart for long enough for the situation to cool down. I would URGE that you all just step back on your own now, please. The discussion is not advancing the encyclopedia, or your own standings, in any way.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreed with GWH here. Blocking is only productive if it prevents future occurrences, and we've got no real evidence those are going to happen. Sticking a one-strike-and-you're-out system in is a pretty good way of ensuring that things are locked down if they do happen without punishing people for theoretical future excesses. Ironholds (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm kinda perplexed about the "both sides" bit, though. What exactly did Nableezy do wrong here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict)The best place to address the ad hominem is within the thread, indented directly under it. For best effect, the sooner it is rebutted, the better. Context is critical as well. The debate was heated from both sides, steadily increasing, with no apparent efforts to deescalate. Everyone needs to calm down, take a break and bring in the new year in peace. Nableezy gets a minnow slap for feeding the trolls and BB gets a sardine slap for resorting to ad hominem when he realized his argument was weak; instead of acknowledging the other editors reasonable assertions. Happy new year across the globe. --My76Strat (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested response undermines WP:NPA policy which states "Avoid responding on a talk page of an article" with respect to a personal attack. Racism is a topic specifically mentioned as cause to seek intervention at a noticeboard. IMO you are blaming the victim on the basis of an essay rather than addressing the issue with policy, which to me underscores the need for a strong response to the incident in order to more clearly define community norms. ClaudeReigns (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GWH, if I am going to be warned for something, at least allow me the opportunity to do something warn-worthy. If you would please be so gracious to allow me to let BB know exactly what I think of him and his accusation, Id be fine considering the matter closed with a warning to both sides. nableezy - 22:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you would probably have to be blocked for being disruptive.--WaltCip (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what Nableezy's personal beliefs are. But the fact that he considers an obscene racist diatribe to be a mere "op-ed" is extremely troubling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what the term op-ed means? I tried to explain it to you earlier, but I see that it didnt take. nableezy - 23:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I do, and you're wrong. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'm wrong? What is an op-ed? nableezy - 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is this agency "racist". That's a particularity strong accusation. In any case, why are you taking such an strong exception to this? --Hinata talk 23:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Because of an extremely vile and racist rant which they allowed, which Nab insists on calling an "op-ed" as if it were someone arguing over whether main street should be widened. That is not an "op-ed", it's something Hitler would write about the Jews, and that so-called "news service" stands by it. So I assume anyone supporting that news service stands by it also, until they demonstrate otherwise - specifically, by rejecting it as a "reliable" source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So now, instead of redacting the cowardly attempt to silence others as racists, you expand that bogus attack to the numerous others who have in that same RS/N agreed that a source that the NYTimes, the BBC, the Guardian, the Jerusalem Post, Haaretz (those last two are Israeli papers) all cite is in fact a reliable source for their news reports? Awesome. I think that just maybe makes this more deserving of a block to ensure that Mr Bugs understands that he cannot brand others as racists because he has no better argument. nableezy - 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is getting uncivil. In any case, from my understandings Israeli media tend to cite the agencies work from time to time. --Hinata talk 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That news agency supported that obscene "op-ed", and Nab supports that agency. He has some 'splainin' to do, and he ain't there yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What is op-ed anyway? --Hinata talk 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It means "opinion-editorial". And if the news agency in question doesn't disclaim it, then they support it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"opinion" is opinion cannot be used as sources, but what about the agency as a whole? It cannot be deemed racist just on part of its operations? --Hinata talk 23:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, actually it doesnt, and that last part of your sentence is as wrong as the first. An op-ed isnt an editorial, that is signed by the editorial board of the paper or one of its members. An op-ed is an opinion piece by an unaffiliated person, or a member of the board who doesnt wish to associate his views with that of the board's. So now that you hopefully understand what the term means, would you care to redact that comment at RS/N? nableezy - 23:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If the agency doesn't refute or disclaim it, then they must be assumed to support it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• The words of the currently in force WP:ARBPIA authorization for discretionary sanctions is All Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, are placed under discretionary sanctions. Does that include WP:RSN? Monty₈₄₅ 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It covers all related discussions as well. nableezy - 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It took a while longer to actually lodge the warnings, due to a real life phone call and computer problem, but now that those are over...

Re to Tarc: Nableezy has used confrontational language and to some extent abusive language, and if not precisely escalating the situation has not acted to defuse it. I will restrict these observations to this thread and the RSN thread; I may have missed other behavior elsewhere, but that's what I am referring to. These do not rise to the level of personal attacks but are part of the overall disruption.

On the scale of things, he was approximately one step short of an actual serious problem, as was Tkuvho; I think Bugs walked right up to the line (personalizing the responses against Nableezy).

Were this another topic area, the odds of an ever-increasing spiral of nasty would be lower and we would hopefully not need the nasty.

To all three of you (Bugs, Nableezy, Tkuvho) - and AnkhMoorpark, though you did not participate in the borderline rude, your post to RSN percipitated this...

It is perhaps wise that all sides who are actively engaged in or caring about a particular troublesome conflict area post perceived source or information reliability issues to the noticeboard and then step back and let uninvolved editors assess, review, and decide. If questions are asked, it's reasonable to answer them. If you are feeling like getting more engaged than that, you're in danger of situations like this, where rhetoric escalates and obscures the underlying issue.

There are long, long histories of both non-Arab/non-Moslem and Arab/Moslem anti-Israeli sentiment or outright antisemitism on Wikipedia; that is a real problem we should acknowledge and not minimize.

There are also long, long histories of both antisemitic and Arab/Moslem (on one side) and Jewish or Israeli (on the other side) individuals or groups attempting to whitewash Wikipedia, remove sources, slant articles, etc. This is why ARBPIA was done in the first place, and it was neither the first nor last of these. You've been around the block, have all seen this before, etc.

You all have been around for a while and are not known for being problem editors in this space. In this particular case, you all are behaving in a manner that is problematic, however. Please stop. It's not helpful for you, your beliefs or causes, or the encyclopedia.

I am reasonably sure you won't all be sending each other new-years cards, but if you can stop pushing each others' buttons and sniping at each other for a while, perhaps you can be constructively editing together not that long from now.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, I have a responsibility to defuse a situation caused by somebody calling me a racist? What abusive language have I used? And you are aware that accusation still hasnt been redacted, right? nableezy - 23:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

In order; No, you have a responsibility to not participate confrontationally in an abusive and disruptive situation, though defusing it would be ideal. You were confrontationally participating. Most of the time this is OK anyways, but when the topic is under ARBPIA / Discretionary sanctions and personal attacks do start, we can ask you to stand back. That is not the same as "you started it" or "you were making personal attacks", neither of which I have asserted or I believe to be true.

Re abusive, you used "sez who" repeatedly, "fricking op-ed", "asinine argument", etc. Not personal attacks, and not something the Wikipedia civility police have any justification to beat you up over, but in the context of an ARBPIA / Discretionary sanction disruptive conversation are justification to ask you to step back.

Yes, as I mentioned on your talk, I know it's not retracted. Give me a bit, that's not oK. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Newbie biting by ElijahBosley

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

---

I'd like to bring an incident to the attention of some admins, if that's worth anything. I'm not asking for a block or anything serious, but a formal warning or notice so that this behavior does not continue in the future. This will also give any users that interact with him in the future fair warning of what to expect.

I was recently doing some research on torture in the United States. I found a few sources saying that waterboarding was derived from the SERE program, which was designed to train US soldiers to resist torture from Chinese communists in the Korean war meant to illicit false confessions for propaganda purposes. It seemed appropriate to add this information to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques if it wasn't there already. However, to my dismay, the article claimed the connection between SERE and Chinese communist torture was "erroneous". Having already found reliable sources contradicting this, I checked the link and the source. I didn't have access to the physical source, but this is how it was cited and linked:

though [[Mind control#Army report debunks brainwashing|erroneously]]<ref>A 1956 U.S. Department of the Army report called physical and psychological abuse resulting in brainwashing a "popular misconception;" thorough investigation had revealed no deliberate physical abuse of POWs by the Chinese for purposes of interrogation or indoctrination, and there was not a single reliable report of brainwashing.{{cite book| last = U.S. Department of the Army | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = |title = Communist Interrogation, Indoctrination, and Exploitation of Prisoners of War |publisher =U.S. Gov't Printing Office | series = | volume = | edition =Pamphlet No. 30-101 | date =15 May 1956 | location = | pages = 17 & 51}}</ref>

Both mention the debunking of brainwashing, but not the debunking of false confessions. With an obvious misinterpretation of the source discovered, I deleted it here, with a short edit summary for a fairly obvious and seemingly non-controversial edit. This is where the conflict begins.

• ElijahBosley reverted this deletion with the edit summary, "revert vandalism by IP address".
• I'm editing anonymously, so I understand the skepticism. Still, I did include an edit summary. So I reverted the hasty restoration of questionable content here, with a much lengthier edit summary.
• Enter user Zymurgy, who reverted without summary and placed a warning template on my talk page, calling my edit "unconstructive". (He later conceded that this reversion and warning were incorrect)
• Alright, maybe a second guy is so skeptical of IP editing that he'll revert without even checking its validity. But again, I had two lines (on my screen) of edit summary and I have yet to receive any response to the issues I raised, no comments on my talk page (besides a warning template), and nothing in any edit summary to indicate any consideration at all to the point I brought up. I posted on the article talk page, reverted and directed users to the article talk page for an explanation of the revert, and responded to the warning template with one of my own.
• Slowpoke admin Bbb23 chimes in with an edit warring warning and tells me to use the article talk page, which I had already used. I told him as much.
• ElijahBosley responds on the article talk page by showing 0 comprehension to the actual point I'm making, wiki-stalking, and fallacious threatening (I had only "reverted" twice, it takes 4 for an unambiguous 3rr violation), and of course, he reverts with the explanation, "edit warring--warning given". Keep in mind that at this point he has exactly as many reverts as I do: 2. He also posts on my talk page with more threats. The tone of this message is borderline harassment, I responded equivalently.
• So I do a mountain of research and make several posts on the article talk page and establish that not only policy is on my side (which was unambiguously clear from edit #1), but reality is on my side, as the very wikipedia article that Elijah mentioned covered the issue in "greater depth" in fact supported the very information that we were calling "erroneous". Additionally, being the good faith editor I am, I found another source.
• With absolutely no legitimacy left with which to argue, Elijah grudgingly re-deletes the material, but not without passive aggressive message on the talk page, making sure to establish that my anonymous editing was the reason for his hostility.

I can't believe that this is the kind of reception we should expect for anonymous editors who are making good faith, constructive, and correct edits. If this was just a misunderstanding about the validity of the edit in the first place, I would understand. But the last message is why I'm posting here. Elijah seems to have it in his head that all things go when dealing with anonymous editors, that blind reverting and open hostility are acceptable alternatives to reviewing a diff or reading an article. Wikipedia is in desperate need of new editors, our population is so low that we can leave RFCs open for months without receiving a response, while the number of articles continues to grow linearly. Trying to intimidate new editors is counter-productive. I would like a formal censuring of ElijahBosley from an admin to establish that this aggressive behavior is completely unacceptable. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

User notified here. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: I just realized upon more careful review of his re-deletion, that he merely tried to hide the erroneous claim (in a wikilink), rather than try to delete it entirely. I don't get this insistence on pushing material that has nothing to do with the issue at hand and without any sources backing his position. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• An IP address editor, 159:1:15:.34, has been warned four times, by three different editors, that his repeated edit warring on the controversial page enhanced interrogation may result in a block. In addition to deleting footnoted and cross-linked material in the service of his own point of view, this IP address editor left on my talkpage a nonsensical block threat (copied from one given to him) and abusive message "you sicken me." Geolocate and WhoIS says this IP address belongs to a public agency of the State of Washington, but Tracerroute says it is coming out of Texas. This may be a previously disciplined or banned editor attempting some form of IP address hopping disguise. I would be grateful for administrator oversight, temporary page protection on enhanced interrogation and if warranted a 24 hour block on 159:1:15:.34.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 19:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Lol this is a juvenile, "You reported me? Well, I'll report YOU!" post. See the immediately preceding post for a thorough timeline of the entire dispute. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Putting aside the content dispute, both EB and the IP have been edit-warring since December 27. The first round, which consisted of 3 reverts by the IP, one revert by EB, and one revert by another editor (EB's side), stopped on December 28. I believe I warned the IP about edit-warring after the 3rd revert. A new but related round began on the 28th and has continued through today with each party making two reverts. I can't comment on the geolocate/traceroute issue. EB should stop using vandalism labels in his edit summaries, and he should not use an edit summary like the last one ("Do this one more time-your're blocked") as it implies he has the power to block the IP, which, of course, he does not. I'm tempted to lock the article, but perhaps the two of them can step back and talk to each other civilly. There has been an extended discussion, but it's way too strident.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It saddens me that an admin is unable to accurately count reverts, considering how much of their job this constitutes. Look at the history pro. I had 1 deletion and then 2 reverts. How is the very first edit a revert? Lol. And here are two reverts with the default revert text in them for EB: [22][23]. So my count is wrong, his count is wrong, what else... After the weekend, I cleaned up the article by removing another use of the word "erroneously", removing the dispute tag that I added, and then removing the link that EB left. He reverted the latter edit. Apparently now that is an edit war...? And where I'm an equal participant I guess...? 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This IP address editor 159.1.15.34 is apparently neither a newbie, nor has he been bit. The posts give evidence of an experienced editor conversant with Wikipedia block procedures no longer able to use whatever moniker he had before, now taking refuge in an IP address. Told the misbehavior risked a block he has attempted a preemptive strike here. I take Bbb23's valid point about the inappropriate placement of "do this one more time and you're blocked." Still--have a look at how many other editors, on how many other occasions, have had to say exactly the same on the 159.1.15.34 talk page. This is an argumentative individual looking for things to argue about including on this page, who is counting wrong. Patience and understanding only work with those who want to resolve a difference, not with those who enjoy arguing for its own sake.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh shiii... I had no idea I was dealing with such a powerful psychic that he could read my mind from states away. Seriously though, if you want to talk about my past disputes we can. It's a lot of dealing with bad faith editors who think that reverting is a game, rather than a tool to protect the encyclopedia. In one case, I was unambiguously correct and the article now reflects that. In the other, the sources available weren't sufficient, and the dispute was resolved as soon as the restoring editors provided them, sound familiar? Except in this case you have no sources. You're being aggressive for aggression's sake. I have nothing to hide, so browse my history all you like, read every post I've written. My good faith will be apparent in every word I say. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Regarding being "bitten". Like I said, this isn't about me. This is protection for future newbies that you might just casually revert and accuse of vandalism. That should not fly on Wikipedia, so let's see what the community thinks of your behavior. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

159.1.15.3 is apparently correct on the relevant content issues here. Other editors would have better utilised their time in exploring diligently said content issues including carefully reading the sources. Doing so and engaging in debate on issues of content and sources would have been more productive and may have led to article improvement. There are lots of legitimate reasons to edit as an IP. If another editor chooses to edit as an IP that, in the absence of evidence of malfeasance, is their legitimate choice and not an invitation to engage in (implicit) smears against them. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I might have been tempted to take a looksee but decided to better utilise my time elsewhere after reading the IP's first sentence in this thread -- "I'd like to bring an incident to the attention of some admins, if that's worth anything." Moriori (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for validating my contempt and lack of faith. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, thank you. Btw, the word is "elicit", not "illicit". :)Moriori (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While I respectfully differ with this editor's take on the content question, I'll leave that for the talk page of the article. On this page, I am curious about the assertion that there are lots of legitimate reasons to edit as an IP rather than an account. Reasons besides wanting to flee one's own history and reputation, and trying to get around a permanent block that is. Would this editor offer an example of such reasons? I ask because I am often advising IP address newbies to get an account for credibility, and because having a good name to protect results in more responsible editing. I would hate to discover that all these years I've been giving bad advice. One should edit without even the minimal accountability of a regular pseudonym because . . .  ?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 23:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right forum for a discussion about IP-editing. The fact is it's perfectly acceptable. Unless you have evidence that there is something amiss, you shouldn't be accusing any editor (IP or otherwise) of anything. And it sounds like your advice is misguided. You're certainly entitled to have an opinion on the matter, but policy is against you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Fiachra, like EB, I don't understand your conclusion that the IP is correct on content (you don't give a reason why), but generally content is irrelevant at ANI. What is most important, at least with respect to administrator intervention, is to prevent further disruption on the article. Thus, the parties have to cease their battles and discuss things calmly, or they may be sanctioned or the article locked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23 - It's certainly possible that I'm wrong in my assessment of the content issues but 159.1.15.34 does have an argument about the sources that has not yet been adequately addressed. As addressing those concerns is likely to lead to article improvement such engagement should have been prioritized, in my opinion, above the insertion of warning templates onto on his talk page. Such templates are most likely to lead to an editor disengaging entirely or escalating the dispute – better to talk to the editor about the issue and warn, if necessary, as part of dialogue rather than to use a pro formawarning.FiachraByrne (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Zymurgy is using Huggle, it is very hard to deal wit the volume of edits Huggle users patrol without ever making mistakes, and Zymurgy was prepared to admit and apologise for it, so I think they come off reasonably well out of this. Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Next time you go to the trouble to uncover an apology, please provide a diff so others (like me :-) ) don't have to go hunting for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't begrudge him that. I only mentioned it so that people understood that EB's claim that "three editors" have warned me is, at best, misleading, and at worst, a lie. 159.1.15.34 (talk) 00:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean reverted, not warned, but even if Zymurgy states that he shouldn't have reverted, you still reverted right back. You could have, for example, gone to Zymurgy's talk page and asked them to self-revert. That would have been more constructive. And stop tossing words like "lie" about; it's unwarranted and doesn't help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to return to the point and to summarize where we are: this IP address editor 159.1.15.34 has had the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee impose discretionary sanctions on him here. Four different editors, including the esteemed Bbb23, have told this IP Address editor to stop engaging in edit warring, here here, here and last my own, here. The IP address editor came on this page to complain about 'biting a newbie' --though he is not a newbie, and the 'bite' was an editor acquiescing in what he wanted and then suggesting he get an account, here. He came here and expressed his "contempt and lack of faith" in the administrators on this bulletin board. In this discussion alone he has been twice warned about uncivil language: an WP:CIVIL from The Bushranger and Bbb23's caution about slinging around the word "lie," and suggesting a reduction in stridency is in order. So what I would like to know is, can we please tell this person to simmer down or risk a block, and otherwise conclude this?ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 01:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest a note be left for IP 159 to have them engage in conversation a bit more calmly. He should also be linked to WP:BRD to explain how things should work from here on out. I'd also suggest a heavy trouting for Elijah. IP editors are editors, too; you were wrong in how you engaged him. You tagged his edit as vandalism, filed a retalitory report here at ANI, and just above you pointlessly brought up that he's under ARBPIA sanctions. Please drop the stick and learn to assume a bit more good faith with the IP editors; some of them ARE here to help. Ishdarian 03:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Very well then. I will accept a good trouting. Not sure what a good trouting is, sounds like something out of British public school, or maybe a Hemingway short story. But whatever it is I will accept it, with humility and deference, for having lost my temper. And I will move on. With perhaps just the smallest inward smile, knowing that I CAN move on, while I predict you poor folks will be dealing with this IP Address editor again. And again. With kindest regards for a Happy New Year.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• EB, trouting is one of those Wikipedia terminology adoptions that arguably becomes more used on Wikipedia than anywhere else. I'd never heard of it before joining Wikipedia. I do enjoy eating trout, but I confess it never occurred to me to use it for slapping anyone. :-) I'd like to add a little more detail to EB's allegation that discretionary sanctions were imposed on the IP. That's not accurate. Based on a report at WP:AE, the IP was notified of discretionary sanctions. However, in the discussion at AE, the IP's conduct was eerily similar to their conduct in this dispute (everything is a "lie"). I tend to agree with Ishdarian. The IP needs to be more civil in their discussions with other editors. Whatever the IP's history, at this point the IP can hardly be called a newbie, and they should abide by the same standards as all editors in collaborating in an appropriate way. EB has accepted his responsibility in this contretemps; the IP should do the same. And we should all move on. Above all, the article is not a battleground, and any editor's inability to recognize that may be met with sanctions. At this point, no further administrative action other than these admonishments is needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Persistant copyright infringement at falsetto

User:Carlmarche has been repeatedly adding material to the falsetto article that is either copied verbatim or closely paraphrased from source material. I have left warnings on his talk page and on the article talk page to no avail. It appears he is now editing as an anon IP in order to avoid violating the WP:3RR rule. It should be noted that he and I are in a current content dispute which I hope can be resolved amicably on the talk page. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have blocked him for edit warring, but my main concern was the persistance in adding copyrighted material. I am concerned that this will continue after the 24 hour block ends based on recent comments made on his talk page after the imposed block. It appears that he sees nothing wrong with what he did. I am leaving for vacation tomorrow and will not be able to monitor the article for any potential copyright violations in the near future. I would appreciate it if an administrator would reiterate to Carlmarche wikipedia's policies regarding plagiarism/close paraphrasing, and having some volunteers agree to watch the article this week while I am away. Thanks to any and all who can help. Best,4meter4 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 4meter4. Also note that the editor is making personal attacks on their talk page. A longer block/talk page revocation might be in order here. Vacation^nine 08:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Article needs temporary protection

I added some material to India and weapons of mass destruction and another editor also added the reference to the section. Then some editors proceeded to remove it. I requested discussion, but the reverts continued. Then discussion started and another editor also expressed complaint that one of these editors are removing material. The editor who is warring with me also refuses to provide any sources to support his claims and uses speculation. Please see: Talk:India and weapons of mass destruction.

I therefor request the article be temporarily with a disputed template in the sections edited. Thank you-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

" I requested discussion, but the reverts continued." - here's the first problem. The process is generally that after an edit is reverted a discussion is started. (This is known as Bold, revert, discuss.) So you should be discussing the material you wish to add, and hopefully reaching a consensus. Protecting the page is not really a solution, because the discussion will need to be completed anyway. I'm sure, though, a few experienced editors will find the time to visit the talk page and help resolve the dispute. Rich Farmbrough, 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC).

Based on reading the Talk page, it appears these two editors (IP editor User:99.226.203.145 and User:NPguy) disagree on: a) Whether the article is to include info about non-nuclear weapons; and b) Whether the sources support the edits (by the IP editor) regarding import of nuclear material/systems. Sounds like they need a WP:Third opinion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

My experience with NPGuy hasn't been very good either. We clashed on a handful of articles. In my opinion, it is best to use scholar.google.com and .gov pdf factsheets with areas such as this due to users like NPGuy lurking. I'm not saying it's intentional, but be extra scholarly in your citations, and perhaps create a username so you can appear a bit more responsible. These are taken into account (human bias) and I'm only giving this advice to help you resolve your issues. Good Luck! Twillisjr (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Doncram and WP:NPA

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

I believe that a WP:NPA block is needed for Doncram, based on the following recent comments:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive243#request_admin_help_to_close_improper_AFD — Accusation of bad faith in starting an AFD: the nominator "fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page — he says that someone else "has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors"
• I'm an idiotic non-person, and I'm "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on".
• Accusations that someone else "has long expressed hatred and has harassed me for years. It is long term harassment, bullying, evil" and "urging on bully assistants"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram_at_lists_of_various_churches — Various bits in this massive section of which that's a part. For example, I'm "extreme and unreasonable". Another editor and I have been behaving in ways that are "unduly aggressive and bullying in nature", and the other editor has written "truly horrible things...that are not forgiveable" that have "seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person".
• Elsewhere, he says that someone else is "assert[ing that] others are stupid or fools or naive or not-tough-enough-to-deal-with-tough-persons-like-yourself, or whatever".
• Just two days ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29, where my deletion of some recently-created implausible redirects is stated as being in bad faith: "The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria". I warned him on his talk page after this accusation of personal behavior: he's presented no evidence that I intended to violate deletion policy. If it weren't for this bit, I wouldn't have taken issue; there's nothing objectionable about the idea of someone filing a DRV about one of my deletions.
• In response to my warning, I'm told that I gave the warning "intentionally in bad faith". Over at the DRV, Doncram says that he doesn't know why my motivation is, but nevertheless he speculates that it's "driving me away from Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed articles". Again, no evidence, and likewise no evidence that my removal of images from some Indiana bridge articles (the first time I can remember a WP:OWN violation being alleged) is a WP:OWN violation regarding Ohio articles.

I've heeded WP:CIVIL's instruction to "Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue", and I'm only coming here to dispute resolution because "there is an ongoing problem [I] cannot resolve". We routinely sanction people for making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, including baseless accusations that they're doing things in sneaky bad faith. We routinely sanction people for "insulting or disparaging an editor...regardless of the manner in which it is done", and that includes telling them that they're not even human. Someone who demonstrates a long-term pattern of WP:NPA violations is tendentious, especially when he knows that his editing drives off people and when his block log shows one block for disruptive editing (including personal attacks) and another for WP:NPA violations. Please stay on topic and discuss why you believe that Doncram should or should not be sanctioned; the last time this came up, the discussion (found in archive 778 linked above) petered out without resolution because people turned off onto other issues. Someone else please warn him about this thread; the IncidentArchive776 thread will show that he saw notification of an ANI thread by the thread-starter as harassment. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From recent discussions, it seems that the consensus is that this noticeboard is suited towards addressing individual incidents, but not so much for discussion on a pattern of behavior. If you want to get the pattern of behavior addressed, you should consider filing an RFC/U or taking it to arbcom. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what WP:WQA was for - before it was closed with the declaration that AN/I was the place for such things... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any perfect tool for dealing with longer-term problematic behaviour. RfC/U has had its fair share of criticism too. One of the points in AN/I's favour is that it has teeth. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment about this case, but I wish admins would take NPA more seriously and warn/block when users show a rude pattern of behavior. I almost left for good in the first month of editing because of someone's baseless accusation that I was vandalizing wikipedia because he didn't agree with my edits. FurrySings (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:WIAPA, Doncram's recent insistence that "80-100%" of Sitush's participation on two particular pages consisted of misrepresentation, attacks, etc. qualifies, as it wasn't supported by diffs (and isn't supported by reviewing the comments). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having been a target of Doncram's negativity (I've been repeatedly called "evil", "hateful", "nasty", "snarky" and a variety of other things) for some 4-1/2 years now -- and having interacted with him for a total of more than 5 years (as near as I can determine, we first met in late 2007, and the encounter was reasonably productive), I think that Wikipedia is long overdue for a discussion of the behaviors that are so upsetting to a significant (and growing) number of us. For a long time, I have contended that things would go substantially better with Doncram and the rest of us if he could somehow learn to refrain from personalizing his interactions with other users -- instead, focus on content. That's not the only issue between Doncram and the other users he spars with, but his persistent focus on personalities tends to poison his interactions. Unfortunately, I probably made matters worse between us when I pointed this out to Doncram -- telling him that he apparently became convinced that I was "out to get him" (not necessarily the words I used at the time) before I even realized that I had debated with the same person on multiple pages within a relatively short period. This period was July–August 2008, and the multiple discussions were at NRHP Wikiproject talk page, NRHP Wikiproject focused discussion page, and a featured list nomination, as well as a few other discussions in the same time period. Looking over these old pages, I notice that Doncram used my name five times in his post of 07:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) on the featured-list nomination page, which was a reply to my review of the FL he had nominated. In retrospect, I see that as undue focus on a person rather than content. That same sort of pattern has repeated itself over time in his interactions with Nyttend, Sitush, and others who he has also accused of being "out to get him". --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've just noticed this thread. While doncram appears to have a way with words when it comes to emphasising personalisation by others, my big beef is that of misrepresentation. However, as noted in the most recent prior thread concerning doncram here, it seems that they are preparing a submission for ArbCom. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy

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

---

Could an uninvolved/neutral admin give a ruling on whether WP:ARBPSEUDO applies to Conversion therapy? There's been a suggestion that discretionary sanctions under that decision might be helpful. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- Not the correct remedy. The controversy at the article stems from flagrant disregard of NPOV by a small number of editors on only one side of the discussion. Admins should see that Wikipedia-wide policy is observed before invoking draconian article-specific measures. ► Belchfire-TALK 06:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a vote Belchfire. Sarek, in my (uninvolved) opinion, I believe that conversion therapy could fall under the category of "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted", if it could be shown that conversion therapy represents itself as scientific. Personally I haven't seen that, and though the lead to the article makes that claim, it doesn't seem to be backed up. It is not pseudoscientific to act contrary to accepted science (as so much as there is accepted science in such a soft science), so long as one doesn't try to make scientific justifications. It's worth noting that the article psychotherapy describes (psyco)therapy as "therapeutic interaction or treatment contracted between a trained professional and a client" - which is not something I would consider science. Therefore I do not, at present, think WP:ARBPSEUDO applies. I am open to convincing though. Prodego ^talk 07:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is whether editors on wikipedia are treating it as having some scientific basis. This recent edit by Belchfire suggests that he is doing exactly that on the article talk page.[24] Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If editors are claiming it involves science, than it seems it should fall under: "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." Pseudoscience (broadly interpreted) is when people claim that something involves science, which does not.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty clearly falls under WP:ARBPSEUDO. Proponents claim it to be a valid psychological process and, as noted, some trained psychologists practice in the field. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I brought this up on the talk page, so I thought i would ask here. Does Chiropractic fall under ARBPSEUDO? This seems to be a precedent.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that chiro does fall under WP:ARBPSEUDO because of the numerous medical claims with no evidence. There are legitimate chiropractic procedures, but that's drowned out by the pseudo-medicine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

The arbitration mechanism should be a last resort, yet there is a whole array of remedies available that have not had an opportunity to function. DRN, NPOV/N and RfC are all available, but have not attempted. Playing the arbitration card is just a handy way to short-circuit those processes and avoid discussion that might not yield the outcome that some editors would prefer.

In reality this isn't a pseudoscience issue at all; it's actually a political issue in disguise. Admins should take note that calls to invoke ARBPSEUDO are only coming from those on one side of the issue, and consider that the reasons for that might not have anything to do with the quality of the science. ► Belchfire-TALK 16:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but trying to claim science for something the most reputable medical groups say is bunk, that's pseudoscience. The politics is a side-issue (and note you don't know my opinion on the matter, so don't presume to speak for me). Further, accusing editors of "playing the arbitration card" is pretty far from WP:AGF. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Editors are in fact saying (on the talk page) that conversion therapy has a scientific basis. That, combined with the fact that there has been an edit war (with the article currently fully protected), shows a good case for applying ARBPSEUDO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seems to me that shows a clear need for people to stop edit warring. If we follow your reasoning to it's logical conclusion, 40% of Wikipedia should be under discretionary sanctions. ► Belchfire-TALK 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is widely regarded as pseudoscience by the medical and psychiatric community. Here's an editorial from the British Medical Journal, here's a position paper from the American Psychological Association (scroll to page three), and here's a google-scholar search for "conversion therapy" pseudoscience that shows highly cited papers on the topic. We've used similar approaches on creationism and other prominent bits of charlatanry - presenting statements from leading journals and national scientific organizations, as well as a large body of academic literature on the topic to support characterizing the topic as pseudoscience. There is also WP:MEDRS to consider when any mental health claims are made by CT proponents. The matter at hand is therefore a patent example of pseudoscience advocates disrupting an article - a situation which ARBPSEUDO is expressly meant to cover. Skinwalker (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing an excellent example of how politicized science works. ► Belchfire-TALK 19:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Psychology is a science. Conversion therapy has been the subject of serious psychological research, published in peer-reviewed journals of psychology, and all of the studies thus far have found either that conversion therapy does not achieve its desired effect (of making gay people straight), or that it, in addition to failing in its desired effect, also causes psychological harm. Nevertheless, some people ardently believe that conversion therapy works, denying the research that has been done thus far and trying to circumvent the usual process of science by taking their argument directly to the public. I can't imagine any reason that conversion therapy wouldn't fit into the category of pseudoscience. It is exactly like Therapeutic touch, or Homeopathy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been some tag-team edit warring to restore disputed information to the lead so anything that brings that to an end would be welcome. Insomesia (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Decision. I have added a notice to the article talk page placing the article under standard discretionary sanctions. What was most influential in my decision were Principles #16 and #17 from the arbitration decision, both of which passed unanimously. #17 (entitled "Generally considered pseudoscience") states: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." #17 (entitled "Questionable science") states: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Based on the language of our article and the sourcing, it is fairly clear that the article falls under #16. I'll leave this thread open for a while longer in case anyone wants to comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the topic falls within the remit of the DS authorized by the motion passed in November. The motion states that "pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted" and conversion therapy seems to be a fringe belief in the eyes of the governing bodies of psychology in both the US and the UK, it is logical to include the practice under WP:ARBPSUDO --Guerillero | My Talk 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Tendentious editing by user:109.174.115.127

This IP has been persistently removing mention of an expansion for the computer game Call of Duty. He has continually claimed that it's an unofficial expansion, but this is not the case, as has been pointed out to him time and time again on the article's talk page. The IP mentioned here is his newest one. His previous one, user:109.174.115.255 has been warned and blocked before. Eik Corell (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's tough to rangeblock there. You're right, if it was someone with an account we might have to wake them up. I'm not even sure wP:RFPP is appropriate because there seem to be enough people watching that article to keep them in check. If it's outright vandalism, WP:AIV might do something, but I don't see this as vandalism (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a little addendum here -- The user doesn't seem to actively be switching between the IPs, at least there's not really that much evidence to suggest it. Eik Corell (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Just need a quick second opinion, somebody has raised the issue that the matter at [25] is not a personal attack, see User_talk:Snowolf#error but... a joke. Could another admin look at the matter and see if my understanding of it was correct, and if not, lift the block and un-revdel the two revisions? Kind regards, Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was indeed a joke, then the perception by anyone who's not part of the "in group" is significant enough for the block and revdel ... any third party who read it would be absolutely gobsmacked, and believe it was serious. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Look up for the context = the cause (blockable and not funny) -> the effect (funny to the target audience). Sean.hoyland - talk 12:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but horrifically offensive to the 99.99999999999% of Wikipedians and casual readers of Wikipedia who are not the target audience. Failure to act could meet the newspaper test quite easily (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Man oh man, this place is hilariously messed up. I understand what you are saying but context matters. Nableezy was the victim of a vile, astoundingly stupid and ignorant accusation of being an antisemite. There was a failure to act by admins. Nothing happened to Bugs. There was zero cost to him for making a personal attack of the kind that is about as bad as it gets. The only good that came out of it was that someone tried to cheer Nableezy up by trying to make light of it. I understand that there are cultural differences when it comes to humor but editors rely on you guys for help when they need it. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, context matters - and 99.999999999% of Wikipedians are not aware of the context, and sooner or later someone would be here requesting a block (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x2 Comment, It would be irresponsible to conclude the edit was a harmless inside joke. Considering this discussion, it is clear that the editor would be highly offended by the attack if it were discovered by unwelcome surprise. The blocked editor's "Yawn" response on their talk page is initially telling as well. Even if Nableezy returns editing and vouches for Nishidani, restoration actions would be inappropriate per BWilkins, and Nableezy should then be admonished for making ANI claims of "egregious distress" over a matter they were flippant enough to consider a joke when coming from their friends. Especially because it would be known to offend anyone similarly sensitive who was not of the inside crowd; and in fact anyone who had adopted the egregiousness that Nableezy taught so well earlier, on this noticeboard. IMO. --My76Strat (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• It was clearly meant to be a joke and a bit of moral support for Nableezy, but it was a joke that was not appropriate to make in public. I say leave it rev-deleted and lift the block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  In fact, as Snowolf has invited another admin to lift the block if they feel it right to do so, I have unblocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Oh come on. Anybody who seriously thinks that Nableezy is an antisemite, or that Nishidani believes that he is, is living in cloud cuckoo land. I donn't know exactly what Nishidani wrote; but I am concerned that it was hidden, and Nishidani blocked, while BaseballBugs claim that Nableezy was antisemitic was simply reverted by another editor, and can be seen in page history, and BB is still editing. Double standards, anyone? RolandR (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record. Sean Hoyland read with great precision. Nableezy and I, and a few others, Roland also, get multiple spam in our mail every other day telling us what vile 'antisemetic' (the spelling says all) scumbags or 'eurofilth' or Arab shit we are, who should be wiped off the earth. This is fairly well known by those who follow that area. I think the general principle by people who insinuate these things is to stack the record with pseudo-complaints so that in time some admin will think 'there's no smoke without fire'. I had Baseball Bugs' nonsensical claim about Nableezy in mind. Seems to be on the uptick. In the last two days, no admin has found anything problematical about Nableezy being called an antisemite - in fact defending himself got him into hot water. After I have been recently twice called as a racist antisemite (here and here, this morning it's even funnier. I suppose if I made a formal complaint, which I have no interest in doing, because the plaintiffs have problems in reading English and wouldn't understand anyway, I'd end up in porridge like Nableezy, with a rap over the knuckles. As Sean says, this place is weird. You only survive if you have a tough hide, shrug bullshit off and develop a taste for irony. If you missed the Vienna Concert today, then, may you all join me in singing the Galaxy Song, which sums it all up. Cheers. Nishidani (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have received such e-mails via Wikipedia mail as well, though not so much recently as I no longer edit much in this topic area. That has long been a double-standard in this project in regards to how editors from this topic area are handled, a point made obvious here when an editor defending himself from charges of antisemitism gets sanctioned for having the nerve to defend himself. I have made the analogy before to professional basketball, where the referees who break up scuffles lack the temerity to sanction the player who actually instigated it, and just T up all-around. Tarc (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an ailment across Wikipedia. Just as some editors are prone to being tolerated for their incivility, others are prone to having their civility complaints ignored, no matter how severe the incivility directed against them. Our civility enforcement is broken on two fronts, not one and I consider the latter front far more disconcerting than the former.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility enforcement won't solve the root causes of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area. Things would be a lot better if arbitration enforcement was used to remove editors from the topic area who can be shown to have edited in a systematically biased way over an extended period of time. That would require admins at AE to deal with substantial amounts of data and there is no evidence that they are able to do that. The editors who are catalysts for conflict are usually polite or passive aggressive, highly motivated to advocate of behalf of their favorite belligerent, and can reasonably be described as propagandists. But unlike accusing someone of being an antisemite, using the word propagandist is apparently not allowed even if you are a someone, a professional journalist, who probably knows what that word actually means, as the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bali_ultimate case appears to indicate. Editors who systematically misuse a charity's facilities and bring the I-P conflict here need to be removed. Their presence has a real cost to the project. Almost every edit I make in the ARBPIA topic area is about containment, mitigating the effects of the presence of partisans and dealing with the rampant dishonesty in the form of sockpuppetry. Every edit is an edit I'm not making to things like M'Pongo Love or Svay Ken or any of the other things on my to do list. I wonder how much time and effort is wasted on dealing with editors who are here to advocate. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very unclear what you're trying to suggest here. You start by saying that civility enforcement isn't the solution, and that the catalysts of conflict are usually "polite or passive aggressive". But further up this same section you talk about "a vile, astoundingly stupid and ignorant accusation of being an antisemite" and "a failure to act by admins". And in this your latest post here, you compare the "anti-semite" and "propagandist" insults as though, again, your biggest concern is that civility enforcement should be equal.

People who can't resist calling other editors anti-semites should be shown the door; and they are, sooner or later. Equally, people who are unable to resist repeatedly describing other editors as "lying or ignorant", "Modern ignoramuses", "propagandists" and numerous other epithets, even after repeated warnings, when discussing a topic area that's under arbcom sanctions, need to have some brakes put on that disruption. It's irrelevant whether editors on the same "side" as the troublemaker use the supposed "professional journalist" status of the troublemaker as an argument for their being exempt from any such limits on disruption. (Especially when this "professional journalist" meme is one the troublemaker has taken some trouble to advertise on-wiki themselves.) The disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia is what is relevant in the AE request you link, as otherwise we end up with a situation where some people apparently think the person's current occupation should make them exempt from sanctions, and others seem to be arguing that the person's other off-wiki activities (including some as part of their occupation) make them more culpable.

Unless their off-wiki activities include canvassing or the like, the reality is that none of it is relevant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Civility enforcement won't solve the root causes of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area" is perfectly clear. It means that the root causes of the problems in the ARBPIA topic area are unrelated to civility and therefore enforcing civility will not resolve the problems in the topic area. It doesn't say anything about whether civility should or should not be enforced. Editors who call people antisemites should not be shown the door if those people's edits can be shown to be consistent with those of an antisemite. You will find many editors who fit that criteria in the history of the Eustace Mullins article and others. Similarly people who lie are liars. There are many people active in the ARBPIA topic area as sockpuppets who are liars. Many people who are active in the topic area are ignorant by which I mean their views are uninformed and are highly inconsistent with and contradicted by large amounts of information in RS. They contaminate the encyclopedia with their ignorance. They can reasonably be described as ignorant. I could go on. Why do you assume that the basis of my objection to what Bugs said is related to civility ? It isn't. It's based on the statement being a pile of evidenceless idiotic crap. If Bugs turned his jumping to conclusions machine in his head on himself what would it come up with to explain his behavior ? Perhaps it would tell him that he was engaged in anti-Arab advocacy. That would be evidenceless crap too but he would probably be able to see that it was bullshit. If he had described someone whose actions were consistent with those of an antisemite and could support the accusation with sufficient evidence I would have no objection at all to the label being used because it would be accurate. But he didn't. So it's not about civility for me. It is about people being allowed to say stupid thoughtless things that are inconsistent with the evidence without having to pay for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland is right on target about the situation. Sadly, an example can be seen just two sections below this one about the ongoing superficially civil mobbing at WP:RSN, which no one seems to have the will to deal with. The persistent civil POV-pushing in the I-P area is bad enough in article space. When it spills over unaddressed into parts of the project meant to deal with content disputes and overwhelms them to the point where they can't function, it creates a real danger. It's analogous to diseases which attack the immune system to the point where it cannot deal with any disease. I have no solution to suggest, unfortunately, and what means we have are not working.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• To be honest, this is the kind of situation where I'd support removing the entry from his block log (that is possible, right?). We normally don't do that, but I'd support it in this case. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick one

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

---

User:SfBOT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been confirmed as a sock-puppet but is now at 3RR at Longboard (skateboard) while trying to add a mention of the company Gravitis into yet another article (see the talk page history of Unotretre for further history). I'm quite sure he'll be blocked for the sock-puppetry (when the SPI guys get to it) but the immidiate problem of continued unsourced promo-spam should be knocked on the head. The same user (under all previous usernames/IPs) has a history of editing anything remotely related just to sneak the company name into articles. Articles for the company have been deleted as NN and the article his alternate account created (about the company founder) is currently at AFD. I'm at 2RR reverting the first two attempts so some outside help would be good. Stalwart111 13:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done Being "Confirmed" doesn't always mean block, so CU will leave it to the admin. In this case, the user name, the edit warring, and the connection were more than enough to justify a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Yes, understand comment about CU. If a passer-by could have a look at Longboard (skateboard) if they have a sec - now at 2RR and not wanting to grave-dance, I feel I should leave reversion of the latest edit to others. Stalwart111 13:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks KTC! Stalwart111 14:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Israel/Palestine content dispute spillover onto RSN

This is a continuation of the closed thread above headed "Baseball Bugs". Some users seem to need more substantial support in using RSN effectively. I have been trying to pull the discussion back into line but my approach is apparently "rejected". The participants in the content dispute are letting it all spill out onto RSN instead of allowing time and space for non-involved board regulars to comment. Could some further warnings be given. The thread on RSN is "Ma'an News". Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Like Judith, I'm one of the regulars at RSN and I'm uninvolved in the IP topic space. Some of Tkuvho's contributions have been unhelpful, particularly their rejection of Judith's good-faith and well thought-out attempt to refocus the discussion on the reliability for a particular source.[26] Tkuvho is currently engaged in a minor edit war[27][28] over their rejection of Judith's attempt to refocus the discussion. If Tkuvho hasn't already been warned of the IP sanctions, someone should do so. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've just notified Tkuvho of this discussion and I now see that they were just warned yesterday.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

User:MarkMysoe making the Akanland region of Ghana independent overnight

MarkMysoe (talk · contribs) has spent recent efforts on trying to describe the region of Akanland as an independent country with no relation to Ghana of which it is otherwise considered a part. He has created a wikiproject WP:AKAN whose templates he substitutes for those of WP:GHANA. And he systematically removes mentions of Ghana substituting links to the article on Akanland. This article however is largely a hoax based on falsification of sources and the reading of sources about "Ghana" as if they read "Akanland". This is going to require large scale clean up efforts from the community, and likely some kind of sanction is also in order. See also related discussions at: WP:BLPN#Nana Akufo-Addo andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#Ghana. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll look through what I can see in his contribs, and either rollback or undo them, unless someone opposes to using rollback in this instance. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have had a bit of a look and there does seem to be a promotional aspect to this users single focused contributions and I have reverted a few. Very weak sourcing/non existant - the couple I looked at did not even mention Akanland. - Lots os this users efforts to promote the independence of this area need reversing, imo until he can show he gets WP:Policies and guidelines he needs to be stopped from editing this sector - Youreallycan 18:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• What is the procedure for nominating a Wikiproject for deletion? Is it MFD? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As have I, there's definitally some form of "Akan"-high view that is being pushed here. I think a topic ban may be warranted here, as well as a block for 24-48 hours. I'll continue looking through his contribs. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done some. He's been doing things such as removing the flag of Ghana and replacing it with an Akan flag, removing Wikiproject Ghana from relevant talk pages, etc. From what I've seen, a topic ban is warranted. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• A bit of context - Akanland is, as claimed by MarkMysoe, a cultural region of Ghana. The problem is that Mark is talking about it as though it were an official administrative district of Ghana, and often substitutes mentions of the country as a whole for Akanland instead. It would be like describing Montgomery primarly as a bible belt city rather than a city of Alabama, or describing Cardiff primarily as a celtic capital rather than the capital of Wales. Mark has been engaging in similar practises on BLPs, changing nationalities to "Akan" (apparently a tribe in southern Ghana) from Ghanain. This is seriously problematic, and Mark has been doing it for several months pretty much unnoticed. A lot of damage has already been done. Mark has repeatedly ignored messages from others asking him to address these concerns, and carries on anyway. These two edits are typical.

I also feel it necessary to raise concerns about Mark's general editing. I have interacted with him at Kevin-Prince Boateng and my feelings about that particular meeting are no secret. Full details can be found at the BLP/N discussion linked above. In particular, Mark's repeated infraction of adding original research to articles under the attempted protection of bogus sources (which do not actually support the information added) is an unacceptable risk to this project. The fact is that we simply do not even know the extent of damage - we have no idea just how much false information has been added to this encyclopaedia by Mark. I don't want to be seen as running from my house with a torch and pitchfork, but at this point I honestly believe the only option this community has is to apply an indefinite block per WP:CIR and WP:IDHT. A topic ban won't work; this isn't the only area in which Mark has acted this way. This is just the way he edits, and this is just the latest target. Wherever he edits, we will have these same problems. There is simply no way that the contributions of this editor are anything but a net negative. If anyone thinks, without reading into his contribs extensively, that this is excessive, I will happily provide a detailed summary of what happened at the Boateng article as an example. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I support a Ghana related topic ban as there are clear issues with the users contributions, but at this time to request a site ban I think more diffs are required - I support a topic ban from anything related Ghana till he can show he can be more constructive in that area and I feel that will sufficiently protect the project at this time - see the blpn report and discussion for more details -

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Nana_Akufo-Addo - Youreallycan 19:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

This is a proposal that User:MarkMysoe be banned from editing articles related to Ghana, broadly construed.

• Support as nominator per discussion above. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per all the diifs that there is a serious issue here with the users contributions to the sector - Youreallycan 19:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I regard this as the minimal preliminary measure in order to contain the problem. Any further sanctions will have to depend on the users response to this thread. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support in view of the damage already done, as discussed above. Mathsci (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• comment I see no evidence (maybe I'm missing it) that anyone has tried to get this editor to see the light.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  20:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Several diffs [30][31] [32] [33] [34] to users contacting MarkMysoe on his talkpage have been provided by Basalisk, they have been removed by MarkMysoe. In anycase the topic ban is necessary simply to contain the mess (the alternative is a block) before any attempts to get him to see light can begin.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Also it has been at ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive770#POV_editing_re_Akanland_.2F_Ghana_by_User:MarkMysoe.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of my blatant frustration with this user comes from previous interactions, and that's why my response probably seems over the top. However, this would be one example of the many times I've confronted him about his editing style. This was months ago, and yet here he is again still using false references. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, would endorse site-wide ban as the editor adds diffamatory, racially-aggravated nonsense to BLPs [35], in particular check the cats added at end, consistently lies in edit summaries, typo typo and cleanup, where he does nothing but remove anything that would be in Rawling's favour and slants everything to Togolese mercenaries/massacred Akans, and causes huge cleanup headaches for GF editors whilst IGNORING ALL RULES! The edit summary says it all. Wikipedia:CIR, Wikipedia:IDHT and Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND all come to mind, as does the fact that this is not saying that Lady Gaga has more hits than Justin Bieber on You Tube, this is serious shit concerning BLPs and ethnicities and peoples' identities. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what I'm talking about. He often uses a string of edits marked as minor, with misleading edit summaries, to effect a larger overall change. It is all these practices together - mislabeled edits, strings of small edits in place of single large ones, bogus references - which make his editing almost impossible to monitor. He can essentially do what he likes and it's very difficult for anyone to check it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Akanland is a historic country of the Akan people, the Akan people ethnic nationalis agreed to a state treaty with the British, for the Akan people historic country Akanland (see here) to be part of colony and it was named Gold Coast. In 1957, a state union was agreed by the Akan people and Akanland government agreed with and lead by Akan politician Kwame Nkrumah to join their historic country Akanland (now divided as Ashanti, Brong-Ahafo, Central Region, Eastern Region and Western Region) as a state union with the Mossi people historic country known as the Kingdom of Mossi then named to Northern Territories (now named and divided to Northern Region, Upper West Region and Upper East Region) within Ghana (see here) and the Ewe people historic country Togoland then named British Togoland and French Togoland (now known as Togo and Volta Region) within Ghana (see here, here, here and here). These three countries governments (Akanland, Kingdom of Mossi, and Togoland) agreed to a state union in 1957 to create Ghana, and they decided to it after the ancient empire called Ghana Empire. The "Ghana" state union is a example of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro, Montenegro decided to break their state union with Serbia in 2006 with a independence referendum and the country Serbia and Montenegro is now the countries Serbia and Montenegro.

A further look into the history of the lands and territories that created Ghana by a state union in 1957, before deleting Akan people and their land (Akanland) historic information and really informative information + a hard work of a small Wikiproject Akan, that a person has tried their best to do over four months. What good is Wikipedia if someone has taken a lot of their time and hardwork on a ethnic group and their historic Akan land and historic country (Akanland), Akan culture and Akan WikiProject, that nobody had even bothered to try and do. I have lost my passion for Wikipedia about now. I may just retire myself from Wikipedia since, a large, hardworked and wrightful information about the Akan people lands and Akan territory (Akanland), their Akan economy from their lands and territory (Akanland), their Akan culture and Akan society, Akan biodiversity has all been removed, and even their Akan WikiProject. What good is Wikipedia if somebody wants to find information about the Akan people and their land and historic country (Akanland), where the Akan people lived and currently live (Akanland), the history of the Akan lands (Akanland), their unique and independent Akan educational structure, the Akan people governance and Akan political structure, the Akan people and Akan lands (Akanland) sports history (Akan football history), the Akan people health status and independent Akan people health care, and the Akan people society and culture and social life, has all been removed. A large scope of Akan people history, Akan geography and Akan biodiversity of their land (Akanland), Akan demographics, Akan people health status, Akan peole life expectancy and Akan people health care structure, the Akan people independent educational structure, the Akan people and their land (Akanland) independent economical history, the Akan people land (Akanland) and their historic country (Akanland) infrastructure and transportation systems, the Akan peoples gold, Akan cocoa, Akan natural minerals, and Akan fossil fuels all from their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), the Akan people governance and Akan people political structure of the Akan people and their Akan land (Akanland) and historic country (Akanland), and the Akan people identity and historical anthem music, to just be removed and suppressed from being freely viewed on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to be for freedom of information and where everybody can go to for as much helpful information of topics and subjects. It now looks like in the year 2013 (21st century) this is no longer the case. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If this is the way in which you want to respond to these very serious and well substantiated accusations then I will support a full site ban. Evidence has been provided that you have either misunderstood or willfully broken most of wikipedia's basic policies, and here you are suggesting that you have done nothing wrong. That does not suggest to me that wikipedia is well served by allowing you to continue editing Ghana related or any other topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban, should the indef block be lifted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

MarkMysoe blocked indefinitely

Okay, I've just twice reverted a close tag here -- indef block ≠ topic ban. Please let the topic ban discussion come to consensus. NE Ent 22:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy to have this reopened - regards - Youreallycan 22:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block in view of the tl;dr screed added above and on WP:BLPN. Mathsci (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Re-open the discussion if you wish, but I have indef-blocked MarkMysoe, because I think the evidence of WP:tendentious editing presented above and at BLP/N makes it clear that he is here to promote his cause, not to improve the encyclopedia. Anyone may unblock who believes Mark has given credible assurances that his conduct will not be continued, but I think that is unlikely. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• support indef·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• support indef - yes as per my investigations and the users current responds - Youreallycan 22:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef site ban to be lifted at the earliest at 1 year out. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If I could clarify my comments, I support an indefinite site ban (no editing at all, or if any is to be allowed no article edits at all/only talkpages) to go for no less than one year, and only after that would the editor be able to apply for an unblock under the standard unblock template. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support full indef and topic ban to be maintained regardless of any unblock also indef, only to be lifted by the community, not automatically expiring. It's blantantly obvious this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef site ban  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  00:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support indefinite site ban based on this episode and my previous experience with the user. Wreaks absolute havoc and we don't have time to babysit people. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohdasad2006

Mohdasad2006 (talk · contribs) began editing in September of last year, focusing on towns in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, and has been nothing but trouble. He changes their articles to say that they're located in other states or in the nonexistent state of Harit Pradesh, he replaces valid geographic coordinates with incorrect ones (which is how I noticed him), and he adds unsourced and often clearly incorrect information to the articles. I took him to AIV in October, and he was blocked for a week; but I've just noticed that he reappeared in December, doing precisely the same thing (such as adding that a town was founded in 2005 by "Saif 'n' Preity"—a Bollywood actor and actress, apparently). He has also recently edited from—at least—the IPs 223.181.75.29 (talk · contribs) and 223.226.160.252 (talk · contribs). I'm finding it hard to undo his damage, since later edits frequently get in the way. Could someone just block him to prevent further disruption? Although he has never, to my knowledge, made a worthwhile edit, this seems a little involved for AIV. I'll notify him if you'll give me a minute. Deor (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block for utter incompetence. 66.191.153.36 (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour from an IP

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

---

This (see edit summary) shouldn't be tolerated. Which is the way to proceed in such situations? I've also placed admin intervention regarding this case at my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, for starters you should start thinking that if you go around reverting things just because they were an "unexplained change", you're going to be doing an awful lot of reverting. Don't revert things just because they were bold. That's a sure route to getting up people's noses, as you've just discovered. If there's no edit summary, look at the edit. In this case, you'll find that the prose that you've reintroduced twice, now, contains a grammatical error. This is not the first time that you've done this. I see "rv unexplained change" several times in that article's edit history from you. And this isn't even the first time that you've reverted someone who was fixing your grammatical errors. In this reversion of "unexplained changes" you undid the corrections of three grammatical errors in three paragraphs. People are trying to help you, by copyediting. Don't be such an obstruction to article improvement, reverting them for merely having the temerity not to seek permission beforehand, and they won't become so angry at being obstructed again and again in the execution of otherwise simple copyedits that they are rude to you. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The edit that is mentioned above reinstated the content as it's exactly appearing in the supporting reference, i.e., Convair-Liner 240 and not Convair CV-240. I'll take your advice regarding my edit summaries, but the concern I raised here is the profane language in an edit summary that wasn't done by me.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think this revert is more interesting as the IP fixed some copy problems (then reinserted by Jetstreamer), and at the same time introduced errors of their own. Then, of course, there's the issue of the material that was removed by the IP, indeed w/o explanation, and restored by Jetstreamer. That material is unsourced (at least through footnotes), and the article itself has been tagged as lacking citations since 2008.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case, is it so difficult to provide an edit summary? I mean, edit summaries are there for a reason, so why not filling the blanks? The edit really needed one by virtue of the removal on two paragraphs.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. I can't speak for Uncle G, but I'm not condoning the uncivil edit summary. At the same time, your reversions have to be more carefully made. You didn't just revert the Convair part (above); you also reverted good copy edits the IP had made. You didn't just revert the removal of the material; you again reverted good copy edits. Look at the entire edit, not just part of it; revert only what should be reverted. And, as I said, it's hard to object to the removal of unsourced material, even if the editor removing it doesn't say that's the basis for it. It's unlikely any admin is going to sanction the IP for the rude comments in the edit summary in these circumstances. However, I have left a message on the IP's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, seeing that someone (partly) agrees with me regarding the uncivil edit summary is enough. Again, I'll take your advice regarding the matter, it's a positive outcome for me. Nevertheless, I've made profane comments neither at talk pages nor in edit summaries, but it's obvious that I cannot expect the same behaviour from others, let alone from those who hide behind the IP anonymate. I'll be removing the request for admin intervention from my talk page.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin review requested

Sorry to be back here again so soon after my last visit. Rather than trawl round admins who usually deal with India-related stuff, I think it better to ask for an independent look-see of this thread and its possible outcomes. I am a bit concerned that the canvassing of a discussion at WT:INB across multiple article talk pages might be less than optimally phrased by a newbie and might cause more problems than it fixes. Qwyrxian queried something on my talk page and then initiated a thread at the project page. No problem with that, and I briefly noted the thread in the discussion that I feel caused Qwryxian to revise their opinion- see here. The revised statement says something like this, across several talk pages. It is an improvement on the earlier version that I reverted but it still seems to miss the fundamental point that the discussion concerns WP:BLP and I am concerned that the discussion at INB could become overloaded with irrelevancies etc. I deliberately have not linked "canvass" to WP:CANVASS but would appreciate it if someone uninvolved with India stuff could take a quick look. I'll mention this query to the newbie - Sreejiraj - and to Qwyrxian but hopefully it can be resolved without any drama. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Profile Removal

Andrew now feels administrator action is not needed. Feel free to offer him further advice on his talk page if some further point about his comments here needs making. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the behavior of Skamecrazy123 and Avraham I am requesting account deletion. I do NOT appreciate there "Intervention" and refusal to hear my side or even see reason. Instead of pitching a huge fit and erasing 500 articles like I WANT to do, I will just withdraw and pray I can find another wiki site where the users are more understanding and don't bite the new guy! A Wiggin13 (talk) 03:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC) With all due respect, I have been nothing but civil to you. I didn't join the Teahouse to bite the first newcomer I came across. I have spent time that I should have spent trying to sleep off a bad chest infection trying to sort this out with you. I am starting to wonder why I bothered sadly. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I will add that the outright deletion of an account is impossible, as it brings up an issue for attribution of edits. Just a quick look through your interactions with these two editors, all of what they tell you is true. You may wish to talk to your parents about this as well, as I don't know that they'd appreciate you putting your age, picture, etc. up on the internet for all to see. But, all I really came to say was they did nothing wrong, and we can't delete your account. gwickwiretalkedits 03:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Look I would not being having such a problem if he had TALKED to me before doing stuff and letting me fiddle with my own page. But when people touch my pages it feels like a complete invasion of the time I put into the page! I even left I nice note on my page ASKING no one touch it without at least asking me to do it myself first but NOOOO you ignored that and erased anyhow!!!!A Wiggin13 (talk) 03:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC) For the second time, they are not your pages. And the only edits I ever made to your userspace was the welcome template I put and the talkback templates on your talk page, so I am at a complete loss as to why I'm being accused of deleting stuff here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC) It's not "your page". Please read WP:UP#OWN.--ukexpat (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) AWiggin, the edits to the userpage were explained almost immediately after they occurred, and relevant policies were linked to the talk page (on Skamecrazy's excellent suggestion) for you to review as well. One of those policies, WP:USERPAGE, does make it clear that no one "owns" their own page, although some extra leeway is often granted. However, Wikipedia's policies regarding self-disclosure of information are needed to protect both the project and its users, as frustrating as that may seem to you now. Lastly, I'm afraid that making statements such as "pitching a huge fit and erasing 500 articles like I WANT to do" do tend to indicate a potential difficulty when it comes to dealing with the inevitable frustration and disappointment that is part and parcel of collaborative editing. Please consider that should you continue to want to work to enhance the encyclopedia, you will certainly come into conflict, or at least disagreement, with other editors, and the ability to deal with this frustration in a respectful and proper manner is a necessary component to editing successfully here. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Note - I don't know if this has any bearing on this incident report, but the user who has made it has stated that he will be leaving Wikipedia. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC) FYI: I am quitting IN PROTEST to Avi's behavior about this. He is being quite rude and you know he is. A Wiggin13 (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You are the only one being rude about it. As I have stated time and time again, I have been nothing but civil to you since your arrival and Avi has shown no signs whatsoever of any lack of civility. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I apologize if you feel I was rude, perhaps the message could have been phrased better, but it does not change the fact that your user page needed adjustment. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC) That does not change the fact that asking me to do it would have been nice! I had 7 hours of editing into my page and for you to just... Violate it... I mean I even had a sign asking people not to... I would have done it myself if you has just asked nicely :( A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC) So if you would have made the same revision any way, then what is the point in all this hassle? It seems that, as this debacle goes on, it appears more and more that the real problem lies not in what was said, but in the fact that you seem to think that you own the page and that no one else can touch it as a result. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC) You do not understand the situation. At least someone is explaining things to Avi... You and the other hand. A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I, on the other hand, have had accusations of deleting stuff on your user page leveled at me, an ANI incident thrown at me and now I'm being told that the past few hours that I should have been spent getting some much needed sleep have been wasted answering charges that were nonexistant. If there is any actual problem that I need to answer here, then please contact me on my talk page and I will come back and answer it. Otherwise I am done here. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately, part of my maintenance role (and I am an admin) is to take action to protect the project. In these cases, we usually act first and explain second, due to the fact that millions of people frequent wikipedia on a daily basis. -- Avi (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Well in the future I suggest you at least glance at the page before wiping it? A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC) I did, and restored the acceptable material (well, I missed the half french quip) after wiping, but the data needed to be removed from the publicly accessible repository. -- Avi (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Avi, Demiuge1000 is explaining just WHY I am so sensitive about this kind of stuff.... he says check my user page in about 5 minutes A Wiggin13 (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Comment - as an uninvolved user, this is all very interesting, but unnecessary. A Wiggins needs to learn that it is not his page, it is Wikipedia's page, and it can be edited by anyone, with or without his permission. While it is true that user pages are not normally edited by others, they can be, especially when they violate policy. I have done so on numerous occasions, usually involving violations of the advertising policy. If he can't accept that, then perhaps this isn't the place for him. So far, all I see is I don't hear that. Based on what I've seen, Avi was completely within his rights as an admin & oversighter to change the information on the page, per Wikipedia policies. At this point, A Wiggins needs to drop the stick and move on, either by accepting that Avi/Skamecrazy did not violate his rights and editing articles, or by leaving. GregJackP Boomer! 04:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Just curious if this user will set some kind of record for shortest time on project before retiring and if there is a barnstar for that? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Have to agree with GregJackP here. Hate to be biting here but wikipedia isn't here for therapy. There are a large number of users who have one condition or another and they've managed to get by without causing any ruckus and work well with others. But for a youngster who has barely been here for 3 days to be raising such a brouhaha over a userpage of all things is patently ridiculous. Wikipedia is neither a social website nor a forum for debate. Blackmane (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

IP linking dates and unnecessary words

IP 190.111.10.43 has been linking dates on album articles (specifically on Spanish-language albums) and has been doing so despite repeated warnings. Similar IPs like 190.111.10.44 have been doing the same. Note that both IPs are traced to Guatemala, so it's unlikely to be different people. The IP has also been putting unnecessary repeated links on articles. Also this IP Special:Contributions/190.111.10.49 as well, which also traces back to Guatemala. Not only overlinking as with other IPs, but changing lengths of album or song tracks. EDIT: Another IP again traced from GT: 190.111.10.39. Erick (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal: Ubikwit and Evildoer187

In the course of my administrator duties I have noticed Ubikwit and Evildoer187 are incapable of interacting with each other in a civil and constructive manner. This unfortunately is ending up being quite disruptive, and the two of them are (inadvertently) wasting the time of other users. Below I summarise the key points.

• Reviwing the mainspace edits of Ubikwit and Evildoer187 reveals the single-purpose nature of their accounts.
• The overall contributions of both accounts (Ubikwit, Evildoer187) shows that a great deal of their edits concern the other user.
• The two of them are incapable of being civil to each other. For instance, I only needed to go one edit back for Ubikwit to find an edit of Ubikwit accusing Evildoer of POV pushing, and similarly to earlier this evening to find a similar case of Evildoer accusing Ubikwit of POV pushing. Other examples include accusations of canvassing.
• The two of them edit war with each other across different articles, frequently stating "see talk" and then arguing with each other on the talk page. Then (sometimes) stop when I warn them not to edit war , although this frequently results in them telling me it's the other one that's edit warring, not them.

There are numerous examples of the two users being unable to interact constructively with each other, but they are too numerous to collate and list here. For those interested, I suggest reading the extensive discussions on my talk page and on the talk page of the users. Personally I think that both of them should just be indefblocked as they have their own interests, and not the interests of Wikipedia, behind them, but typically other administrators prefer a more measured approach.

I propose that the two users are hereby banned from interacting with each other as per the terms in the banning policy. Any violation of this will lead to them being blocked for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Please discuss this below.

Discussion

• Support as proposer, naturally. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Both users notified of this discussion [36] [37]. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• It just so happens that there's now more evidence of the problem I have documented in the section directly below this one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict)x2 My principle tells me that a interaction ban will only see both users (or one of them) blocked soon, which is sad. Although, I believe that if Deskana wasn't able to solve this issue (and after watching one of the parties reporting the other one after being noticed of this thread) this is the best method to try out. The links above are proof enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the interactions of this pair of users does not seem to build the pedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm not opposed to indef-blocking the editors, but I think an IBAN is worth a try first.
  Other pages worth looking at for more examples of the inability of the two editors to work constructively include List of indigenous peoples and its Talk page and my own Talk page (partially archived at User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 33). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support although I think the problems with both users go beyond their interactions with each other. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support An IBAN would be the last option before an indef block for both parties, in my opinion. Their level of mutual hostility is great. The page at List of indigenous peoples was fully protected on 10 December in part due to a dispute between these two. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187. Since that moment the dispute continues to rage at Talk:List of indigenous peoples, with both parties requesting aid several times at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 28 and complaining about the other. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support-I think this could solve some problems--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ubikwit and Evildoer187

Is this the proper place to comment?

Uninvolved administrators considering the merits of this case should consult the corresponding content dispute resolution request and other information presented in the case below, which I had been preparing before deskana filed this case against me. In fact, deskana filed this case against me in relation to discussions on Malik's Talk page, as per this diff, in relation to editing at Colonialism I have provided the wikilink to the relevant section in the WP:TPG filing.

In addition to the above, as I have taken several measures aimed at remedying the situation, you should consider the following arbitration case I filed against deskana with respect to an SPI case reference in the following ArbCom case (withdrawn)[38]. It is not at all the case that I haven't made an effort to be constructive in dealing with the conduct of Evildoer. In the SPI case, for example, I presented the following diffs in which he accused me of "spreading crass anitsemitic conspiracy theories", against which he received not even warnings from administrators.: [39], [40], [41], [42]

In addition, another demonstration that I have been constructively engaged in "building the pedia" even on articles n which Evildoer187 is also active is demonstrated by the consensus building in relation to an edit on the Settler colonialism article in which the reliability of a source was called into question Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "single-purpose account" I should point out that though deskana has again accused me of being a single-purpose account, My current focus is in fact Japanese history and religions, and I've found my way onto these pages because of what I have encountered first on pages dealing with Japan-related issues. The fact that there is a common thread running through some of the articles—false assertions/claims of descent from Ten Lost Tribes--does not make me a single-purpose account, and I have already made that clear in no uncertain terms. One need only look at the early edits I made after registering an account. Emperor Komei [43] [44] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hata_clan&diff=prev&oldid=456842213 [45] [46]

I have already indicated to deskana that I am a graduate of a top tier university with a degree in interdisciplinary social sciences and work as a professional translator dealing primarily with documents in the IP field. None of the articles on which I have been working fall outside the purview of my professional competence. I would suggest referring to my interactions at Talk:Jerusalem, where the editors have a generally higher level of sophistication with respect to the social sciences.

I have opened a content dispute resolution request for one article and made use of the procedural dispute resolution mechanisms in an effort to resolve related content disputes for related articles in accordance with relevant policies. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: AE case against Evildoer187

Note that in the above-mentioned administrative case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187), which was presided over by EdJohnston, Evildoer187 repeats the accusation of spreading antisemetic conspiracy theories, and EdJonston doesn't even make a comment regarding that personal attack. In retrospect (now that I have studied WP:NPA), that would seem to represent an oversight on EdJohnston's part as an administrator adjudicating a conduct related case.

Let me rephrase that, EdJohnston was adjudicating the above-mentioned case when Evildoer187 leveled a personal against me in the course of the case, and EdJohnston didn't redress Evildoer187 for making that personal attack.

That may have contributed to the creation of an environment in which Evildoer187 thought it was permissible to carry out personal attacks with abandon (at least without sanction). EdJohnston didn't even mention WP:NPA to Evildoer187, simply closing that case by providing ARBPIA sanctions notices.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Shrike Please elaborate what you mean by "problems"? I will have to point out here that you and I have also had content related disputes, but have been able to work them out in a manner that has not been the case with Evildoer. In fact, just today, I agreed, per your request, to wait until a discussion at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source was archived before carrying out an edit related to the restoration of material which you deleted and which you now are in consensus was from a reliable source after I obtained a third opinion through the RSN. I gather that your intent is not to circumvent that edit by having me blocked from editing that article, correct? Therefore, I'd be interested in hearing about the "problems" to which you are referring.

Here are relevant diffs to the discussion. reply on the RSN page [47]

That article is also an article on which Evildoer187 has been editing in a somewhat disruptive manner, posting a list of sources with attributing content in manner such as to render that section not in compliance with WP:NPOV with respect to

representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz on "antisemite" personal attacks, and relevant interactions with Evildoer187 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball_Bugs strong comment from Malik on “anti-Semite” personal attacks

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#We_could_use_some_help Evildoer187 accuses me of having “repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories”

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#On_second_thought Malik warning about accusing me of “approving of the Protocols—that is, of being anti-Semites”

In light of the foregoing, I find Malik's hostile disposition toward em here to be somewhat incongruent, perhaps even biased. --Ubikwit (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the entire text of one message left by Evildoer187 on Malik Shabazz's Talk page should be displayed here, with emphasis (mine).

I don't believe that my opinion is absolute. Rather, I hate racism, especially antisemitism, and I would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the rights and dignity of my people. Anyway, the reason I linked you to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples) is because there is a clearly malicious user in there who is determined to get Palestinians included on the list and Jews excluded. He has repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories, and even went as far as to call me a Mossad agent. In short, people like him are the reason I joined Wikipedia, to stand steadfastly in the way of their attempts to manipulate it in their favor. I have tried everything to get him to stop, but no matter what I do, he just keeps going. I just don't know what to do.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two clear personal attacks in that message, and I leave it to you to assess whether Malik's response as an administrator was sufficiently stern (Malik never addresses the "malicious" remark and doesn't even criticize the "antisemite" attack Evildoer187 calls Nableezy and anti-Zionist, four days later).--Ubikwit (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

deskana on WP:Canvassing

Maybe I still don't have a good grasp of the above-mentioned policy, but deskana deleted the following discussion from his Talk page earlier today, with the edit summary, "Nobody gets to argue on my talk page". In the discussion, Moxy appears to be lobbying deskana for sanctions against me for warning an editor against hacking the archive periods of the Talk pages for the List article and the Jerusalem article.

Moxy Canvassing deskana?

Neither Moxy nor Tritomex has responded to the content dispute resolution request, which I should perhaps have filed here with respect to their conduct in the first place.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that furthermore, as someone that is likely at least ten years older than deskana and Malik, and as I've mentioned before, educated and a responsible adult with a family, I find the following patronizing comment to be unwarranted--insofar as it is directed toward me--and insulting

They just like reverting each other and accusing each other of things. I'd personally prefer to just block them both, but an interaction ban would be a first step more people would be happy with I suppose. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that some Wikipedia administrators have issues dealing with their responsibilities in a responsible manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the IBAN initiative. I am tired of arguing with this guy.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Evildoer187: violation of policy WP:TPG and WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to “get the point”, tendentious editing

I am reporting Evildoer187 for violation of policy WP:TPG and WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behavior at Colonialism and Talk:Colonialism.

He is pushing the view that Israel should not be included on the list of European colonial states, and refuses to accept consensus. In relation to that end, he has deleted Talk page conversations that relate to his editing conduct [48]

I confirmed with Malik Shabazz that this is a conduct violation before filing this report. User_talk:Malik_Shabazz#Colonialism_article_revisited

I’ve worked to involve other editors, in particular the editor whose edit he reverted to begin with [49]. The resulting discussion has been ignored by Evildoer187, though it demonstrates consensus at least between Matts77 and me.

Note that I see that a related case has been filed by deskana while I was preparing this case.

I have also filed a content dispute resolution request in relation to the List of indigenous peoples article, here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#List_of_indigenous_peoples_Talk_page--Ubikwit (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD

Craddock1 (talk · contribs) created the Amirite article on December 7th. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) nominated it for deletion on the 28th. Since then, Craddock1 has edited the AfD page 73 times. This has included numerous attempts to discredit those who've !voted to delete (e.g. here), and the AfD has now basically devolved into an illegible mess of poorly-formatted text, more of it off-topic than on-. I removed some of the nastiness about other editors, only for Craddock to re-add them with another criticism in his edit summary; even after he failed to respond to my request that he explain himself, I was prepared to let all this slide, until I saw that he'd removed another user's comments himself, citing a reason that applies much more to his own points than to PeterWesco (talk · contribs)'s. Anyways, Craddock has clearly had a chance to make his case - indeed, he's made it many times over; combining the lack of a need for future comment with his history of disruptive editing on this page, I propose that he be topic-banned from further comment. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", I propose that the ban be extended to any future AfDs on Amirite. It's worth noting that there are two SPIs pending against him (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie), and that he's received a level-4 warning for removing comments, and it's quite possible that either of those might get him blocked before this proposal runs its course; however, I don't think the possibility of alternate sanctions should stop us from implementing the one I propose here, and I also note that both SPIs are in states of disrepair.

Incidentally, I consider myself wholly neutral in this case: My only involvement has been from a procedural perspective, and the AfD is such a mess that I haven't even formed an opinion yet on whether or not I support deletion. Perennial AN/I watchers may also recall that I have a well-documented history with one of the users whom Craddock has extensively criticized, so I think it should be fairly clear that my personal views do not come into play in this proposal. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I started off initially as a keep (based primarily on AfC creation), but on looking at the article further, concluded that the subject was not notable and changed to delete. From the very beginning, I also noted that Craddock1 went after the nominator and others who opposed retention of the article. This is classic WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, and that, together with the existing SPIs, warrant an article (well, AfD ban for this article) ban. His position is clear, and it is hard to follow the legitimate arguments for or against deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, endorse block based on this comment "Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate." from Craddock1's statement above is exactly the type of conduct that is unacceptable, and has filled the AfD discussion instead of dealing with the merits of the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - At this point, it is probably wise to ban him as he has run out of arguments and has gone into discredit/personal attacks mode. He has had many chances to defend his statements, the sources, and he continues to go into circles. I believe Craddock to NOT be Meanie but somehow associated in WP:SPIP, WP:PAID, etc. This is a topic for the SPI, but I just wanted to make clear that I do not believe Meanie and Craddock to be the same person. PeterWesco (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and propose an immediate block - based solely on the rants posted below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And we can add attempted outing to the reasons for an immediate block (this will need a revdel) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not outing, as A.Wiggin13 had 2 userboxes which linked to sites disclosing personal details, including his age. They have been rev-delled by Avraham at my request. Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and Endorse block — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and one month block while the editor grows some manners indef block. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just gonna hat this. Everyone reading through this mess has enough poorly-formatted, irrelevant, uncivil text to read through. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate. I thought I read somewhere that this was only for 18 years and above. I would like to apologize if my behavior has been out of bounds at times. As you all know I am new to Wikipedia and so didn't fully know the rules. I have spent a good deal of time reading them now and understand them fully. I promise I won't do anything against the rules again. I do of course understand if it is too late for me to show you that I am sorry. I didn't see any level 4 warning but if I had I would have responded. I propose that if I do one more thing wrong then you can block me. I don't see anything wrong in making 74 edits since firstly I created the article and have only edited to make the article better and have spent at least 12 hours editing the aritcle. Some articles have edits thousands of times. The comment I made about PeterWesco (who will no doubt vote in support of this) was because the fact that he was banned will highlight his behavior and why he is acting the way he is. The fact that I am new and don't know how to format properly isn't really a valid reason for me to be blocked. I have explained the James account but no-one seems to read what I write. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Craddock1 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore I am still researching high level resources for the Article and so this banning is a blatent attempt to get the article removed because these users have probably also been banned form the site and so have a 'grudge' against the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Craddock1, that was borderline on a personal attack. Please read This Thanks! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems coincidental how you are French too and share the same sexuality as Francophone and also under 16 Hidden by A_Wiggin13 - I would like to speak to someone over the phone who is over 21 and not involved in this case - I will also be reporting this conflict of interest to the governance committee Craddock1 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(edit conflict) I don't decide your fate. The community decides your fate. I think that's a much more reasonable restriction than any one based on age or mental health. As for blocking you "if [you] do one more thing wrong", that's the type of overreaction that I've proposed this to avoid: To be clear, if this proposal is accepted, you will not be blocked; you will simply be ordered to not comment on this AfD, nor any future one on this article, though any violations would be enforced by block. See also WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Furthermore, a topic ban is no guarantee that your article will be deleted - as I noted, I'm indifferent, and you've already made your point as thoroughly as you ever could. In fact, the easiest way for you to avoid this sanction would be for you to simply agree to not comment any more on the AfD. Anyways, I hope your next comment here will be a bit less ad hominem, especially considering that this is the type of behavior that caused me to propose this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do NOT place links about my personal areas thank you Craddock1! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Craddoc1 for disruption, trolling, personal attacks, etc. Reading through the above and the AFD, I'm surprised it hadn't been done already. Enough is enough. postdlf (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bots fast edits spoiling WP notification system

When I make edits, I often check my contributions page later that day to see if my edit is still "(top)". If it isn't, then I check if someone found my edit to be problematic/erroneous etc. MediaWiki's "(top)" notification system is very useful.

However, sometimes bots make edits immediately after my edit, for example to put a date field in a {{fact}} tag. This wastes my time because I check the edit, and it expends the "(top)" notification system. This makes Wikipedia a frustrating place and reduces my interested in continuing to contribute. One bot that causes this problem is User:AnomieBOT.

Adding a date field to a fact tag is optional but useful, but this functionality could also be done without causing the above problem by simply adding a delay of a week or a month. Either:

• Continue to check edits as they are made, but instead of acting immediately, make a note in a file and process that file a week or a month later; or
• Check the changes made a week or a month ago and act on those immediately.

I've proposed this to AnomieBOT but got a negative reply: User_talk:AnomieBOT#Delay_of_a_week_or_a_month

and previously: User_talk:AnomieBOT/Archive_4#Bot_breaks_WP_notifications_-_can_you_add_a_delay.3F

Is there any general rule which can be invoked, such as interference with non-bot editors only being allowed when it's necessary and proportional? I presume there's some kind of limits on how bots can operate and that they must in some ways limit themselves to not annoying non-bot editors, can someone show me the policy and who I should notify when bots don't follow it?

Thanks. Gronky (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BOTPOL, however what AnomieBOT is doing isn't in violation of any policy. The best way to do this is just hide bot edits in your watchlist and see if anyone edited after you. Legoktm (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Since I'm using my contributions page rather than my watchlist, that solution doesn't work. I'll read the policy and possibly try to get it changed. Gronky (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the case in question, but I keep on meaning to bring up the fact that SineBot often slows me down in reverting vandalism, since you can only use rollback on the most recent edit to a page. I'm aware that this isn't VPT, but per WP:BURO I figured I'd just ask here, while we're on the topic. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

User Hell in a Bucket has been very disruptive from day 1

I am bringing this matter to your attention that this user Hell in a Bucket has been very annoying from the day I have started an article on Wikipedia Rebecca Masterton. He has been putting up baseless tags on my article. He has been very biased and used very inappropriate and discouraging language. A notification has also been posted on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC) --Lubna Rizvi 10:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I originally nominated the article for deletion as it did not meet notability standards. The article has many issues, one complete section directs people to other websites or tells them to read the interview there [[50]]. The article is poorly put together so I have appropriately tagged the article. The user has accused me of being rude and racist, but when requested earlier can not or will not put any diffs showing how I have acted rudely. I have quite the opposite tried to help this editor [[51]] and also here [[52]], which ironically shows that the only uncivil and bad faith is coming from the article creator. I would suggest that they read through the WP:OWN and WP:MOS as it might help. I realize this is a new editor so this is likely just growing pains but the attitude of ownership must stop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lubna, if you want anyone to listen to you, you should immediately change your signature to something that includes your actual username. Most people reviewing an AN/I complaint like to be able to see some basic things about a user without having to check the page history. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)