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

Multiple Civility Issues relating to RFC on Article Talk page- Unsure How to Approach

Further information: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 116 § Removing Long-Term Unsourced Material is Edit Warring?

I'm not notifying anyone at this time because I'm not sure whether this is an issue where Admins should get involved and I have no idea who I could talk to in order to determine whether or not they should short of coming here. I was hoping this problem would remain an "irritation" to me rather than something that I felt necessitated intervention, but...well, here we are.

I recently opened an RFC at an article's Talk page and I feel that multiple users have engaged in personal attacks rather than focusing on the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of arguments being made. If I wasn't an involved editor and frequent target (i.e. if other editors were being targeted) it's the kind of thing where I hope I'd likely warn the editors to knock it off, but under the circumstances I suspect that would only aggravate the problem.

I'm well-aware of the requirement to notify users if they're the topic of a discussion, but I don't know how that would be handled in this case; i.e. whether it's sufficient to leave some sort of notice at the Talk page of the RFC or whether it's necessary to notify each user individually (and at this point there are a significant number). Ideally I'd like to just have admins look over the discussion and take whatever actions they deem necessary...even if that's telling me that I'm out of bounds and should drop the matter.

In other words, I guess I'm basically asking whether it's prudent to provide more information, notify users in whatever manner you would recommend doing so and get this hopefully taken care of, or whether this is a case where I should just try to keep the high ground and hope it blows over.

Thank you very much for your time, advice, and assistance. Doniago (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Synchronous motor#Proposal B, if anyone is wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quite the cesspool attacking an editor who actually believes that "verifiability" stuff. I've removed some of the more egregious personal attacks. NE Ent 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've restored them. It's time to take the encyclopedia back from clueless editors who hide behind tags and simplistic dogma, and "civil" editors who stifle any debate of this. This is an encylopedia and it is built of content. If you're not contributing to that content, you're not building it. If you're destroying that content, you're destroying the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And yes, clueless. The root of this specific instance here is that Doniago is self-confessedly ignorant of anything to do with the article subject, sees no reason to do a modicum of basic research before commencing, yet sees neither of these as any brake on his blanking of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no problem at Synchronous motor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apart from the fact that some minor work by editors who understand the topic would be desirable). There was some confusion on the talk page where some editors gave the standard commentary that would be applied to a WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP issue (namely, contentious material must be removed until it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:RS)—however those comments are not applicable to the article in question where everyone agrees the text in the article is fine (although a little essay-like in some parts). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your error is threefold:
  1. Assuming that you have the high ground in the first place. You do not.
  2. Not following verifiability procedure. The correct procedure, that was in our verifiability and deletion policies in the same step-by-step fashion for some years can be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. What you did, on the other hand, was laziness.
  3. Making the usual "People are telling me that I'm doing things wrong, so they must be personally attacking me." leap. The only thing that has come close to personal attacks has been someone foolishly throwing around the "dirty -istas" epithets, which have never improved a discussion, which I have been explaining for some years as having no basis in either history or analysis, but which you'll find almost no-one here will treat as personal attacks (because that would involve uprooting quite a lot of entrenched nonsense that people want to hang on to, because they don't realize that they were jokes, such as m:deletionism and m:inclusionism).
• You removed content that said that a motor comprised a rotor, stator, stator housing, and slip ring for being "without sources". Content is removed for being unverifiable. That's not the same as not having little superscripted numbers. As User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow explains, verifiability is the ability for readers to check Wikipedia content for accuracy. It's in the name. The correct approach to verifiability, and improving verifiability, is to attempt that check, and make the check possible for others if one's own attempt fails. If it turns out that one cannot make that possible, then is the point that one deduces unverifiability.

  Moreover, inability to make it possible here does not include mere inability to understand the subject on your own part. In any case: Knowing that motors have rotors, stators, housings, rings, and other parts is something that a ten-year-old with a build-your-own kit knows. Even I know it. It's outright stupid and destructive to remove such information from an article for supposedly being unverifiable. As was pointed out, there's scant difference in action and in effect between such an edit and the edits of section-blanking vandals.

  And it's lazy to then say that it's Somebody Else's Problem to deal with fixing the damage and not lift a finger yourself. Remember: When you say that "nobody cares to do the work" you are including yourself. If everyone around you is lazy and not working on improving the article, as is so often asserted by people in your position, then so are you. It's also seen as arrogant, because others perceive it as your setting the agenda for them, demanding that they work to it, without doing any share of the work yourself, and threatening that you will kick over the sandcastles if your demands that other people do work that you should be doing yourself are not met by your arbitrary deadlines. You are not apart from the other people whom you decry and demand should be working for you.

  This is why a lot of people are telling you that you are not putting verifiability and editing policy into practice, that your approach to editing is destructive, entirely uncollaborative, to the detriment of articles, and borderline indistinguishable from the section-blanking vandals in its practice. But since one person leapt to the "dirty -istas" epithets, you're ignoring the several editors on article talk pages and on noticeboards who have all told you how to put verifiability into practice properly, and concentrating on that one. It's the old they-told-me-I'm-wrong-so-I'm-calling-it-uncivil rubbish with an assist from one over-the-top fool. That one person used the "dirty -istas" is no excuse for ignoring the many people who have told you to pull your finger out, do what editing policy, verifiability policy, and deletion policy have always required from their very first versions — even though we mistakenly removed from policy the concrete step-by-step instructions showing how to properly go about it, leaving just the goal: an error that has caused a lot of grief since from the actions of people who couldn't figure out for themselves what steps to take — and not just sit on the sidelines doing nothing except demanding that other volunteers like you jump when you shout "frog!".

  Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • *applause* Nice. Puts me in mind of this edit claiming that a source was needed to claim positrons were involved in positron emission tomography... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is fairly clear: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." NE Ent 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• They key word in that quotation is "verifiability". The content was removed for being unsourced, not unverifiable, and those are two very different things - it blatantly is verifiable. There are also riders on the second sentence, in that there is some content that does not need a source. It is plainly destructive to insist that unsourced material should be removed, even if it is blatantly accurate and can be easily sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "fairly" clear is about as far as it goes. The policy is not absolute, it's not mandatory. It's permissive. As such, the policy necessarily assumes the exercise of sound discretion and judgment on the part of editors applying it -- both of which have been lacking in the reflexive challenges and excisions at issue here. The policy cannot mean literally for example that any fact nominally challenged by any editor, without any articulable reason, is properly removed if thereafter no citation is provided. That's a recipe for mischief. It's also important that the policy says that the challenged material "may" be removed, rather than "must" be. Automatic, unthinking removal of content purely because it lacks a citation entails no judgment and is not consistent with the premises underlying the policy even if the removal is permitted by the policy's literal terms. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, NE Ent, you clearly don't understand how to put policy into practice, either. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means helping to improve articles, not sitting around claiming that the burden is on everyone else and that one's own responsibility is only to kick over the sandcastles and set arbitrary deadlines for volunteers. This is basic collaborative-writing stuff that's been in content and editing policy for a decade. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia can be destroyed by being full of crap just as easily as it can be by "destroying content." Here's more from our alleged verifiability policy:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Emphasis original NE Ent 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the removed material -- rather than going on and on about how bad Donaigo is, why couldn't one of the editors actually spend 30 seconds googling a source (e.g. [1]) and just add it to the article? That would meet the requirements we are supposed to have and benefit the reader by providing a link to a more detailed explanation. Win-win. NE Ent 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That question cuts both ways, and is more of the deflecting nonsense that so usual in these cases. Once again: Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and you are failing to ask "Why couldn't Donaigo actually spend 30 seconds googling a source and just add it to the article?". This is a collaborative project. And we're volunteers. Doniago had the itch. Xe should have scratched it, not tried to force the work onto other people. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am slightly troubled by the interpretation of the verifiability guidelines here. It does seem to be giving editors with general scientific/engineering knowledge carte blanche control over content on technical articles. It means they can create unsourced content that may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook, but not directly verifiable by the vast majority of potential readers. It seems to betray the central principle of Wikipedia: that articles should be constructed from published content, that can then be corroborated by the reader. It feels like the meaning of "verifiable" is being reduced to a game of semantics. It's reasonable for a reader to ask "Where did this information come from?" If editors cannot adequately respond to that question, either by providing a chapter or page number from a book or whatever, then a reasonable challenge has been raised to the verifiability of the content. In the case of the Synchronous motor, there should really be nothing in that article that cannot be found in a standard chapter of a standard textbook about standard synchronous motors: after all, this is an encyclopedia article giving a basic overview of the topic. Doniago is entitled to ask for a source, and someone should be able to give him a chapter or page number. That's all it takes; if there are then any claims that are not backed up by the main source, an editor should be entitled to remove those or request further citations. We are building an encylopedia, not a tutorial! Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't understand how to put verifiability into practice as an editor, either, and your argument is self-contradictory on its face. Think! Content that is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" is verifiable content. You just said it yourself. And reasonable challenge does not include "I haven't bothered to check anything at all or make any effort myself.". Accuracy is our goal, with verifiability as the only way to get there given that we're pseudonymous people using a fully open installation of MediaWiki as our writing tool. Verifiability is our best proxy for accuracy, and it is ludicrous to be so thoughtless in one's practice of verifiability that one makes no attempt onesself to determine whether content is accurate. Stop conflating "unsourced" with "unverifiable". If sources aren't cited but the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook", then the correct course of action, that was stated in policy directly in the form of how-to instructions for years before we made the mistake of taking out the steps to leave only the goal, is quite clearly not to remove the verifiable content, but to act like a collaborative editor and attempt to help make the article better still by looking for those sources and adding the missing citations. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And you are missing the point that verifiability is a process, and not a standard! Something that may be easily verifiable for someone with an engineering background may not be be verifiable for someone without one, and sourcing is the means by which such content is verifiable. They are not distinct concepts! You are confusing sourcing with citing, and while something may not be cited it may well be verifiable if a source can be provided for the article. No-one is expected to go through the article providing citations for each line, but it is reasonable to request a source for the content in the article, and it is unreasonable to prevent the removal of that content if the source is not forthcoming. We have a bunch of electrical engineers arguing for the retention of the content in the dispute, so if it is easily verifiable through a textbook why don't they just give us the name and chapter of such a textbook? If you cannot provide a source for the content how can you argue that it is verifiable? Just because you know something through your own knowledge or background does not mean it is verifiable through published reliable sources, so arguing for its retention on the basis of what you know is not a valid argument for the verifiability of the content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't even reading what you yourself wrote, let alone what I did. Think, for pity's sake! You are the one who stated that the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook". It's right there, above. We don't have to argue something that you yourself stipulate. And it's downright daft to say to someone who is explaining how to put verifiability into practice that it's a process. Of course the putting of something into practice is a process. And it's a process that you don't have the first clue how to apply if you think that content that you've already stipulated to be verifiable should be removed from an article for being "unsourced". Once again, go and read the original instructions from the verifiability policy, preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and learn what you patently have not learned: that the correct action, in a collaboratively-written project, when sources are not cited but content is verifiable is not to kick over the sandcastles and remove the content entirely.

        This is basic content and editing policy, and always has been. It's also good sense. Indeed, it's even in the {{unreferenced}} notice. It quite clearly says "Please improve the article by adding citations of sources." not "Please just wipe out verifiable content wholesale and then sit around demanding that other people clean up the mess and damage without lifting a finger onesself.". One of the biggest of the many discussions where your error here has been pointed out time and again is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Challenged or likely to be challenged. "[B]y definition Wikipedia is done by volunteers who work irregularly, who might not even be aware of challenges. Some of the worst work on Wikipedia is done by people who do rules-based work on articles where they do not know, or make effort to know, the pros and cons of what they are deleting." is one of the many statements there of how the robotic, unthinking, approach that dumbly section-blanks verifiable content, is wrong.

        Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Amen. I could not agree more with everything you have written here. I just recently had to deal with this very issue in this discussion, facing the same attitude and same misinterpretations of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It would really help if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. Nowhere have I stated that this content is verifiable in a standard textbook. If I had a textbook that corroborated this content then I would cite it, and we would not be having this conversation. How do you know it is easily verifiable? Have you checked to see if it is? Are you assuming it is verifiable simply because a few engineers say it is? Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
          • "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" — your own words and description, right there. I told you that you aren't even reading what you yourself wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No...you are taking my comments out of context. What I said was "may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook", which is an important caveat: the only way you can know if it is easily verifiable by a standard textbook is if you know of such a standard textbook. Those were my words, not the selective portion you took to make it look like I was making a statement of fact about the verifiability of the content. My point was—and remains—that if you do not know of such a textbook then you have not satisified the criteria by demonstrating the claims are verifiable, and the policy demands the information is verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This whole conversation is really absurd. Look at the disruptive editing test which is codified in Wikispeak as TE - specifically This section:

Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages.

If your argument is called out specifically in TE, recognize the absurdity of your argument and your mistake. This discussion should be closed as WP:V prevailing with Postdlf and Uncle G being just plain wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I suppose, given how my original request for an opinion on how best to proceed has already been derailed...and frankly, I thought I tried to bring it up as mildly as possible...that it would be pointless to note that my reasons for coming here were, as stated, related to civility, not content. If one wants to discuss the content concerns, there is the active RFC.

I also suppose there are some editors who will refuse to believe me if I say at this point that the direction in which this has gone was never the direction in which I wanted any of this to go.

Thank you to the individuals who have shown an understanding, or at least an effort to try to understand, if not agree, with where I have been coming from with regards to all of this. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you're discovering, that "civility" stuff doesn't apply to editors who swim upstream. Wish there was something I can do to fix that but realistically I can't. Sorry. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Only one person, the person who used the "dirty -istas" was even close to uncivil. Telling Doniago that xe is unequivocally and entirely wrong to make these sorts of edits is not uncivil. Our civility policy is not a suicide pact that prevents us from telling people when they are doing things wrongly and not working in a collaborative fashion to the betterment of the project. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nor do I see where the discussion was "derailed", given that this thread was built on a false premise. Moreover, if, as is suggested, there is such a cesspool of incivility on Talk:Synchronous_motor, I'd like to see individual diffs/examples of it. I tried to read the whole thing but found nothing objectionable, excepting the RfC in the first place, a huge time and electron sink. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As multiple editors have noted, the "huge time and electron sink" likely could have been averted had any editor cared to simply provide inline cites and consequently satisfied WP:BURDEN. It appears we all prefer to discuss the principles of the matter instead, so here we are. Doniago (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, here you are, still arguing that you were right when you were wrong, both in principle and in practice. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This diff shows some specific content that was directed at Doniago and not towards improving the article -- "Neener neener" (in my chunk of the world, at least) is taunting and referring to another human as "it" is objectable to me at least. NE Ent 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• A significant factor here is that Doniago is lecturing subject-matter experts upon a topic about which he admits to knowing nothing. His user page says that he is a member of WikiProject Film and so he presumably knows more about that topic area. That project states that "As of 8 January 2013, there are 96,508 articles within the scope of WikiProject Film, of which 169 are featured and 484 are good articles." This indicates that there's still lots of work to be done in this topic area where Doniago would be more competent. Perhaps he can tell us why he's gone into unfamiliar territory instead? If we better understand how this friction occurred, we may avoid such occurrences in future. Warden (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • As I'm sure you're aware, there's no requirement that users publicly post anything regarding what subjects they are or are not familiar with; consequently, it would seem ill-advised to use a user's page to draw conclusions in such a direction, even if on occasion such consclusions are accurate. There's also, of course, no requirement that users limit themselves to contributing to articles that discuss matters about which they consider themselves knowledgable. I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that editors' ability to contribute should be constrained in such a manner.

I'm not exactly sure when I "lectured" anyone on the subject of synchronous motors, but if you'd be willing to provide diffs I may be able to offer further comment.

Given that multiple editors have supported my changes in theory if not explicitly in practice here, at the RFC and even (in the abstract) in current discussion at WT:V, I would appreciate it if you did not paint this as a scenario in which I am the sole advocate for the changes that were made.

Personally, I think that, as Wikipedia is not intended to be a project in which articles are written to be understood solely by subject-matter experts, there is something to be said for hearing what non-experts on a matter think of an article that discusses it. It seems to me entirely likely that an article edited solely by experts on the article's subject might develop in a direction that makes it more difficult for a non-expert to comprehend. I also think it's entirely reasonable that if someone asks for sources then they should be provided, and I fail to see what the level of someone's familiarity with the material has to do with it.

I frankly have no idea how this article originally came to my attention. Possibly I was reading an article that linked to it. Another possibility is that I may have been pointed to the article by a friend or associate. I don't see how this question is pertinent to the matter at hand. Doniago (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Setup for suckers

Note the template which greets new editors on top of articles such as Synchronous motor

Notice how it says " Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? It's just newbie baiting. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I do not understand why asking for citations is baiting new members. Please could you explain.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the point NE Ent is aiming for is that while the template explicitly states that unsourced material may be removed, when unsourced material is removed editors protest the removal, even if the tag was in place for well over six months and the material was moved to the Talk page rather than simply being deleted, and we end up with an RFC on the matter if the editors protesting the removal revert any attempt to uphold it. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "May" means "it is permitted", not "it must happen". I'm generally sympathetic towards the argument that editors should be permitted to follow accepted interpretations of the guidelines on unreferenced material without being abused by editors pulling rank and shouting "it's obvious so do the work yourself", but this particular case almost seems contrived to contradict that (a fairly banal description of a common device, sans inline citations that could almost certainly be trivially pulled from online sources, being gutted based solely on process). No, having five guys on the talk page saying "this is obviously correct so stop whining" is not a substitute in general for actual direct citation, but it at least indicates that the article is not another Seigenthaler incident waiting to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Five engineers knowing it is correct is a testament to its accuracy, not its verifiability. Many people who work in specialized fields acquire a sort of general working knowledge that may not be readily accessible in sources, since ground level principles can be sometimes pretty disparate. If something is easily verifiable it is generally not difficult to provide a source for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is why the advice to Doniago, from people who are experienced writers, is that that, rather than wholesale section blanking, was and is the right course of action, and xyr action was the wrong course of action. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Thumperward said, you are mis-reading "may". It's a warning, not a direction to be slavishly followed. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A warning? To whom, about what? A warning to the reader they shouldn't believe what they're reading? NE Ent 03:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a warning, to editors, that if they add unsourced material it may be removed without further notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Provided that the material is first "challenged", a requirement that can apparently be satisfied by nothing more that the observation that the material is, in fact, unsourced. JohnInDC (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, right now it seems like you consider it an invitation to delete 3/4 of the content on the project. Is that what you are truly advocating? This is one of what? Two or three users on here that are actively working to prove this WP:POINT? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with this tactic and I think that once it crosses the line into disruption they should be blocked for as long as it takes to understand that it is disruptive. If the policy needs to be modified, let's do that. Until then, would someone please protect the content of the encyclopedia? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (edited formatting) - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not helping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Easily solved. Change the wording in the box to "...may be challenged, and after discussion, removed." Greglocock (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness

How's about we change that final sentence to "Unsourced content may be challenged, and unverifiable content removed"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case I would argue that that's exactly what occurred. The unsourced information was challenged when the CN template was applied back in March of 2012. WP:MINREF clearly states that tagging material is a legitimate method of challenging it. Material that was not established to be verifiable between then and December was then moved to the article's Talk page. I emphasize that because I feel some editors are trying to make a case that the information was deleted from the article as though it would be a significant difficulty to locate it afterwards, and simply put, that's not the case. Any invested editor with the resources to cite the material could easily determine what had been removed from the article, apply citations as needed and reinsert the information. Sadly, it seems that in some cases even editors who possess the resources to provide citations would rather argue about whether the removal was justified than take action to improve the article itself. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MINREF indeed says that tagging suffices as a challenge. But as Template:Citation needed makes clear, a fact should not be tagged simply because it lacks a citation. "{{Citation needed}} (also known by the redirects {{Cn}} and {{Fact}}) is a template used to identify questionable claims in articles that lack a citation to a reliable source." (My emphasis.) I am still at a loss to understand how an editor can appropriately or meaningfully tag an article when the editor disclaims any knowledge of the subject matter at all, and, when pressed, cannot or will not identify what of the tagged material is in fact "questionable". JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe it was made reasonably apparent that at least some of the material that was ultimately considered questionable was the material moved to the Talk page. Clearly if the material wasn't being questioned, it would not have been moved. Otherwise, material could have been deleted for lacking sources, which also would have indicated that an editor found it questionable. Of course, if any editors had issues with the article being tagged, they could always have, y'know, asked for clarification. They had quite awhile to do so. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) First, the mere act of tagging something does not make it "questionable". That has the cart before the horse. Questioned ≠ questionable. Unverified ≠ unverifiable. Second. Editors did ask for clarification. Repeatedly. Your response was, you were challenging everything that wasn't accompanied by a cite. It's not - helpful, you know? You'd find editors a lot more willing to dive into the material and round out the sources if you would describe what seems wrong about it to you rather than just complaining generally. All that being said, this discussion has become as circular as the original tagging and I think I've had my say about it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question, one should not notify editors when setting up an RfC (which is posted on the article's talk page), but should note on the article's talk page if one posts a discussion to a noticeboard. Interested editors have articles on their talk pages and notifying interested editors is canvassing. While you may remove unsourced material, continuing to remove material that other editors have restored is disruptive. Follow dispute resolution instead. TFD (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There has already been a discussion of the warning text, Thumperward. Remember Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3#Seeking consensus on warning text? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why I would remember a discussion from six years ago in which I wasn't involved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support suggested change (with wikilinks added). NE Ent 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I swear I feel like I've stepped into the Twilight Zone. What the heck is going on in this thread? So, let's say I take a relatively obscure topic, and I add a whole bunch of info to it. A year later, someone comes by and tags it for being unsourced, then later removes it for still being unsourced. Am I allowed to bluster and revert war and reinsert the information merely upon the assertion that it is, in fact verifiable, that I know I've got the sources around here somewhere, just leave it alone for now? The above arguments basically boil down to, "If people say it's accurate, well, then, trust them." What the hell is that? I thought that was Citzendium's model--experts "decide" what's correct. And I thought we flatly rejected that model. Yes, the policy is "verifiable" not "verified", but that doesn't mean that unsourced content gets to sit there forever. The whole point is that a reader should be able to feel confident that the information isn't just something made up. How do they do that if the only justification for the info is someone(s) on the talk page asserting something is true? I really am shocked that people would defend the idea that unsourced information can remain in an article indefinitely merely on the say-so of some alleged expert editors on the talk page. I guess I should stop ever removing anything from Wikipedia, and just assume that whatever anyone adds is correct. Like, if someone adds, "The largest, most popular, best selling bakery in the world is BlahBlah bakery Barstow California", well, someone claims it's verifiable, so, well, I guess that's just the way things go... Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, to take another example on the same principle, when it's apparently perfectly ok to vote "Keep" at an AfD by saying "there are bound to be sources out there, so this is notable, but I can't be bothered to look for them or put them in the article" we are clearly not operating in the real world. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed - unsourced material should be removed. I would much rather see shorter, well-referenced articles than large, poorly-referenced ones. GiantSnowman 09:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, too. The idea that unsourced material should sit there for ever is just weird and self-defeating. It would need a major community discussion to change this wording etc. - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Qwyrxian, Black Kite, SNowman and Sitush. Shorter well-referenced articles are much better than some of the dreadful long unsourced ones we have. Black Kite, there is one AfD right now that might end up with an article kept on the grounds that although we can't find the sources right now, the subject's recent death will probably produce some soon. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Don't we have a policy on that one?. Black Kite (talk)

Well this is all over the place and should be closed. However, beware of categorical rules in things that actually call for judgment. Removing verifiable but uncited things from articles may lead to blatantly misleading, incomprehensible, or grossly false articles, also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a chicken-egg situation, though: how do we know that something is verifiable until it has been verified? Sure, we can do a web search and work off experience and these two things will suffice for some points but, for example, much of the stuff in Indic articles probably suffers from the systemic bias of WP:V and WP:RS, in particular because of that country's oral traditions. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"[T]hese two things will suffice for some points." Agree. That is the issue of judgment. (Also, often, if one comes across a statement that appears to need a cite, rummaging around in the other cites in the article or related articles and what they cite (or ones own library), will lead to one). But the main point is that removing information is not itself without perils for truth/untruth, especially if an editor does not know what they are doing. (Simplified example: "A leads to B leads to C" can be a very different statement or article from "A leads to C." If an editor has just excised B, and only left the later, they may be authoring error, hoax, babble, or falsehood). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So remove "A leads to C". NE Ent 00:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And in the meantime there is error, hoax, falsehood, or babble. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am new to the conversation on this ANI noticeboard. Full disclosure: I am an Electrical Engineer, I've made a (very) few comments on the subject Talk page, and I have added several citations to that article Synchronous motor in recent weeks, as well as a few inline {{citation needed}} tags where I thought parts of the claims were not necessarily correct. I have also fixed some of those by reference to an old Electrical Machinery textbook. I looked over that article in its largely unsourced state several weeks ago, and I largely agree with the user who thought that, as it stood then, there were a number of parts of that article that should be sourced. While some parts of it are "sky is blue" true, there are many subpart claims of many sentences of that technical article that are not necessarily correct, or verifiable, and that is why WP:V allows this stuff to be challenged and, after some time, and no editor who cares enough to provide citations showing up to remedy the situation, for the material to be removed. Moreover, while there are areas of editor behavior that could be addressed in good faith while assuming positive motive on the part of the editor being addressed, a not-insubstantial part of the commentary on that Talk page was more of an attack on that editor, rather than constructive improvement of the article.

Wikipedia is improved gradually, by a process. The personal attacks on the editor should not be condoned, or ignored. And anyone seriously looking at the subject article today, compared to before all the brouhaha, would have to conclude that, at the margin, it is much improved now, precisely because of the challenge of an editor who would seem to have a positive regard for the improvement of Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

TeeTylerToe Block Appeal

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

---

• 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 Oppose unblock for now Support unblock (see below). 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)

  I've switched to oppose after reading the comments below (in the section "Unarchived") regarding TTT's discussions on IRC and apparently uncooperative attitude to mentoring. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  Switched back to support, on Hasteur's conditions now that TTT has accepted mentorship (see below). Recommend Hasteur to set appropriate conditions once mentorship is concluded, without need to consult the community again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 9 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)

• Support Unblock seems fine and indefinite is not infinite. We should be inclusive and welcoming. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock' iff a mentor is found and TTT's topic ban covers helicopters broadly construed. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Any volunteers to mentor?

There appears to be broad consensus both here and on TTT's user talk page that supports an unblock conditioned on a topic ban broadly related to S-76. However, there also seems to be a subset of that consensus (without opposition so far as I can tell) that suggests strongly that TTT would benefit from having a mentor, especially as regards to policy, dispute resolution, and how to edit on articles one feels strongly about without edit warring. It would be best to try and sort that out now before he is unblocked. I unfortunately cannot dedicate the time; but would anyone else be willing to do so on? He'd stand to benefit even from just a small gaggle of admins willing to drop an eye on his talk page from time to time, if that's all we can drum up. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 12:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unarchived

I was asked over IRC to take a look at this. I unarchived it for further discussion since there seems to be a hint of something productive happening if it had more time --Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock I was the blocking admin here, and have commented on the latest unblock request (though I wasn't notified of this thread either on my talk page or on TTT's page...). While it's positive that TTT has agreed to a voluntary topic ban on anything to do with the S-76 article, I'm concerned about the lack of specifics in his response to the question I asked about what it was he plans to edit if the block was lifted (the response is here). This is especially the case in light of Prodego's statement that TTT was unable to let the S-76 issue rest in the IRC discussion; the extent to which TTT took this issue before being blocked was well beyond acceptable bounds. As such, it seems pretty much certain that TTT will end up being blocked again for further disruption if he was unblocked, and I see no benefit in exposing editors to this. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. I spoke to TeeTylerToe on IRC and told him clearly and in no uncertain terms what to do to get unblocked (see this message). I told him he needed a mentor but he kept skirting around that issue and eventually left the channel abruptly when I made it clear to him. I then see that he appears to have approached someone else on IRC afterwards. I'm a bit concerned he was forum shopping for an opinion he liked so he can avoid getting a mentor. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support an unblock if TeeTylerToe agrees unconditionally to the terms laid out to him by Hasteur. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock for now. If he's apparently trying to dodge mentoring at the moment, that's not exactly a promising sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I know nothing about this user or their history, but am I the only one who thinks their username is an obvious poke at User:Tiptoety? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Request Hold I'm trotting out the white horse and have put a proposal for mentorship on the user's page. Pending their acceptance, I request that the discussion be tabled for 48 hours. Hasteur (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentorship proposed and accepted

TTT has accepted my mentorship proposal. Those who have previously objected (and the community at large) please give your thoughts about the proposal and unblocking. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Switched to support - and thanks for taking on the job -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I also support this proposal; so long as TTT is willing to respond to Hasteur's mentoring, and, as he says he will, stays away from dispute resolution religiously. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• As noted above I am happy to agree to an unblock as long as TeeTylerToe agrees unconditionally to the terms set out by Hasteur. Should TeeTylerToe violate any of those terms, I support an immediate and indefinite block. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo what Deskana says above --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have no objections to unblocking now - thanks a lot for volunteering Hasteur, and good luck to TTT and yourself. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate actions, including talk page censorship, uncivil and unfounded accusations and edit warring

Could I please bring attention to the actions of Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), which has included to date:

• odd bits of edit warring
• further edit warring and no attempt to take the matter to the article talk page.
• false accusations of edit warring; and
• further accusations of "disruptive editing", which led to:
• an implied threat of "acting like an admin", closely followed with
• a direct threat, despite there being no indication of any further edits about to take place (as the article was correctly formatted at the time). This was followed by:
• a false accusation of my "willingness to edit war", despite there being no need for further edits, as noted above.
• censoring the comments of others; not once but twice, despite being told not to (his reversions also constitute minor edit warring on this point also).
• uncivil and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry

I think that the editor has lost his sense of perspective over this and is throwing increasingly wild and ridiculous accusations around without any basis whatsoever. I asked the editor to withdraw his baseless accusation, but no retraction was forthcoming. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor has edited in violation of DATERET, despite being informed, and has been repeatedly uncivil to me, and has directly told me that I do not understand the guidelines of which I am partly the author. Given the behavior, I suspect the user is someone I have had a conflict with in the past under some other name. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the sequence of events:

• 23:02 3 Jan - Fanthriller removes a space in a category
• 23:05 - I notice the edit and revert it
• 23:08 - I notice the date formats are inconsistent, and reconcile the access dates to the majority format, fix one access date that it not in an approved format, and fix the ref marks. At this point the article has consistent access dates.
• 23:16 - Fanthriller does a blanket undo of my edits
• 23:30 - I restore it with more descriptive edit summary
• 23:47 - Fanthriller posts on Schrodinger's talk page
• 23:50 - I provide explanation of MOSDATE there. There is no problem at this point.
• 02:54 4 Jan - despite the explanation, User:Schrodinger does a blanket revert of my edit, including the other fixes I made. This is a problem.
• 05:57 - I notice the blanked undo of my edit, and restore the date formats to the consistent form I had left
• 06:00 - I also restore the other fixes that were removed in the blanket edit, but without touching the other edits User:Schrodinger had done
• 06:04 - After noticing the edit, I consider that the user may not have understood the STRONGNAT guideline they mention, so I draw their attention to it specifically, and the blanket undo
• 06:05 - User:Schrodinger undoes again, after being informed, and while discussion was ongoing on User:Schrodinger's talk page. This is a problem, in my view.

I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

herein lie accusations and discussions that OP is a sock, eventually resolved as most likely not true NE Ent 21:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These allegations resemble some past ANI threads about Gimme, that came from a now community banned editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, that was my suspicion. In particular, User:Schrodinger works with tables and sorbability, and even the format of this complaint, are similar to Merridew. I know that's not proof, but it's a similarity. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Gimme, could you please provide a sample of a Merridew complaint resembling the format used here by Cat? There are too many Merridew socks to sort through and find an example of the formatting in archives. What I noted is that the Cat frequents the talk pages of the same editors as Merridew's Wikiassociates, although curiously some of them don't show on the Editor interaction tool, and has similar editing interests as you point out. If a serious look is to be taken here, an example of the formatting issue may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632#Gimmetoo.2C_again, for instance. I guess that doesn't look quite as similar as I thought. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Your lack of good faith in this is dispicable and you are clutching at straws after some extremely shoddy behaviour. 2 minutes checking would have shown that Brer and I are entirely separate individuals. He resides in the US and I in the UK. You did not even bother to check something as basic as that. You can look at the archived talk pages of Ian Fleming and Peter Sellers to see he and I arguing with one another about infoboxes, if you can be bothered. Perhaps if others have also complained about this admin then maybe, just maybe, his style of interaction with others and his inflexibility of approach is questionable? Alarm bells ring if he has been here more than once because of his style in dealing with people. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) You seem to know a lot about "Brer"; I didn't know he resided in the US, in fact, I thought he was British. Regardless, I suppose a calm look here by impartial and uninvolved editors would be most useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Merridew always sounded American to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, could you please provide a diff to the past discussions you reference above, where you argue with a Merridew sock? If a serious look is to be taken here, diffs will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Rather than chucking around innuendo, why don't you provide diffs that back up these allegations. As yet all we've really established is that SC has filed a complaint about an admin that a banned sock supposedly complained about. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you could read more carefully before responding, so that this issue can be addressed calmly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC) First of all SchroCat is a respected member of the James Bond project who has successfully led many articles through GA and FA promotions, so he's not a troublemaking editor. Second of all, he did not initiate this dispute. The dispute started between Gimmetoo and User:Fanthrillers (another prominent member of the James Bond project) and it was only in this capacity that SchroCat became involved after Fanthriller's requested a third opinion (see [2]). He has become involved in this dispute through a completely natural process, the same process that led to me commenting at the talk page of Talk:Bond_girl#Dates. The dispute clearly revolves around the interpretation of WP:STRONGNAT, in which three editors interpret the guideline differently to Gimmeetoo. If this dispute resembles another dispute that Gimmeetoo has had with another editor, is it not possible that Gimmeetoo's interpretation of the guideline has led to a similar type of conflict? My suggestion is this: if Gimmeetoo honestly believes SchroCat is a sock (which I sincerely doubt) then he should file a case at the appropriate forum for dealing with such accusations. If Gimmeetoo believes that WP:STRONGNAT is being misinterpreted by three separate editors, then the best course of action for addressing the main dispute would be to initiate an RFC to see which interpretation consensus supports. But informing other editors that they are misinterpreting a guideline (because you helped author it) is not a trump card and entitle you to keep reverting, and threatening admin action in a case where you are involved in an editorial dispute is not really acceptable either. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Nice, but. It would be interesting to hear from uninvolved parties; in past similar ANI threads, certain editors could be counted on to weigh in, but if Gimme is again being hounded, a serious look by uninvolved editors is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'd just like to point that considering Schrodinger's cat is alive a sockpuppet of anyone is a serious lack of perspective. Also, we shall be discussing the issues brought by the user and evaluate if they require any action (against anyone who needs to be admonished or whatever needs to be done) instead of being throwing sockpuppetry accusations. I know that all the recent events led to an overall high level of suspiciousness, but that's no excuse, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ21 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Unhelpful. Considering the history, we owe it to both editors (Cat and Gimme) to get this right, without peanut galleryism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Exactly, we should focus on the issue brought here, and nothing else. Per the diffs provided by both Cat and Gimme, I have the feeling that both users did some mistakes. Cat shouldn't have reverted Gimme more than once, and the same goes to Gimme. I am aware of Gimme's actions (I mean, all the stuff about the dates on references and keeping the article consisten with its history) and i like it, although I prefer to talk instead of talk and revert at the same time, which is unproductive (and this goes to both users). — ΛΧΣ21 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I'm confident everything will be looked at in due time; there is no rush. And I suspect you've never been on the receiving end of serious Wikihounding (I'm envious of editors who haven't had that particular joy). I have, Gimme has, and anyone else who has knows that pursuing these discussions calmly is warranted and helpful, and that all involved parties deserve that. If either has been unfairly accused, a calm discussion will benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed. I have been hounded just a couple of times, and not at the size Gimme has, thankfully. As I said, we can calmly evaluate this, although I think that this should have been solved on the talk page. Just a couple of I'm sorry for reverting, what about a coffee and a calm chat? would have been enough... — ΛΧΣ21 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) I probably shouldn't have made the on-wiki mention of socking, though I won't deny is was going through my mind. The problems with Merridew strongly involved two actresses who played Bond girls. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Diffs pls Outstanding diff requests are: Gimme, do you have a diff of similar formatting in ANI archives? Now discussed above by Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, do you have a diff where you argued with Merridew et al? Provided below by Mathsci. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Cat, how is it that you are familiar with where Merridew lives? In retrospect, this question was impertinent, but answered satisfactorily nonetheless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Does anyone know why the interaction tools aren't working in this case; [3] for example, they don't show the overlap of editors here. Gimme, the tools aren't working correctly for me, but it looks like Cat has been active at Bond girl for a while; what brought you to the article? Provided above in edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC) They both edited Talk:Georg_Solti#Infobox, giving diametrically opposing views on info-boxes. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Helpful, thx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I'll take it as less likely this is Merridew. The Merridew dispute strongly involved two "bond girl" actresses, which is probably why that came to mind in this dispute at "bond girl". Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Similarly they argue on Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_1#Civility, another discussion about infoboxes at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Helpful again. I'm still bothered that the interaction tools aren't working ... partly because Merridew had so many socks that they are practically invalidated, but there is a clear error in the diff I give above, where interaction on user talk isn't showing up in tools. Perhaps some techy type can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Based on editing style I'm quite certain they are not the same. Further, not sure where the hounding bit came from, but SchroCat seems to specialize on Bond topics, he did not follow Gimmetoo there. Amalthea 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Already indicated above that Cat did not follow Gimme to the article. Thanks, Amalthea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC) As to his nationality, it was my impression based on email, or at least that was the strong impression I had from somewhere (possibly his spelling, if he didn't tell me directly). I'll point out that his ANI style is nothing to do with the unfounded accusation of being a sockpuppet: Gimme was rude enough to throw the insult out before the ANI thread started, so it's a bit of a non sequiter to say that my ANI style was evidence of being a sock. As well as Solti and Fleming, that people have outlined above, there is also Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#wives in infobox; should have dates, too. Notwithstanding all the above, the baseless accusation was only one aspect of the thread, albeit the worst infringement. There is also edit warring against the informed consensus, false accusations of edit warring , threats and the censoring of comments on a talk page. The further poor interaction skills with unnecessary snide and underhand comments ("I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" further highlight the unhelpful and confrontational approach taken. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC) @ Sandy: it looks like the specific tool you were using only shows edits that are within the same 7-day period. It's a specialised tool that identifies edits that are close together in time. For a complete picture of editor overlap, you should use http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/stalker/ or http://toolserver.org/~pietrodn/intersectContribs.php. The latter is in the quick links boxes at the top of my userpage if you need to find it in a hurry. -- Dianna (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute

There seems to a preliminary consensus that Cat is not a Merridew sock based on evidence presented. I apologize to Cat for my suspicions, but the similarities were there and had to be analyzed, and having been the subject of serious wikihounding for many many years, I don't blame anyone who begins to see shadows. Perhaps now folks can look at the underlying dispute with that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also sorry for suggesting it. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I accept your apologies. - SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting back to the original complaint. It looks to me like Gimmetoo may have gone to the Bond girl article under the mistaken impression that he had located a sock of Br'er Rabbit (Gimme's first edit to the article was on 3 January 2013). The material on the article talk page is reminiscent of my experience at Sean Combs, where there were extensive discussions about adding citation templates and changing the styling of the dates on the citations. The initial discussion is at Talk:Sean Combs/Archive 1#Date format change proposal and there's further stuff at Talk:Sean Combs#GA. In a nutshell, in a discussion closed by an uninvolved admin, a group of editors decided that the consensus for that particular article would be to add citation templates and change the layout of the access dates. Later, in July, Gimmetoo tried to revoke the article's promotion to GA, an effort which I undertook, with a GA review completed by a totally uninvolved editor. I had a heck of a time getting him to tell me what he thought was wrong with the article but finally he was satisfied or decided to walk away. My point of telling this story is that I think there's a pattern of behaviour here on Gimme's part, behaviour that's not conducive to collegial editing and cooperation among editors. He has also been involved in other recent imbroglios at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 106#user:GimmeBot and template:article history and User talk:NuclearWarfare#BN Comment. -- Dianna (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:AGF; Gimme laid out the history of what brought him to the article, and bringing in a list of disputes that have nothing to do with this one demonstrates a further issue of good faith. Others are trying; perhaps you can, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pot, kettle. NE Ent 02:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While Dianna's first statement (that Gimmetoo came to the page because of a Br'er sock) isn't correct, the rest of her comments are entirely correct and valid in this instance. There is an issue of his approach and behaviour, which is not conducive to collegiate editing and his comments above "I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" are indicative of highlight the unhelpful and confrontational approach. Statements like that are inflammatory and are always going to rile other editors. I'm glad—and also disappointed—to hear from Dianna that other editors have suffered this type of behaviour too. It's this approach that has led us here.

Perhaps, SandyGeorgia, when Gimmetoo came to your talk page you should have discussed good faith with him then and tried some for yourself too; and perhaps you could also let me know where we have negatively interacted before too. I am trying to keep a sense of good faith and perspective, but when I see interactions like this, I find that a struggle. - SchroCat (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa's statement is incomplete, in several ways, and also leaves the impression that it was Gimme that was seeking to change established citation style, etc. As but one example, here is the history of contributors to Sean Combs, and here is the history of contributors to the talk page of Sean Combs; Gimmetoo/grow had maintained that page for years (since 2006, as shown in the contribs history) when a group of editors appeared there wanting to change the citation format, per personal preferences, to a different one than that long established in the article. The contribs history show a number of editors appeared on Sean Combs in 2012, including Diannaa, a Mattisse sock, a Merridew sock, and others who are also present in some of the other discussions linked above.

Gimme has been followed in the past to articles he had long maintained, which is why the chronology of this dispute was important to establish (which we did above before proceeding to look at this dispute, and it was revealed that you had not followed him). But there is a years-long pattern that has happened elsewhere, as referenced in the now capped sections above, involving at least three socks or returning users, which is why there was a concern earlier in this thread.

As another example, the discussion of GimmeBot and articlehistory was one where many of the same editors sought a change in the bot processing of articlehistory templates that was established back in 2006 or 2007 when Gimme and others wrote the bot and the articlehistory template simultaneously. That name change request was closed on weak consensus, based largely on personal preference which would cause extra work for the bot with no gain, and which the closing admin noted, and included support from said editors mentioned above. The closing admin said he would reverse the name change if it caused problems and it has -- the closing admin has not edited since mid-November, so the name has not been changed back. At any rate, there has been a pattern-- not of Gimme causing changes-- but of a group of editors appearing in discussions involving Gimme and imposing personal preferences on citation style or personal preferences that make bot processing harder.

SchroCat, we discussed the sock concerns already here and on your talk. I did not say we had negatively interacted, but your editing had come to my attention unrelated to Gimmetoo; your user name is a bit unusual, you have similar editing interests and editing overlap, but evidence here indicates that you are not Merridew, and I have long since sincerely apologized (both here and on your talk) for the suspicion. I acknowledge that being suspected of sockpuppetry is unpleasant (it has happened to me, too-- it happens to many editors) and that it may continue to trouble you, and I'm sorry for that, again. I hope that you can set that aside and focus on how to resolve the current dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sticking to the point, and have not raised the sock issue above (although I'm still slightly confused as to why editing six or seven list articles with sortable tables makes me a Br'er sock suspect—it is still beyond me). However, the point still stands: can you please provide a diff as to where we have previously interacted? (I take your point about not having said there was "negative interaction", but it's not a massive leap when your response is "I also encountered problems with that editor"). My other original points from the opening of this thread and from Gimme's response still stand—can you also explain to me, for example, how "I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment" is conducive to a collegiate editing environment? Could you explain how threatening editors about a one element of page that no-one has edited for around 40 minutes (and discussed on my talk page) is ensuring a smooth and enjoyable editing procedure? Could you explain how censoring the talk pages of others is somehow acceptable (twice?) To put the whole situation in context, I wake up one moring to find a discussion being held on my talk page in which one editor has left an inconclusive response to a third party. I reverted that editors edit on the article page in entirely good faith and find myself accused by him of edit warring. That is very poor practice. The editor then reverted—edit warring, no other way to describe it—without bothering to go to the article talk page. Talk me through how all this is acceptable behaviour in any editor, let alone in an admin. Explain to me how this falls into the expectation of being able "to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

02:54 This was a blanket undo of my edits, leaving the article with an inconsistent date format. When I fixed that again, your response was 06:05 to tell me "do not edit war with two editors" - for making the accessdate format consistent in an article where it was inconsistent, and where those two editors, including you, were restoring that inconstancy, and where you had not made the formats consistent. How is that civil and appropriate editing behavior from you? Gimmetoo (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you try and keep to more precise language, please? It wasn't a "blanket undo" of your edits, as I left the category pipe in place. As to the second edit: it was, rather obviously, an oversight. I would hardly have re-introduced a different format into the article under those circumstances. As to telling you not to edit war with two other editors, that is precisely what you were doing, without going to the article talk page to discuss it. While I was in the article making the changes, you posted a second response on my page, which was not seen until the orange bar appeared upon me saving the page. Prior to that, you had only left one comment on my talk page, which was subsequently rebuffed and refuted by myself and two other editors. So when I undertook my 6.05 edit, it was on the basis of one spurious comment from you some hours earlier, which the consensus (albeit very limited and local) had thrown out of court. Hardly any need to accuse me of edit warring, uncivil behaviour etc on that basis then, was there? - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) SchroCat, I have intentionally avoided commenting on the substance of the current dispute. I have a long association (since 2006) of working closely with Gimmetrow/too on developing and updating articlehistories and bot closings of content review processes, and maintenance issues related to both; he is someone I have worked closely with on Wikipedia, and I have had nothing but good experiences with his typically thorough and correct work. As a general principle, the actual dispute should be reviewed and addressed by uninvolved neutral editors (which, for example, Diannaa is not as she has been part of several disputes with Gimme, nor am I, because of our close working association, but if she is going to present a misleading or incomplete history, I will address that portion). My silence as to the current dispute is neither endorsement nor condemnation in either direction ... it is that I am simply staying out of that part of the discussion because disputes are best reviewed by uninvolved editors. When this thread appeared here, I was concerned about the history of hounding by socks, because there was a similarity and those were issues I have experienced that affected the work I did with Gimmetrow/too (where I depended on his bot for closings of content review processes and updating of article talk pages), and having also experienced hounding by socking, I acknowledge that one doesn't behave at one's finest under the circumstances. Again, your editing came to my attention in a completely unrelated manner (we can discuss it on your talk if you wish), we have not previously interacted, but I had watchlisted your talk because of the similarities I noted after looking into the articles above. I'm very sorry the original issue was sidelined for sock concerns, and I hope you are both able to resolve this dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

On that same note Sandy you should keep in mind that many others have had positive interactions with editors which displease you. Be it Jack, Mattisse, or whoever your current "rant of the day" happens to be. It's hurtful to read disparaging things about people we've had good interactions with. Just something you may want to keep in mind for future reference. — Ched :  ?  09:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean to compare Gimmetrow-- a productive admin in good standing-- to two of Wikipedia's most prolific sockmasters, banned and indeff'd, or to take the original issue even further off-topic. But you did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I don't think that the word "compare" in the above is used as I understand it. I don't see any comparison, just a reminder of what I quote on top of my user (nod to Geometry guy): "Every editor is a human being." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo visited an article he had never edited before, edit warred to impose his preferred formatting style over the local consensus that was being created for a suite of articles, and threatened with blocks anyone who should get in his way. I find this behaviour to be extremely unbecoming of an administrator on this wiki. The fact that he may have thought he was dealing with a sock of a banned user might actually mitigate his actions or partially explain them, but since he was not, his behaviour strikes me as being super inappropriate. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the sheer number of people whom Gimme's in conflict with, including two arbs, one of whom he threatened to block, it seems to me something needs to be done about Gimme, who is throwing his weight around no end. Sorry about changing the subject, but when the same people are going off all over the wiki, it's a waste of time to ponder each incident in isolation, which is perhaps the idea. I urge admins to consider gratuitous mentions or allegations regarding the editors mentioned above to be inherently disruptive because of their proven tendency to cause conflict. This includes somewhat clever means of mentioning them without really mentioning them, such as claiming "disruption brought on FAC by socks and enablers" and "attacks on FAC and me", especially when repeated and in the face of attempts by others to get them to stop.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a request for comment would be a good thing here? The bit on my talk page didn't bother me all that much, but if other users see it as emblematic of a larger problem, a concentrated effort to relay the community's concerns to Gimmetoo/Gimmetrow might be helpful. NW (Talk) 17:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone's an arb, and a little bit of intimidation can go a long way at a lower level.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing; I'm just explaining why I didn't take it further. NW (Talk) 17:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the intimidation effect of actual use of admin tools should not be underestimated; removing talk page access from an editor you blocked simply for asking what policy supported the block can be very intimidating, as can the user of RevDel against a user who is in a dispute with one of your wikifriends (see User_talk:Wehwalt/Archive_13#RevDel_on_user_talk_page). Gimmetoo (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

None of that reflects badly on me, but perhaps Sandy should caution you about changing the subject.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should let genuinely uninvolved people comment, then, Wehwalt. In the RevDel case, you actually used admin tools, outside policy (as far as i can tell), in a way that could intimidate the person your wiki friend was in a dispute with. You just recently claimed I was "involved" as a TFA delegate and unable to schedule a clearly consensus TFA request from you, yet you closed a thread about me with a rather questionable "summary" [4]. Do you think either of these is, in your words, being "considerate of the feelings of others..."? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Perhaps Sandy should" again request that involved editors let uninvolved editors look at the underlying original dispute here; I'm seeing almost no discussion of the actual diffs, with plenty of discussion from involved editors (who btw don't include the kinds of disclaimers about their involvement that I did).

Wehwalt, did you seriously close this ANI thread with no regard to resolving the original issue, while including your involved summary of the off-topic socking portions? [5] That sort of thing is indicative of what has dominated many of these past discussion and has contributed to a festering situation. Indeed, if three of the frequent users dominating the discussions weren't blocked, banned, or absent, a calm look at the underlying situation would not likely be possible.

For example, the issue occurring with NuclearWarfare over a past CU (for disclaimer sake, NW is another editor I consider a close wikiassociate and with whom I have worked for a long time in the medical realm and whom I have supported as I have Gimme, and I am saddened to see a dispute between them that was fueled by another Merridew issue) was all instigated by another Merridew ANI dramafest years ago, resulting in a block and CU of Gimme simply because he couldn't get to his admin account to verify it was him, with a rebuke from a sitting arb about the block and the CU after it was over. Now, that kind of experience is likely to leave one with a very bad taste, and I notice NW isn't taking the hard stance on that issue that some others are, and has acknowledged he learned from that and it isn't something he would do today.

Again, would it be possible to allow uninvolved editors to look at the original issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

NW, did that answer your question about why no one is eager to start an RfC on Gimme?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@ Sandy: You keep repeating that only uninvolved editors are supposed to be commenting here. In actuality there is no policy or guideline stating this; it's something you are unilaterally trying to institute on this discussion. None of us are topic-banned or interaction-banned from commenting on this or any other topic. Anyone and everyone can post to this thread, imho, and I will continue to do so as long as I feel my posts continue to aid the flow of information and ideas. -- Dianna (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which means I will continue to point out that this is a long-festering situation because involved editors dominate every conversation anywhere, every ANI thread, close ANI threads inappropriately, and do not disclose their involvement. None of that, of course, helps resolve the underlying issue, which I'm sure is your concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I suppose my name will forever be linked with that of Jack Merridew. But I am not sorry that I tried to help him; my only regret is that I failed. -- Dianna (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bravo Diannaa.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• @Sandy .. yea .. this "this is a long-festering situation" which you continue to feed". So .. I will continue to point out how toxic and detrimental you have become to our project. You denigrate and degrade people who have spent hours upon hours trying to improve our project. You continually insult people from without and from within. You constantly make degrading comments about DYK, students that the WMF is trying to recruit, and anyone who is not one of the "zOMG FA cabal". It's getting old Sandy. Up above you claimed that "I" tried to go off topic .. bullshit. YOU are the one that started the "I worked with him" topic. Well I worked with Rlevse. I worked with and LEARNED from Jack. BOTH did damned good work here. You do yourself no justice by insulting and hurting others Sandy. Yes, other people have made mistake .. so? Yes I know that you are one of the wikipedia:Unblockable people - but you really need to step back and re-evaluate. Tell me how we get to a point of understanding. — Ched :  ?  07:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop betting too much money on the losing horses. Pumpkinsky gave up editing from that account after adminship was denied (great reason to just walk away, right?). Jack was banned after years of irritating the entire community, in spite of all the good he did here. Seek real compromise with those who don't agree with you. Like the ones that will still be around tomorrow. Doc talk 07:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"money", "losing horses"? I don't get the language. PumpkinSky gave up editing because he was accused of "myriad layers of deception and rampant socking" and more. I don't know if I had been strong enough to stay if that had been said about me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's an idiom referring to gambling on horse racing. Someone who repeatedly bets on a horse that loses every race is unlikely to profit. The inference being that supporting someone who is unlikely to succeed, you're probably wasting your time. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am setting my mind on people and their ideas, and I profit from doing so, for a happy new year. The horse idiom is mentioned on my talk, I will not notify individually, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Doc, there's a lot to what you say .. but but there's a lot more to it all than that. RfA is a real "In your face" thing, no doubt about that. And if it's a few folks voicing their opinion .. that's just the way the wiki works. The thing is that when one or two people deliberately and actively try to hurt people ... then that's just wrong. — Ched :  ?  08:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you compromise with the unforgiving?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"when one or two people deliberately and actively try to hurt people ... then that's just wrong." Yes. When a couple people target and actively try to hurt other editors, and show up in multiple forums to attack those people, that's wrong, and it should stop. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that you and your associates take your own advice on that, Gimme. Montanabw^(talk) 20:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute 2

The biggest concern I have here is that it appears that an admin is threatening to block someone they are in a content dispute with. If Gimmetoo could clarify that that was not their intent, and/or acknowledge that threatening to block someone with whom they are having a content disagreement is not something that WP:INVOLVED allows, I think that would go a long way towards calming things down. 28bytes (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please state your position more explicitly. I find it curious that you have characterized this as a "content dispute". It is attempting to get a user to follow guidelines, though discussion. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The guidelines were followed. It may have been through a different interpretation than the rather narrow one you tried to impose against the local consensus, but it was still an entirely valid interpretation nonetheless. - SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You accuse me of "simply repeating what has already been said" [6] yet that's what you are doing here. You had not made the date formats consistent at that article. After I edited to make them consistent, you claimed to remove yyyy-mm-dd formats from references with STRONGNAT as the basis. That is simply wrong. The STRONGNAT guideline clearly says that yyyy-mm-dd formats may be used in the references even if there are national ties; you cannot use STRONGNAT asa basis for removing yyyy-mm-dd formats from references. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, you cannot block an editor for disagreeing with your interpretation of the date format guidelines, and you should not threaten to do so. This is at least the second time this week that you've threatened to block someone outside of policy. You need to stop that. 28bytes (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an interpretation, 28. it's what the guideline says, and I participated in the discussion that led to that part of the guideline. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Gimme: it's your interpretation. I've provided you with another entirely acceptable interpretation. If it was the intention for there to be no flexibility, then the guideline has been poorly framed, but as it currently stands, there is more than one interpretation of it. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"May", dear boy, "may". Not shall or will or must or have to, but the soft, flexible and lovely "may", which the OED kindly tells us is "a possibility", rather than anything set in stone; an inherent flexibility of approach enshrined in the guidelines which do not have to be slavishly adhered to regardless of all other circumstances. That aside, it was not the only basis as I have outlined to you previously on more than one ocassion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes may; it is explicitly permitted even in articles with national ties. You cannot use national ties as a reason to remove them. And the access dates were not in a consistent format when I saw the article, despite your prior edits to the article. So why did you epeatedly undo the work of someone else? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The exact same question can be posed to you: why did you go against the very quick and local consensus and edit war to undo the edits of two other editors, after three people had rejected your reasoning? I have a strong defence in that I was toeing the line of the consensus that arose. You didn't. You chose to threaten, flag up your admin status in a content dispute, edit war and throw false accusations of edit warring and "disruptive editing" at others. And this is all before you decided to censor valid talk page entries. - SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective, the consensus is reflected in the guideline, which says clearly that the formats may be used "even in articles with national ties..." You were agreeing with Betty Logan that you were removing the formats based on STRONGNAT [7]. Whatever "agreement" you had, the guideline rules this out as a basis. And the access dates were not consistent before I got there. But our exchanges here are clearly repetitive, so I'm done. You can have the last word. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's slightly disingenuous to keep banging on about one guideline when this situation is covered by a number of them. As I pointed out to you at the time on the Bond girl talk page the guidelines do allow flexibility: your much repeated assertion that you wrote them doesn't mean a jot if others can interpret them differently, it just means that whatever your intentions may have been, they are not enshrined in the guidelines. The interpretation of guidelines by those who wrote them in other spheres welcomes thoughts of separation of powers to ensure that things are neutrally interpreted, rather than you putting your spin on something you thought you meant to say. I'll also point out that there was no consistency in the article before your arrival and the local consensus was to eschew the shorter format and go with the British variant; that consensus—undertaken by local editors who have acted as stewards for some time—was agreed because the vast majority of high-grade (GA and FA) Bond articles are in the British (DMY) long-date format, rather than a generic international one (the ones that are not in the British format are those where STRONGNAT does apply, such as "You Only Move Twice". All this could have been properly discussed on the article talk page if you have opened a thread to talk about it, as you should have done. You didn't and instead resorted to inappropriate behaviour which in no way reflected acting "in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others", or interacted to show "appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors". I will not have the last word, that's not the purpose of opening an ANI thread and a number of others also appear to have raised concerns about your approach in other matters too, which shows that maybe, just maybe, you should consider that perhaps on occasion you do not act in a fitting manner? - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not good. Gimmetoo appears to be claiming correctness based on owning a MOS guideline I am struggling to figure out how you can so directly tell me, the author of a parts of guideline, that I don't understand the guideline. and that they can single handed declare consensus over three other editors because An agreement of misinformed editors is not a consensus. Interpreting how a guideline applies to a given context is an editorial function so, having taken a position on the matter, Gimmetoo is clearly involved; they implicitly acknowlege such with the phrase I may have to start acting like an admin. (emphasis mine) NE Ent 00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

These are good observations, NE Ent. I would also like to point out that failure to follow the Manual of Style is not a blockable offence. -- Dianna (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I right to think that this have gone to far to grant an RFC (and maybe an ArbCom case?) about Gimme? I'm not questioning his actions on a personal basis (actually, although I have read all the recent discussions and I feel myself alarmed by the constant block threats, I am not able to make up a personal comment about the matter) but I see that it seems that, if perhaps a more commited approach to discuss is not available, we'd need then to start an RFC about it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is quite a performance, Hahc21! "Am I right to think..."! Is there a school for learning how to sound like a sock? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat has asked for, and received community support. (Well, there was that ooh he must be a sock stuff, but that passed eventually.) Gimme has received feedback from multiple editors now. What's important is that as we go forward the behavior doesn't repeat, so I don't think any further action is required unless it does. NE Ent 03:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the "multiple editors" are involved. Indeed, user:Dianna insinuated about my motives above ("It looks to me like Gimmetoo may have gone to the Bond girl article under the mistaken impression that he had located a sock of Br'er Rabbit (Gimme's first edit to the article was on 3 January 2013)". One could view that as a personal attack. One could also ask why user:Dianna appears here, and in so many other unrelated issues user:Dianna was never involved in before; it smacks of battleground. As far as I know, user:Dianna showed no significant interest in templates until appearing at an AH discussion supporting the view on AH that inconvenienced me the most. Likewise, user:Dianna never edited at Sean Combs until getting involved in an unrelated dispute; there, user:Dianna was repeatedly non-responsive to issues raised about user:Diannaa's editing. Nor is there any good reason user:Dianna should have shown up here. The "dispute" between Schro and I is one thing, but there is another dispute piggy-backed onto this, and that other dispute should be addressed somewhere. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A check using the Toolserver edit counter shows I have 3005 edits to templates; Gimmetrow has 1040 and Gimmetoo 27. A more careful reading of Talk:Sean Combs will reveal that I repeatedly inquired (six, seven times) what Gimme thought was wrong with the article; I even had three people say they would have awarded me a Barnstar of Seemingly Inexaustible Courteous And Civil Patience, if such a thing existed, for my behaviour at the Sean Combs talk page. There's really no evidence that I have a battleground mentality; in fact I try to live my life in keeping with the precepts of the four role models at the top of my talk page. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, neither 28bytes (as far I know) nor I am involved. Are you asserting that it is a legitimate use of the sysop bit to assert your interpretation of an editing policy? NE Ent 17:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dianna implicitly used sysop authority to run off an editor challenging a sock puppet; user:Wehwalt actually used RevDel outside policy, and user:NuclearWarfare actually made a number of admin actions outside policy, and recently, another admin blocked a user the admin was in an edit war with. Even in the best case, these involved "interpretation". Are you saying there is something wrong with their actions? Or that it's an illegitimate use of the sysop bit to prevent disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme, Just so I can go back to editing articles without having to check up on the bile-and-spite fest that this has become (from all sides), perhaps you could just answer the damned question without pointing fingers at others while you do so? (And yes, I know others have been pointing fingers in the rest of the thread, but please try and ignore them just for the moment: I'd also be grateful if the other "involved" parties could just hold off commenting for the moment too - NE Ent has asked a straight question without an apparent agenda and I'd like to hear a straight answer from Gimme without evasion or another round of "he-said-no-she-said" from anyone else). - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a straight question. Indeed, it begs many questions. What I can say is I've opposed a number of admins who I thought were using their admin authority to push an editorial or policy POV. But admins can and should stop disruptive editing, even though many admin or editorial actions involve some interpretation. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase, it is not disruptive editing if there is a legitimate alternative interpretation of the guideline. It would only be disruptive editing if WP:STRONGNAT prohibited the British date format on this article. If a guideline has two valid interpretations then it is a content dispute, and if you do not explicitly give your word that you will not use your admin privileges in relation to this dispute, then we must assume the possibility that you will. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This just keeps going around in circles. Let's return to the sequence of edits:

• I make the access date formats consistent, when they were not previously, and other improvements [8]
• Fanthriller's undoes that edit, leaving the access date formats inconsistent and removing other edits [9]
• I make the access date formats consistent again, and other stuff again [10]
• Schrodinger undoes part of that, leaving the access date formats inconsistent [11]

Would we have a consensus that a consistent format is an improvement over an inconsistent format? If so, then the editors at the article were refusing to allow such an edit to the article. Is obstruction of format improvements in this way not a form of disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It absolutely does not matter. As a editor with sysop bit, you have two distinct roles. Once you engage in a particular area as an editor, you just can't act as an admin in the same area; so as annoying and bureaucratic as it may seem, if admin intervention is needed you have to request another admin take action. Admins show up here on ANI regularly with reports which include they explanation they're involved, and they'll usually get a fairly prompt response from another admin. NE Ent 22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, and I rather like it, but it should be discussed and explored at the relevant policy page. If that idea applied to all admins I would, naturally, follow it. Gimmetoo (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We are not going around in circles, you are evading a perfectly straightforward question. The date formats were inconsistent, and you converted them all to ISO format despite the {{Use dmy dates}} template at the top of the article. There was some reverting back and forth, with SC putting all the dates into the format that were consistent with the editing tag and the consensus on his talk page: [12]. You warned him that you may block him after he had done this: [13]. The question is very simple: if a guideline permits more than one date format, and a local consensus agrees on one format, and enacts on that consensus, will you consider using your admin privileges to enforce another interpretation? If you agree not to then this can be wrapped up. If you reserve the right to overrule the consensus using your admin privileges, then it's up to the other admins to resolve this issue. Betty Logan (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found this, another content dispute by Gimmetoo, this time with Status, where he told the user: "This constitutes notice that if you continue to change the established style of articles, you may be WP:BLOCKed without further warning." As it was obvious no other admin would have performed the block, I consider that this should be brought to attention, as it is a similar case to what has been presented here by ShroCat. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Gimme, As you are fond of DATERET, could you have a look at the 28 March 2012 version version of the article and tell me how many—and which—date formats are in use? The efforts of fanthrillers and I to 'retain the existing format' may have been flawed in missing some of the more recent additions, but it was entirely correct. When you made this edit, not only were you in breach of DATERET, you also managed to overlook one of the dates (see fn 32, which remained throughout all the recent edits by Fanthrillers you and me as "32. ^ a b Macintyre, Ben (5 April 2008). "Was Ian Fleming the real 007?"". Gimme, you acted incorrectly here from the very beginning, and went against DATERET when you enacted changes against the earlier form. You compounded your error by edit warring against good faith editors who had demonstrated the local consensus which was entirely within the interpretation of all the relevant guidelines. You then went outside the comfort zone of many in using your administrator privileges and threatening a block in a content dispute, when you should have stepped aside and asked for outside assistance: another pair of eyes and another view from a neutral administrator would not have done any harm in this or in any other matter. - SchroCat (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is something new. Which part of DATERET do you wish to invoke? If you would like to invoke "first major contributor" and use the publication and access date format of the first edit that added such to a reference, whatever that was, that would be in accord with DATERET. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat, just so it's clear—and please answer the question—"could you have a look at the 28 March 2012 version version of the article and tell me how many—and which—date formats are in use?" Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can find that, and it doesn't contribute to discussion. That may or may not be the version of the first person to add a publication and access date, for instance. If you would answer my questions, we might be able to determine what information would be relevant based on what part of DATERET you wish to invoke. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I give up on this: the question does not refer to DATERET, but asks about the number of date formats used. You know the answer to be one and you that it’s the long date format. You also know it puts you into an awkward position.

I cannot take any more of your deliberate underhand obfuscation any more. In trying to weasel out of answering what is a rather straightforward question you are acting in a manner unbecoming to an admin. People will draw their own conclusions from your rather shabby and shoddy approach to this. Your approach and behaviour from the beginning of this unsavoury episode has been inappropriate, and I for one am disgusted with what you think is acceptable; your inability to even consider that there may be a different opinion to yours speaks volumes.

I'm off to concentrate on editing and developing articles: you can carry on here with your pointless and dysfunctional finger-pointing if you really want to, in the knowledge that you've managed to piss off yet another editor. Gimme, a little humility goes a long way and it something that you may want to try having in your dealings with others. - SchroCat (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You brought up DATERET. The answer to your specific question is obvious and rhetorical, and it's not awkward. So what if in that version the "long form" existed. The significant question is - is that relevant? How does it relate to DATERET? Is that, for instance, the form used by the first person to add a reference with formatted dates? But if you won't engage on that point, then what is there to do? I give up, too. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Extreme POV pushing and disruptive editing by User:Borsoka

I am forced to report here the very disruptive editing done by User:Borsoka on the topic of History of Romania, especially covering the ancient times and the Middle Ages. One of the recent unacceptable behaviors is the redirect of the Daco-Roman article ([14]) as well as the repeated removal in mass of sourced content from it ([15], [16], [17]). The same has been done with the Thraco-Roman article: repeated redirect attempts to terrible choices ([18], [19]); repeated removal in mass of sourced content ([20], [21], [22], [23]). This was done without discussions, without proposing the mergers/redirects and without attempting to reach consensus. This is all driven by a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism on the Romanian history. The general idea of this POV/revisionism is to break or erase the obvious links (considered mainstream by most historians today), between modern Romanians and their ancestors, the Dacians, the Romans and the Roman Dacia time/space. One example of pushing these extreme views is the complete rewrite of the Origin of the Romanians by User:Borsoka from the Hungarian extremists point of view, an article which he attempts to also WP:OWN as you can see from the many edit wars. To support the ideas in this important article, other articles/concepts like Daco-Roman and Thraco-Roman cultures have to disappear or be pushed into obscurity at any price since otherwise they completely invalidate the claims of Hungarian extremists. A simple review of Borsoka's contributions shows that 90-100% of his "work" involves rewriting articles on Romanian history with an extreme Hungarian POV. If he loves Hungary and its history that much, I don't understand why he doesn't spend 90% of his time, in a positive and constructive fashion, writing great articles about this country's achievements and history. It is not at all justified and acceptable to spend one's entire time attacking and attempting to rewriting another country's history, causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing in the process. Another aspect of User:Borsoka's "contribution" involves a widespread trend of copyvio and plagiarisms, as can be seen in this investigation (see also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Borsoka). To me, all this activity is far from Wikipedia's goals, even though some parts of his contributions have merit and the editor has been around for a while. Me and many other contributors have tried to discuss the matters on the talk pages of some of the involved articles, have tried to solicit 3rd party opinions, but to no avail so far. The situation as it stands now it is far from being just content dispute on one article or another. Way too many articles have been attacked, rewritten with POVs, with copyvios, or hidden behind non-sense redirects for one purpose or another. As such I am forced to report the behavior here and suggest a thorough investigation and if considered fit, a topic ban. Thank you for your time. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, I think your above claims are driven by emotions which is not an issue, because we are human beings. Therefore, I would only like to reflect to one of your above points: plagiarism. Yes, there was a time when I was "green" and accepted other editors' push to cite verbatim in order to avoid any accusation of OR. I think my naivety is demonstrated by the fact that all sentences taken from the cited sources were properly referenced (I even added the relevant pages). If you think that any edit I made following the above investigation contains plagiarism, please report it because it should be fixed. However, I think no such a case can be demonstrated. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In-mass sourced content removal continues even after this report: [24], [25]. This is hopeless...--Codrin.B (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I think there is a misunderstanding. User:Borsoka is an enthusiastic, extremely hard-working and valuable wiki member. I have been following his editing for a while. He creates entirely new, neutral and well referenced articles (e.g. History of Christianity in Hungary) or gives us exceptionally useful contributions (e.g. Romania in the Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages etc). User:Borsoka aims to be neutral with respect to other editors. Wikipedia members should appreciate and recognize his work instead of senseless accusations. That is not his fault that nationalist editors can not accept other options. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Fakirbakir. Borsoka is the last editor, who may be accused of nationalism. His articles about Medieval Hungary are well-sourced, accurate and useful works. For example his article of Voivode of Transylvania is the most elaborate source about this function in the Internet. His ban would be a great loss to the English Wikipedia. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Codrinb. See unconstructive discussion with User:Borsoka. User:Borsoka has strong Hungarian POV (he/she wrote on NOPV English wp about highly sensitive article "this is a Hungarian context"![26]). Consensus-building in talk pages is impossible with this user.--Omen1229 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrin, Omen1229, thank you for referring to the above cases. I think they properly reflect my habit when editing. Borsoka (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration. The modern Sibiu was never called under its present name until 1918. The Wikipedia is not should be the scene of the falsification of history... --Norden1990 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Norden, looking on Boroska's contributions I strongly believe he continuously tries to discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians. His useful contributions do not excuse him for his persistent destructive behavior. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, would you please provide ONE example when I "tried to disredit any proof supporting the ancient origins of Romanians"? Would you please provide ONE case when I was destructive? Borsoka (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me? "Sibiu" (or "Sibiiu") was well-established by 1918, and wasn't just invented out of thin air. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Sibiu was the Romanian name of Nagyszeben/Hermannstadt until 1918. the Town belonged to Hungary until the Treaty of Trianon. After that Sibiu became official name of the town. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sibiu (popularly Sighii) name was used long before 1918 by the Romanians from Mărginimea Sibiului. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Borsoka repeatedly tries to discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians. The last example is [27] where he deleted a reference mentioning the ancient name of the settlement. Then, because there is no other proof, he renamed the article diminishing the old age of the monument. Event he has useful contributions, this do not excuse him for his persistent destructive behavior. --- Saturnian (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, sorry, but I can only now answer to your above remarks. You may remember what was the reason of those edits, because I summarized it on the article's Talk page. If you cannot, I try to summarize it again. Three modern sources (including two official lists prepared by the competent Romanian authorities) ignore the name "Abruttus" when referring to the one time Roman fort (which is the subject of the article). This is not surprising since this is not a Latin name from Antiqutiy, but a Medieval Latin name of a medieval settlement (for sources I refer to the talk page of the article). Do you think that Romanian authorities are working on diminishing the history of Romanians by ignoring the "Abruttus" name? You are right: there was ONE book from the 1 9 8 0 s making a p a s s i n g reference to the s e t t l e m e n t (not to the fort!) as Abruttus, but even this source failed to state that it is a name from the Roman period. Furthermore, the dating of the fort was not changed. Why do you state that I wanted "diminishing the old age of the monument"? Finally, would you please provide ONE example when I tried to "discredit the proofs supporting the ancient origins of Romanians"? I never did it. Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Instead of searching for useful references supporting the articles related to the origins of Romanians, Borsoka immediately marked the articles for deletion (see [28]) or he challenged the articles introducing WP:OR. -- Saturnian (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Saturnian, please checque my edits relating to the first 65-70 articles in "Category:Roman forts in Romania". You will surely be surprised, because I only proposed the deletion of no more than 3-4 articles, otherwise I improved the articles by adding proper citations. In the specific case, as you may remember, I suggested the deletion because none of the sources cited referred to a Roman fort called Morisena. Would you please provide ONE example of my OR? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

AE?

The above discussion is covered by the arbitration case WP:ARBEE, which applies discretionary sanctions to articles which relate to Eastern Europe. All editors commenting above have already been warned about this case, except for Fakirbakir. The diffs provided by Codrinb do not appear obviously problematic from a conduct point of view, and because we do not decide content disputes, we cannot evaluate their merits in that regard. As regards the allegations of copyright violations or plagiarism by Borsoka, he has plausibly replied that he now understands copyright and has not violated it since the now years-old investigation cited by Codrinb.

However, the above discussion itself is possibly actionable. In my opinion, it shows at least two editors behaving uncollegially, misusing Wikipedia as a battleground, casting aspersions of grave editorial misconduct without adequate evidence, and/or making personal attacks on others:

• Codrinb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ("a desire to push radical Hungarian POVs and revisionism", "pushing these extreme views", [rewrite] "from the Hungarian extremists point of view", " causing conflicts and promoting disruptive editing")
• Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (" strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration", "falsification of history")

I invite comment by administrators whether WP:AE threads should be opened to examine the possibility of a topic ban or other sanction for these two editors, or whether a warning might suffice.  Sandstein  00:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See my edits, I have no enemies and I don't consider the encyclopedia as a battleground. Yes, I reacted to Omen's writing, but he did not deny in his user page that he is a nationalist. I tried the neutral point of view of all my articles, I gave the names of the cities in different languages etc. I think, my punishment would be unfair. --Norden1990 (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I am not an admin, I would like to comment the above case. I think a topic ban would be an exaggerated sanction. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course you have the right to speak in your own defense, admin or not. Reyk _YO! 04:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is an underlying dispute about ancient Dacia, where User:Codrinb holds a particular point of view. Some of the disagreement can be seen at User talk:Codrinb/Archive 2#Wiki-project Dacia. Codrinb is one of the supporters of WP:WikiProject Dacia, while some other editors who know about Eastern Europe disagree with his approach. I have heard that Protochronism is connected to the same debate. Our article on Protochronism says that "The term refers to perceived aggrandizing of Dacian and earlier roots of today's Romanians." With regards to the dispute beween Codrinb and Borsoka at Daco-Roman, a content WP:RFC should be considered as an option. Codrinb was originally notified under ARBEE by Jehochman as the result of a request for arbitration that Codrinb filed against User:Andrei nacu in January, 2011. You might notice some common elements between Codrinb's 2011 complaint to Arbcom and his ANI that he filed against Borsoka just above. EdJohnston (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been simply trying to report abusive behavior on part of another user. I am not interested in any battles and as you can see, I've been staying away from editing for quite a while, not trying to engage in any conflict. I pretty much topic-banned myself out of disgust, but it is hard to stay aside and watch how some users like Borsoka rewrite articles with a strong POV and no one does a thing. I think that the practice of shooting the messenger and ignoring the real abusers is unfair and will not solve anything... --Codrin.B (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOOMERANG. Discussing your behavior is relevant, and not "shooting the messenger." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think when Codrinb returns after a lengthy absence and finds articles he left in good shape apparently distorted, he is right to be alarmed. It may be the situation isn't as bad as it seems, but the reaction is understandable and Borsoka should give a fuller explanation of what is going on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above request. What should I explain? Borsoka (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be helpful if you went to the talk pages of articles where your changes have alarmed Codrinb (for example, Thraco-Roman) and explained more fully what you are trying to do. You don't need anyone's permission to edit, but because other users are interested in those topics, and because they may be in rather sensitive topic areas, it helps increase good faith if you give some kind of background to what you're accomplishing. (That is, if it doesn't take up too much time from your editing.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul, thanks for your above remarks. Please read the articles' talk pages. As to Thraco-Roman, there was a discussion on the topic (because I had once suggested the merger of the article based on the same argumentation) ending on October 10, 2012. During the discussion and in my last remark I reminded our co-editor, Codrinb to WP:NOR. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, month, year or decade before removing unsourced statements? Please also read the discussion ending on October 10 on the Talk page of Daco-Roman. Codrinb stated that he was working on the improvement of the article which in fact was a partial copy of an other article, Roman-Dacia. Do you suggest that I should have waited another week, ...., .... before merging the two articles? I maintain that there is no point in maintaining articles copied from other articles instead of merging them. Would you like to pay twice for the same book under different titles? I would like to emphasize that the subject of the present debate on the articles and the debates ending on October 10 was the same: WP:NOR and a merging proposal. The first debate ended with a compromise: Codrinb would work on improving the articles. However, the articles have not been improved. Should I have started a new debate on the same topic? Why? For what purpose? In order to maintain pseudo-articles? Borsoka (talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Codrinb knows more about this dispute than I do; let's see if he agrees with this presentation of events. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Auditur et altera pars. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't report this abusive behaviour and the breaking of many WP rules (in purpose!) just to help with some personal content dispute. I don't have the time or motivation to edit the affected articles at this time, but I can't stand by, looking at how extreme POVs are pushed and how the WP rules are not respected at all. I haven't seen any messages on talk pages about suggested merges, I haven't seen the WP:MERGE rules followed, I haven't seen civil discussions or attempts to learn how to edit. Instead I witnessed sourced content removal in mass (regardless or not it comes from other articles - this is allowed!), I've seen plenty of WP:EDITWAR and WP:OWN behaviours, I've seen a lot of copyvios and plagiarisms and a lot of generally unacceptable actions on User:Borsoka's side (as pointed out by other users as well), all driven by the desire to rewrite the history of Romania the way that some extremists want. Every time it suits him, User:Borsoka plays the rookie and the innocent (he didn't know this rule or that), but he's been around for a while now and he knows quite a few rules. Everyone is required to know the basics of WP:EDIT, WP:POV, WP:COPYVIO before contributing. You can judge me for the harsh statements I made on the user's extremism and agenda, but I've witnessed it for years now and I know it is all true. I don't know why some bring WP:DACIA into discussion here. A lot of people put efforts in this project to create positive content on less known topics which have virtually no English coverage. WP:DACIA has a constructive philosophy. No one is involved there to rewrite the history of some other nations who need to be minimized or obscured in order to push nationalistic ideas. The user in question here, is.--Codrin.B (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, please read again the edit-history of the above cited articles (Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman) and their Talk pages more carefully - you will find merger proposals. Would you specifically refer to the "plenty" cases of editwarring I was involved? Would you please specifically refer to copyvios I commited in the last two years? Would you please provide ONE example when I wanted to minimize or obscure other nations' history? (It is interesting that when I started to edit Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages, a Hungarian editor started to call me an anti-Hungarian Communist traitor. Maybe, extremists do not like me.) Would you please provide ONE example when my edit was not based on reliables source? Would you please provide examples when I did not try to address your concerns? (Unfortunatelly, I can cite cases when my questions remaind unanswered for months.) Sorry, but I still do not accept loud declarations without argumentation ("you are an extremsit Hungarian POV-pusher, you are unable to civil discussion,..."). I do not want to offend you, but my impression is that you tend to accuse other editors (or at least me) of misconduct commited by yourself. For instance, here Talk:Origin of the Romanians/Archive 11#The "Historic background" section you suggested me not to copy-past from other articles (what I actually did not do), but later you "created" the article Daco-Roman by copying text from Roman Dacia. Likewise, you state that I only pretend to be innocent, but interestingly it is you who tend to ignore templates or other proposals, therefore you are surprised when the action proposed is made. Would you please refer to ONE case when I rewrote articles without putting proper templates in advance (at least 7 days before the action was started)? Borsoka (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:MERGEPROP? Have you ever posted {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, {{mergefrom}} for Daco-Roman, Thraco-Roman, Roman Dacia or for any other other you try to merge and redirect at your own desire? Have you ever followed these procedures? Can you show a single diff of that?--Codrin.B (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb, please read my comment here: at 20:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I stated that "I think merging this article with Roman Dacia is the best solution for the time being in order to avoid the creation of an article with text copied from other articles". On the next day, following a long discussion, I added that "I love the Dark Ages when whole monastic communities were braindeadly copying books written by others. Therefore I can really appreciate the above method of contribution for a transitory period. Even so, if we use this early medieval method, we should also properly copy the references." And I received your replay: "Thanks. Agreed. It is work in progress." Sorry, but I always assume that if an agreement is reached, both parties will remember it, therefore there is no need to remind the other party to that agreement. Dear Codrinb, you seemingly tend to ignore merger proposals as it is demonstrated here (see your remark at 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC) and my answer). My dear Romanian friend, time is important for me, because I am getting older and older on each day. I hate vasting my time with debates instead of editing, writing or re-writing articles. Dear Codrinb, may I ask you to stop these accusations? Believe me, if you spent your time with searching for reliable sources instead of copying text from one article to the other or of accusing me, we would have much lesser conflicts. All the same, have a nice day! My day was awful. Borsoka (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Side remark: the history of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is a very sensitive one with a wide range of different perspectives. Unfortunately, many editors in this area are emotionally motivated and strongly biased. Borsoka, on the other hand, strives to maintain the neutral point of view and supports his edits by reliable, academic sources. His work should put forward as a positive example, instead of accusing him of POV pushing. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing/Edit warring, Sockpuppetry, Incivility, and more at Theresa Spence and Hunger strike

There has been a content dispute ongoing recently at the Theresa Spence and Hunger strike articles regarding the nature of Spence's hunger strike and her other political positions. Several IPs (most notably 108.170.148.125 and 108.172.114.141) have attempted to insert claims that Spence's hunger strike is not a hunger strike because she continues to intake liquids (diffs: series of edits by 108.170, [29], [30], edit by registered (but unconfirmed) user Devy69, blanking of section at Hunger strike article, [31], [32], series of edits by 108.170, false claim of validity by 108.170, series of edits by registered user Skol fir, [33]), although this is common of hunger strikes and, as a result, most reliable sources are referring to her fasting as a hunger strike, which I and others have attempted to explain is the reasoning behind its inclusion in the article as such (diffs: [34], [35], [36]). There also have been other atempts to invalidate Spence's record with unsourced or primary-sourced claims of financial benefit, mostly claims added by User:Syncmaster941bw (diffs: first series of edits by Syncmaster, [37], gave source that did not include the information, by this point Syncmaster has violated 3RR, usage of primary source, another primary source, claiming right to use primary source, unsourced BLP vio by IP).

Moving on from the content dispute, we also have reasonable suspicion that the POV-pushers are using sockpuppetry to do so; this may be as a good hand/bad hand usage by one of those among us making the reversions of these edits or simple POV-pushing. The best evidence is that a question posed to 108.170 was subsequently answered by 108.172. Soon after, 108.172 admitted to having a registered account through which he/she would soon log in. I incorrectly implicated Jemmaca as a sockmaster with Ririgidi among his socks as well as the two 108 IP's, and after an SPI case I am convinced that they are both innocent. For that fuss, I am sorry to both of them. However, as more IP's and users have emerged, I wonder how many more socks may be operating at these pages, while the identity of the sockmaster remains a mystery to me. For more details on the sockpuppetry aspect of this case, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jemmaca/Archive.

Additionally, these are not the so-called "civil POV-pushers." They have in fact been quite uncivil towards myself and other editors, especially 108.172. This began with a little canvassing at my user talk page, hoping I would provide "assistance" in getting Theresa Spence deleted. However, this quickly escalated to the accusation that myself and User:Kathryn NicDhàna are "batshit crazy", with a suggestion that I am Kathryn's sock. He/she then claimed that Kathryn is my sock at the aforementioned SPI case against Jemmaca (closed, correctly, in Jemmaca's favor).

Overall, the issues at hand are the content dispute about Spence's hunger strike/"liquid diet" (as some have called it, contrary to sources) and her supposed financial connections, as well as obvious sockpuppetry by one or more unknown sockmasters, and obvious incivility and canvassing by at least one of the likely socks. The users who should have been warned have been warned: please see User talk:108.170.148.125, User talk:108.172.114.141, User talk:Syncmaster941bw, etc. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

All involved parties have now been notified (that took a little while, since there are so many!) RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

your issue is that you are highly supportive of spence and thus have your own pov agenda. You're edits have been one sided as have your content reverts and removals. There is no sock. Both I and the other ip have seperately explained this. I appears you just have a hard time believing that more than one other person dont share your admiration of spence and may be attempting to balance the article and ensure it is accurately representitive of only facts contained in reliable sources. You, and kathryn, also immediately ignored any obligation to find resolution through discussion on the talk page (all my edits were followed or preceded with talk entries) and instead rushed to my personal talk page threatning bans and making sock and vandalism acusations. I suggest that you may be too close or feel too passionately about the topics to be editing either of them. I have not made any edits since the initial confrontation you and kathryn initiated days ago and yet you try and drag me back n to this. I suggest you are the one canvasing for other editors who share your political views in hopes of just banning all those that might want to balance the article. Very frustrating. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been aware of a number of attempts to say that Spence isn't on a hunger strike because she is taking liquids, both on Spence's article and at Hunger strike which makes it clear that an ordinary hunger strike includes liquids. The sources used have all called it a hunger strike but this has also be ignored by these editors. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a rather childish discussion. Hunger strikes always involved removing solids from the diet. Then there are several levels of severity from water only, to adding salt, vitamins, minerals, sources of extra fat and protein (in a broth for example). I don't see the argument here. Chief Spence is on a hunger strike by definition. My only substantial edit was an attempt to help those who may not know what constitutes a broth (this single edit was summarily shot down by a registered editor because of "undue weight"). I never engaged in an edit war. Why am I listed above as having made a series of edits on this topic, when I made only one relevant to this discussion? Who's railroading whom? BTW, I never said it was not a hunger strike! My CBC source used the word hunger strike. I just added what was in her diet to qualify the term "hunger strike", and that was also tossed out by the same editor, thankfully to be restored later by a person who realized that something had to be said about what Spence was ingesting. Otherwise, one could assume her hunger strike was water and salt only, which is obviously not the case.

Finally, I did mention in my single edit that moose broth had been added to Spence's hunger strike, supported by a reliable CBC source- also shot down by the same editor. I guess that he/she (User:Ronz#NPOV+BLP) didn't want to admit the truth, and preferred to keep this under wraps. It sounds like this whole article has been created to promote Spence, and those in charge here want to avoid anything embarrassing to her. That's not balanced, if you ask me.

I have a reference for anyone interested in the various levels of hunger strikes at Anarchism in Action: Hunger Strikes. I have no further interest in adding to this discussion, as I really don't care what you do with this article. My only attempt to create some balance has already been squashed by a biased editor and I am not getting into any war of words. --Skol fir (talk) 09:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits regarding broth were not particularly relevant to Spence, which is why they were removed as giving "undue weight" (perhaps not the best description IMO) to the topic of her hunger strike. They would have been better suited for the Hunger strike page. Additionally, this has nothing to do with promotion of Spence; it's about neutrality and following reliable sources, which refer to this as a "hunger strike". You cited a source that referred to this as a hunger strike yet referred to it in the article text as a "liquid diet." That is a misrepresentation of sources. If you can find a reliable source referring to this as a "liquid diet" then feel free to add it. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

i would sugest that what the Hunger Strike page says is irrelevent. You cannot use wikipedia as a source nor can you use it to synth. Hungerstike, as it pertains to spence, can only be defined by the RS that report n it. In current form the article seems balanced on that single question (definition of hunger strike) as most coverage now provides the fluids explaination when stating "hunger strike". The broader isses come down to highly POV admins censoring the article and harrassing editors who add sources and nfo they'd rather omit from the page, specifically info critical of spence of which there has been tonnes of in the media. 108.172.114.141 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

While I did not check every edit by the IPs 108.172.* and 108.170.*, one reason some editors reverted some of the edits concerned removal and re-writing of text by the IP but leaving the original sourcing in place. This created a disparity between information within the sources cited and the new text which was unsupported by the sources. The IPs (almost certainly the same editor for both IPs) were inserting POV information without proper citation. I don't think anyone would argue against inserting information "critical" of Chief Spence into the article but it still needs to be properly cited to WP:RS and WP:V sources. The IPs show a clear understanding of WP policies but chose to act as if they didn't apply to him/her. I don't have diffs to hand but I also seem to recall that some of the sources added by the IPs didn't meet WP:RS or WP:V criteria. If the criticism of Chief Spence can't be sourced well or is of distinctly minor presence in WP:RS to be found, I don't think it needs to be included just to provide a false balance. Personally, I think that criticism of Chief Spence can be well sourced; I think the info and sources are available (Although I admit I haven't seen much of it but perhaps I'm not looking carefully or thoroughly enough.) It puzzles me that the IPs prefer to argue rather than provide solid citations. IMO, that's what the editwarring boils down to. At this point, the IPs have shown a distinctly antagonistic rather than a cooperative attitude toward working here. They have already been warned multiple times about their actions. I'd block them at this point but I'm an involved party. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have checked every edit by both 108 IP's and as many as I can for other involved users and this appears to be the case with edits attempting to claim Spence's hunger strike is not a hunger strike. This misrepresentation of sources is an obvious violation of WP:BLP policies. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

108, you just admitted in that comment that most sources use the term "hunger strike." Therefore, there is no reason for the term to be removed from the article. Additionally, the idea of neutrality is not to add information critical of or promoting its subject in equal proportions (especially in BLPs, like the Spence article). I have added no promotional material to the article. However, you and others have added critical information, often without proper sourcing. Even if properly sourced, the critical information should then be presented neutrally, as opinions of its writers rather than as facts. Regarding your earlier comment, how can you claim "there is no sock" when you first answered a question posed to 108.170 at his/her talk page (showing you and him/her are the same person) and then said you have a registered account. These are both forms of sockpuppetry. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Check the sources again - not a single media outlet is calling it a hunger strike anymore - its being referred to as what it is, a liquid diet. Please have some unbiased editors previously unengaged look at this article, as it appears that a few deeply committed ideologues are making reverts constantly if anything that paints Spence in a bad light is posted - such as the recent revelation of financial mismanagement via audit. Earlier in this page I read "I appears you just have a hard time believing that more than one other person dont share your admiration of spence and may be attempting to balance the article " - this appears exactly correct? Am I a sock puppet too? My IP range comes from NS, and perserving anonymity by no means implicates my account as being a sockpuppet. Perhaps your POV is not as popular as you think it is. Perhaps you should revert to neutrality, which is what wikipedia should be about.

It does wikipedia no favours as it certainly paints it in a bad light - essentially being the plaything of a few cranks who can thumb their noses at wikipedia content standards. Thanks for the consideration, a concerned person. 24.224.214.165 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finding unbiased editors is the reason this was posted here. Additionally, the problem wasn't whether or not the claims were correct; it was that they did not meet the sources. Finding sources to back up claims and saying those claims neutrally gets them in the article. WP:BLP says that unsourced or poorly-sourced contentious material is to be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have done so. Does this make me a POV-pusher? In fact, I see that correctly-sourced, neutral "liquid diet" claims have now been added by Skol fir. I am fine with Skol fir's edit, and I'm not trying to push my own POV into the article, just ensure claims are sourced. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note I see many mentions of the invalidity of primary sources over secondary sources. Remember that primary sources are more reliable for raw facts and figures than opinionated secondary sources, but only secondary sources should be used for opinions or commentary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  If I'm reading WP:SOURCES correctly, they must be "third-party" sources, which are obviously not primary sources. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

  there are certain contradictions between the wording of policies, but in practice, it is accepted that for straight presentation of facts, primary sources are usable, and in at least one case, the facts of a plot, they are preferred; even for opinion, there are at least one place where they are better: The view of an organization about what its purpose is in its own terms is better than any attempt to reword it. Naturally, other sources may say such is not its true purpose, but that's a different question, and there secondary sources are of course needed. I think the current wording in the article represents the situation as given by the sources--her own included--, though it might be possible to find a more neutral wording for the section heading. But this does not belong here--it's really from the NPOV noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

  I think I understand what you mean, DGG. It's almost like it's a usage of WP:IAR. As for the choice of noticeboard, I came here because I best felt that the various elements of this case (edit warring, POV issues, incivility, apparent sockpuppetry) would best suit ANI. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing and forum-shopping by Insomesia

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

---

It is the opinion of multiple editors that Insomesia has inappropriately forum-shopped RSN here with respect to the Lynette Nusbacher article. They have also canvassed the LGBT project opining that At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK. Considering the target audience, the language is anything but netural. Fortunately no one there has yet to appear to be swayed by raw meat.

I've asked Insomesia to refactor or remove their request on the LGBT project but apparently they see nothing wrong with their request.

This is not an isolated incident. On a different article Insomesia also forum-shopped RSN about a week ago

I'm requesting that someone (preferably) an admin review the edits in question and please explain to Insomesia the do's and don'ts of forum-shopping and canvassing.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I think my alerting an appropriate Wikiproject about a discussion that impacts them is fine and I see my explanation as neutral enough to not run afoul of canvassing. LGR has also lodged a sockpuppet investigation after me and LGR and Belchfire have routinely tagged-teamed to warn me or take the more - shall we say conservative - side in content disputes. I have found that when dealing with this tag-team effect it is more productive in the long run to solicit other eyes on the situation. The Lynette Nusbacher article is a good example. I'll quote another editor who put it quite well - On motivations: I don't see any attempt by LGBT activists to use this article for promotion of their agenda (though perhaps I'm missing it). What I'm seeing is some people who make no secret of their conservative leanings arguing for inclusion (there are others arguing for inclusion who don't fit that description). At least one of those persons quite clearly has something like the following in mind: the subject did something really weird (something that violates the natural order of things) -- and having done that we have to rub her nose in it by making sure that it appears on her biography even though (or: especially because) she has made it clear she wants to keep it private. It's really quite disgusting. As usual I would love more eyes on the article and it's AfD, and for that I thank LGR for this opportunity to invite scrutiny on a BLP. Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, without taking a position in the content or source dispute (nor will I), I don't see either forumshopping nor canvasing. Insomesia had a concern about the reliability of a source and laid out a logical argument for his position. On the project page, his notification was neutrally worded, and was appropriate. GregJackP Boomer! 22:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Posting claims of outing to a board where people would have considerable sympathies to outing is textbook canvassing. Posting claims of anti-semtism to a Jewish interest group would be similar. If you think that phrasing is neutral, then good day to you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yawn. The subject of the article, from what I understand, objects to the information. Outing, in that context, is an appropriately neutral term. GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, they are attacking one of our heros. We are under siege!!!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have as much problem with the LGBT project as I do with the conservatism project: both tend tend to try to own articles, though at the moment we seem to having a lot more issues with the latter project than the former. Be that as it may, the Nusbacher article presents a very complex set of issues involving sourcing, undue emphasis, and BLP concerns. I happen to follow most of the relevant noticeboards, and I see the issue popping up in the various places. On the one hand, I agree that, in principle, discussion should have been centralized. In practice this has been something of a problem in that the usual suspects in these controversies crank out so much talk that discussion tends to be unfollowable. But that this should have been limited to a single noticeboard, or not brought there at all: that's a tactic of trying to manage the discussion so as to reduce the level of pushback. I've run up against the conservatism cabal on several subjects now, and while I suppose I should have a certain perverse admiration for their attempts to dominate a huge list of subjects, in practice it's extremely obvious that they're trying to bias the content here by suppressing content that's adverse to conservative figures and playing up negative content about conservative opponents. I don't know why, but for whatever reason there seems to be campaign now to embarrass the subject of the contested article, which is reason enough for the current deletion discussion to succeed in eliminating the article. And the conservatism project regulars are the banner bearers for the campaign. In any case this issue has had to be looked at from many angles, and I don't see any problem with presenting it to multiple noticeboards. Mangoe (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This smells of something... I would say it but I don't know if it would be uncivil. Anyway, the article needs to be deleted and everything you accuse that user is untrue in my opinion --Hinata talk 23:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For delicate situations, you could send an e-mail to your most trusted admin rather than saying it "out loud". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I see lots of misdirection and off-topic discussion, but very little addressing the actual complaint. I will reformulate: This request for "more eyes" [38] was intentionally phrased in a flagrantly non-neutral manner, which is a direct violation of WP:CANVAS. That is what needs to be discussed. ► Belchfire-TALK 13:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Belchfire, "At issue is outing this person's change of gender. She is a LGBT hero in the UK." is clearly not neutral and it was inappropriate canvassing. I would be satisfied with a promise from Insomesia not to do it again now that they know.--v/r - TP 19:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Insomesia was certainly out of line in posting a non-neutral request at the LGBT project. Definitely canvassing. Binksternet (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I too would be satisfied with TP's solution, adding forum shopping as well. No need for blocks, and Im sorry I didn't make that clear in my initial request.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  22:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Concur with TParis. It would be good to see Insomesia acknowledge the error so we can close this. ► Belchfire-TALK 22:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I just realized everything I said was wrong. Correction: it is canvasing, and I laughed at the lgbt hero.... --Hinata talk 22:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Moving ' to

A new user is changing one type of apostrophe to another in multiple article titles here. Can someone check to see if they are using the proper ones?

I've asked him to come here to discuss this. I sincerely hope that I don't have to create WP:Tiny vertical fleck to go with WP:Short horizontal line. I can only see the difference by looking at the HTML page source.—Kww(talk) 04:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to insist that ` (the grave accent) be included in any essay discussing tiny vertical flecks. Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I used the search box using the apostrophe on a normal English-language (American) keyboard, and I was properly redirected to the new article names, so there's no particular problem with the moves in that respect, but the editor really shouldn't be changing to a non-standard apostrophe from the "normal" one. If nothing else, it's a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I initially notified the editor in question about the Manual of Style and naming convention, but they continued to move pages to the same respective locations. They do seem to be contributing in good faith, though, but this concern will need to be addressed. A number of articles were moved at the time. It will probably be best to collaborate and explain the Manual of Style to them. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

At least some of the moves and edits have involved replacing straight quotes (looks like ') or curly quotes (looks like ‘’ ) with primes (looks like ′ - you will not find it on your keyboard). A lot of his edits and moves should be undone. The MOS advises straight quotes (" and '). Mr Stephen (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) PostScript the editor in question is TheGovernor3 (talk · contribs) Mr Stephen (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume the MOS advises " or ' (double or straight quote) because it's generally what users have on their standard keyboards; however, it might be important to consider if there are any technical specifications that would make another character to be preferred? Salvidrim! ✉ 09:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Straight quotes are accessible from any keyboard. There is no excuse for using anything other than straight or curly quotes; neither primes nor backticks are part of the English language. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has spoken with this user, I do think he is acting in good faith and possibly has realised that he's not quite up to speed enough to be dealing with this type of move. But in an effort to rectify the situation he's moved articles 'back' or at least he thinks he has, creating any number of double redirects in the process. If nothing else those need sorting out. NtheP (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly he's just moved ...Baby One More Time (song) to …Baby One More Time (song) changing all ... to a single character …, one that most users won't be able to type or easily access on their keyboards. All references to ... in the article were also changed without any explanation or evidence that the single character version is correct. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The single … is incorrect see the MOS. 130.88.111.61 (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Move reverted. GiantSnowman 14:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor is disruptive. 130.88.111.61 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• TheGovernor3 seems to have stopped moving and changing. Before this is closed and hatted, could someone make the following moves to repair the changes he has made? A bot has edited the target after a previous move so non-admins are stuck. In each case a straight quote (') has been replaced by a prime (′) which as noted above is not on a standard keyboard and has no place in English prose.

Gray′s Anatomy (disambiguation) should be Gray's Anatomy (disambiguation)

Jason O′Mara should be Jason O'Mara

Queen′s Commendation for Bravery should be Queen's Commendation for Bravery

Queen′s Commendation for Valuable Service should be Queen's Commendation for Valuable Service

Queen′s Gallantry Medal should be Queen's Gallantry Medal

Queen′s Police Medal should be Queen's Police Medal

Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• These too, please:

Baba O′Riley to Baba O'Riley

Easy Livin′ (song) to Easy Livin' typos and a bot got there first anyway

Gilbert O′Sullivan to Gilbert O'Sullivan

Gray′s Anatomy to Gray's Anatomy

Mr Stephen (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• • All done. For what it's worth, use of curly apostrophes/quotes also affects screen reader users like me, because screen readers deal with curly apostrophes/quotes slightly differently from their straight counterparts. Graham87 09:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I thought this was true in the latest version of JAWS, but it isn't: earlier versions of JAWS treated an ' as a word delimitor, but did not treat an ’ the same way. So if you were navigating by word through the text "John's", you'd hear "john apostrophe s"; the ’ (curly apostrophe) didn't behave that wway, so navigating through the word "John’s" would just read "John’s". Straight/curly quotes behaved similarly. On a scale of 1 to 10, the importance of this issue was a 0.5 IMO. A bit more importantly, the character "′" doesn't read properly with screen readers, but I had never encountered it before reading this thread. Graham87 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for that explanation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anybody else constantly amazed by how bloody good technology is? GiantSnowman 14:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more constantly amazed by how much of a badass Graham87 is, but maybe that's just me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you say about a helpful person who needs a screenreader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I'm from, "badass" is a pretty high (but relatively nonspecific) compliment. I've always been really impressed by Graham87, and not just because he's a blind man working more ably than I can in an entirely visual medium. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks, helped ;) - perhaps the expression "losing horses" for people (above) will also be explained, so far it says "idiom" but I think it's not a good idiom, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Mohdasad2006 redux

I posted here about this guy a week ago, but (perhaps because of a lack of drama potential) the thread didn't attract much attention. Well, although the named account has been blocked, he continues to edit from dynamic IPs—106.78.61.219 (talk · contribs), 106.211.75.36 (talk · contribs), 106.204.189.217 (talk · contribs), 223.225.110.68 (talk · contribs), and almost certainly others that I haven't noticed. Is there nothing to be done except trying to find his edits and revert them? My watchlist is getting rather overburdened with places in Uttar Pradesh, and I certainly can't watch every such place. Our articles on Indian towns and villages are in sufficiently terrible shape, since they're mostly edited by people with a poor command both of English and of encyclopedic conventions, and the addition of deliberately incorrect information certainly isn't helping. Frankly, my interest in (and knowledge about) these places is of the slightest, and I'm tempted to just unwatch the articles and let the fellow go to it. It would be comforting, at least, to know that others are trying to monitor the situation, but I see little evidence of that. (I'm not notifying Mohdasad2006 [because he's blocked for a month] or the IPs [because he's doubtless moved on from them] of this thread.) Deor (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Although I am not an admin, I would be happy to help watch articles in this general area; I suppose if the "process" continues, further reversions and short blocks are appropriate. I've worked with editors on similar topics in the past; factual information can be minimal in many occasions, and being watchful and willing to assist in revisions is really the best thing to do. dci | TALK 02:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of incompetence; it's deliberate vandalism by highly dynamic IPs (the 106... IPs are apparenlty from a mobile-phone provider), so "short blocks" are not likely to be effective. I recommended indeffing Mohdasad2006 last time I brought this up, but apparently his being a vandalism-only account willing to sock with IPs around his block isn't enough to impel admins to do even that. Deor (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

He's indefed, but there's no way to tackle the IPs. It's just too massive a range. If someone can build me a list of candidate articles, I can protect them for a month or so.—Kww(talk) 04:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to you for indeffing him and to Drmies for semiprotecting a few articles. That hasn't stopped him, but I guess no more can be done at this time. Deor (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did a couple; I'll be glad to do more but I looked, just quickly, at some of those IPs. It's mopping with the water running, as the Dutch might say if they spoke English. Deor--your name reminds me that I need to run off and teach some OE literature. Drmies (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat my offer. I've got no problem protecting a whole pile of articles, but someone needs to build me the list.—Kww(talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, many of the articles he's been messing with are in Category:Cities and towns in Bijnor district‎, Category:Cities and towns in Meerut district, Category:Cities and towns in Moradabad district, and Category:Cities and towns in Rampur district, though he occasionally wanders afield to neighboring areas, such as southern Uttarakhand. I don't know that it would be worthwhile to semi all the articles in those categories, but it might slow him down some (or just inspire him to create another account). Deor (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

GarnetAndBlack: Incivility, gaming the system, ownership, bad faith bias in edits, retaliatory editing

I am reporting GarnetAndBlack for continuous hostility and incivility, biased editing of pages regarding Clemson Tigers football and related pages due to his hatred for Clemson University, bad faith edits such as ["throwing the baby out with the bathwater"], and retaliatory editing when positive information about Clemson Tigers football is added to the page and related articles. I will provide evidence links upon request, but please be aware that much of this evidence has been deleted by GarnetAndBlack and will probably need an administrator to access it.

The pages in question: Carolina-Clemson rivalry, Clemson Tigers football, Dabo Swinney, Clemson-South Carolina football brawl, Memorial Stadium

Incivility GarnetAndBlack, a South Carolina Gamecocks fan, has a repeated history of hostility and incivility towards anyone who is a fan of the rival school, the Clemson Tigers. Attempts to make good-faith edits that are factual and well-sourced are met with immediate deletion. GarnetAndBlack demands that a consensus be made on a Talk page before a change can be made, yet often times he and I are the only ones editing the pages. He then refuses to engage me in open discussion by either ignoring my polite requests for dialogue or by exhibiting hostility and/or threats. He will often delete discussion topics to hide this fact.

GarnetAndBlack often baits users into arguments and responds with personal attacks. Most recently, he called me a "tough guy" when I pointed out Wikipedia policies to him. He also questioned my reading comprehension when I made a change that was from a direct quote to the source. When editing Clemson Tigers pages to update information about Clemson losses, he often adds snide comments or trash talk in the comments section to goad Clemson fans into arguments (of which I ignore).

Attempts to reach out to GarnetAndBlack are futile. His editing practices show that he harbors an extreme hatred for all things Clemson, and looks down on any input or attempt to discuss articles from Clemson fans.

Gaming the System Per Wikipedia's policy on [the System], GarnetAndBlack often uses Wikipedia policies and guidelines as threats. He will commence in edit warring and excessive reverting over well-sourced and factual items, yet threaten users who try to revert the material back. In other words, he believes it acceptable for him to violate the policies yet threatens others he believes have done the same. He then demands a consensus be reached even though few (and most of the time, just us) people edit the articles. He even claims that factual information is POV even though he has made POV edits that contradict the very sources he links.

Please note that I have backed off these pages as recently as today to avoid edit-warring with him. This is even after my edits were well-sourced and did not reflect POV. It leaves me frustrated as an editor as I feel I cannot contribute to Wikipedia topics I am passionate about. Because GarnetAndBlack knows I will back down to prevent an edit war, he persists with his bullying tactics.

Only when a third party request has been brought in has GarnetAndBlack finally conceded, leading me to conclude that he simply opposes the edits because they are made by a Clemson fan. For example, on the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, GarnetAndBlack refused to allow the editing of irrelevant information about minority enrollment that he thought painted Clemson in a bad light. In a similar incident, he refused to allow the removal a highly-questionable and racist 1930s book that he cited as a credible source. Only after a fellow South Carolina Gamecocks fan agreed with me did he concede.

Ownership GarnetAndBlack has also staked ownership[[39]] of the articles in question, particularly the Carolina-Clemson rivalry article, per Wikipedia description. In fact, many of his demands are almost verbatim from the Wikipedia description of page "ownership" (all are direct GarnetAndBlack quotes):

"... no attempts at revisionist history or deletion of well-sourced and verifiable material will be tolerated at this article..."

" A previous editor clearly spent a good deal of time adding this material, and providing proper references, and this work will be preserved. Attempts to remove this material without consensus will be reverted as vandalism."

"The statistic is relevant, verifiable and sourced, and it will be restored." (After third party intervention, he admitted this wasn't true)

"Continued POV sanitization of this article by fans will not be tolerated..." (following a revert)

"...take it to Talk if you want to try to seek new consensus." (following a revert)

"Now take it to talk and seek PROPER consensus." (following a revert)

"Again, you seem to be operating under the belief that your opinions carry weight at Wikipedia. They do not."

"If you're going to edit an article, make sure you have the first clue about the subject material."

Of course, he knows no consensus will be reached because no one joins in the discussion and he avoids it.

Bad faith biased edits As a Clemson Tigers fan, I do not feel I am the best person to edit South Carolina Gamecocks pages due to my own bias. Therefore, I try to refrain. However, GarnetAndBlack watches Clemson pages like a hawk and works hard to maintain or add negative information about Clemson even when the facts are questionable or irrelevant (such as the minority enrollment). Aside for his disparaging and insulting comments about Clemson, he often over-states Clemson's negative information, such as continuous harping on Clemson's 70-33 loss in the Orange Bowl in 2012. However, if similar information were to be added about South Carolina, he would remove it and demand a consensus.

His hateful opinions alone make me question whether or not he should be editing pages regarding Clemson Tigers football.

GarnetAndBlack often "throws the baby out with the bathwater" per Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Rather than make easy corrections or changes, GarnetAndBlack will delete entire text based on technicalities if the text paints Clemson in a positive light. For example, a few days ago, he deleted accolades about Clemson coach Dabo Swinney's college career because one source was missing. He then deleted an entire paragraph about Swinney winning the Bobby Dodd Coach of the Year Award in 2011 because he claimed the brief description of the award was "practically" lifted word-for-word from the award's website (it was not and falls under fair use anyway).

Retaliatory editing GarnetAndBlack follows me around Wikipedia religiously. When I attempt to make changes to Clemson articles to post factual, sourced positive information, one of two things will happen: He will either remove it and make demands/threats as previously stated, or he will make a new change to the article that either removes other positive info on technicalities or adds negative information. This will come after months of inactivity from GarnetAndBlack only to emerge after I make a change. If he can't find cause to remove my well-sourced facts, he'll try to one-up me with a negative counter edit.

Past history When I came to Wikipedia a year ago, GarnetAndBlack and I immediately butted heads. I admit that my actions were not wise and I paid the price for it per Wikipedia's rules. You can see this on my Talk page. Being new to Wikipedia, I jumped in without realizing what I was doing. However, instead of trying to guide me and help me along as a new user, GarnetAndBlack immediately went on the attack when he realized I was a Clemson fan and put his bad faith practices to use. Since realizing the error of my ways a year ago, I've tried to be proactive and work with him through compromise and discussion. These efforts are futile, and I cannot reach a consensus for edits because GarnetAndBlack has chased other editors away.

Conclusion I want to contribute to Wikipedia to articles I'm passionate about and knowledgeable about. I try to make sure my additions are well-sourced. I'm open to compromise as my history shows, which is as recent as yesterday on Carolina-Clemson rivalry talk. However, I feel I am being met head-on by someone who hates my alma mater and despises me for being a part of it, therefore he refuses to work with me in the spirit of Wikipedia. I don't despise GarnetAndBlack's school. In fact, I do work for them that helps bring students to the University of South Carolina.

I don't believe GarnetAndBlack can see the error of his ways, and I conclude that he should no longer be permitted to contribute to the aforementioned pages or other pages relating to Clemson University. However, I am hoping he would be willing to agree to some serious reconciliation and change in attitude towards how he works with others. His pattern of behavior leads me to believe this isn't possible as his hatred for Clemson is too deep-seated.--LesPhilky (talk) 02:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A small sampling evidence of hatred and bias against Clemson. Notice twice he calls us a "redneck" fanbase:

1. " Also, it's absolutely precious how you Clemson people have come out of your shells (and hiding) after one little bowl victory. Almost as funny as when I see Tiger fans around town these days and give them a friendly wave...with four fingers, of course. :)" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC) User_talk:LesPhilky#WP:DRRC

2. "Oh, and thanks for showing the world how low your redneck fanbase is by making light of a teenage kid's injury. You stay classy, Clemson." GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[40]

3. "Fear the thumb." (This references to the possibility of SC beating Clemson five years in a row) GarnetAndBlack (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[41]

4. 09:20, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . 2012 South Carolina Gamecocks football team ‎ (→‎Clemson: FOUR IN A ROW)

09:19, 25 November 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-61)‎ . . 2012 Clemson Tigers football team ‎ (The streak is over...FOUR IN A ROW) Two cases of trash talk towards Clemson fans while updating an article.

5. "Never thought I'd see the day where a Clemson fan pretends to be a Bama fan, but after 3 straight ass-whippings by your rival and the worst loss in a century of bowl game history, can't say I blame you rednecks for trying to hide behind schools that actually have the football tradition that you pretenders only wish you had. Wait a sec...is that you Dabo? LOL" GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[42]

6. 03:54, 11 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+270)‎ . . User talk:LesPhilky ‎ (Sammy Potkins LOL) Derogatory reference to Sammy Watkins, a Clemson player arrested for simple marijuana possession.--LesPhilky (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally, after posting a notice to GarnetAndBlack's talk page about this notification, this was his reaction:

(diff | hist) . . User talk:GarnetAndBlack‎; 03:26 . . (-535)‎ . . ‎GarnetAndBlack (talk | contribs)‎ (Undid revision 532099323 by LesPhilky (talk) Sorry, not participating in an absolute joke perpetrated by a hypocrite guilty of exactly the same conduct he is reporting me for)--LesPhilky (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• OK, this is not a very well-formed report. It would be helpful if you included properly formatted diffs; it is very difficult for me to assess what's going on. Second, given the length of this report (which is a bit excessive) and the length of time during which the incidents took place, I'm wondering if this is the best place for it: this is not, I think, a single incident or set of incidents, and that's what this board is for. But I tell you what: I'll have a look at the editor's comments, and I'll have to look at your own as well. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referred to this page by another admin. I was not aware there was a length requirement. I was trying to give as much information as possible to assist you in this matter. There are similar complaints filed and addressed on this board in this manner.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no: they are filed more concisely and with correctly formatted diffs, so we don't have to dig through stuff to find what your complaint is based on. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, this is not OK. First of all, that particular heading takes two "==" signs. Second, your counterpart had removed it--you have no valid excuse for reinserting it; a user can do that on their own user page. Third, I am a bit surprised by the tone you adopted in that message: it is really not acceptable. You are speaking in a very patronizing manner, and I'm not surprised that your opponents gets a little pissy with you. Now, I forgot which one of you was the Clemson fan and which one was the South Carolina fan, and I guess it doesn't matter; let it just be known that I roll with the Tide and I'm feeling pretty good about it. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tried every method I could to interact with GarnetAndBlack, and I was reaching out here in an attempt to point out certain policies with hopes he would adhere to them. I made no threats, and I'm not sure how you can assume the inflection of my tone from my writing. I also did not know not to reinsert the text; once he informed me of this, I ceased the practice. I'm also sorry about the heading, but is that really an important matter in the grand scheme of this issue?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies, all you need to know about the user who filed this absurd report can be found on his own Talk page in the following comment[43] made after he was blocked 24 hours for a 3RR violation, "You and the admins may have the opinion that you taught me a lesson, but I learn my own lessons. This block didn't teach me anything." Speaks volumes, I think. Congrats to Bama for a great game last night and yet another championship for the SEC. Hope to see y'all in Atlanta next December. Go Cocks and Roll Tide. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I take responsibility for my errors a year ago and have taken steps to be proactive and edit in good faith. GarnetAndBlack has not changed any of his behavior. And since he's dredging up history from over a year ago, I'd like to cite for the record that he called my wife a "sheep". Is there a policy on this, Drmies?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that was fun. What I should do is warn you both for edit-warring and block the next one who starts fighting over little bitty things like who hit a piece of rock with a hammer, or whether a coach expressed disappointment or not. It's almost too stupid for words--almost, but not quite, because in those two cases it seems to me that Garnet is correct. (And I'm trying not to be an editor here as well, but Garnet is, i think, correct in this one as well. It is clear that you two can't get along, but unless one of you backs off or gets blocked you'll just have to. On the talk page. If needs be with RfCs on these individual questions. You know what's so silly about this? You two are fighting like two Auburn fans over a dirty sock possibly left by Cam Newton in a dorm room, and you're missing totally obvious stuff like a stupid Facebook link in the first sentence and a bunch of bare URLs in the article. Figure it out on the talk page--if you can't, perhaps both of you will have to be made to stop working on this article. Oh, one more thing: if people talk football smack, they will be smacked back. It's a law of nature. I see nothing too objectionable in the various remarks, and will hope that someone else can bear to look over this thread and close it. Beware, Les, of the WP:BOOMERANG.

  Garnet, thanks for your kind words and invitation; it's not likely to get that far, though we'd love to show Spurrier one more time who the real SEC powerhouse is, hehe. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understood the point of my complaint. I'm not debating content of articles. I'm documenting a repeated pattern of hostility, incivility, biased editing fueled by hatred, and violation of Wikipedia policies. You've summarily dismissed all of these and focused on matters I'm not addressing. And as I mentioned above, I agreed with GarnetAndBlack on the coaches dispute.

Again, I've stated that I've tried to discuss these matters on the various talk pages and I'm either ignored or threatened (or he just deletes it). The only time he has conceded (and finally admitted that he was pushing irrelevant and damaging information) was when a third party came in to point it out to him. Do you believe GarnetAndBlack is editing Clemson-related pages in WG:AGF? Or maybe a better question would be how would you react if an Auburn fan were acting the same way in regards to Alabama pages?

Finally, is there a chance an admin who is unaffiliated with an SEC team or college football at all can also consider this issue? No offense meant, Drmies, but I have found the SEC fans tend to stick together a bit in conflicts. You'll have to excuse my doubt that you "forgot which one of us was a Clemson fan and which was a South Carolina fan" when the complaint not only clearly lays this out, but his name is "GarnetAndBlack".--LesPhilky (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

a. This may come as a surprise to you, but I don't have the foggiest what "Garnet and Black" means. I suppose these are the South Carolina colors? The world is much bigger than your state, Les. I don't accept some nonsense about SEC fans sticking together: that's bullshit, and you should take that back. FYI, the very chair I'm sitting on was owned by a dear colleague, a Clemson grad who now works at --GASP!-- the U of Alabama. You may think that all the world's a football fan too drunk and too ignorant to lay aside their zeal, but you're wrong. Here, I am a Wikipedia editor, but I see no reason to defend myself from a ridiculous charge--yes, I have stopped beating my wife. I couldn't care less if an Auburn fan edited some Alabama page, as long as they're not being disruptive--and as I pointed out above, in the two specific edits I looked at your opponent seemed to have the sources on their side. Now, in regard to the repeated pattern you want to point at, I did not find much evidence for something actionable (but I'm about to read what another editor added below), and that's in part because the pot is calling the kettle black, and in part because of the less than suitable presentation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for LesPhilky and GarnetAndBlack from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry

This is absolutely ridiculous. This sort of childish bickering from the both of you is way out of the realm of productive editing. There is plenty more. This isn't new though, here is more of the same from months ago: [44] [45]. Blocks would accomplish nothing here. This is not to mention the several edit wars that you have both been involved in. It is obvious that you cannot conduct yourself within what is expected of Wikipedia editors when editing about this topic. Therefore, I propose that both editors be topic banned from all articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed, for a period of 6 months. At that point we can reevaluate this measure. If there is not support for this, then (barring consensus to the contrary) I intend to block both users for a period of 1 week, to be followed by an indefinite block if that proves ineffective. Prodego ^talk 07:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If that is what you deem the best course of action after reviewing my post, then I will accept it like an adult and not dispute it.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, months long content disputes. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• I think just indefing them would be most productive but, sure, maybe a topic ban could solve this --Guerillero | My Talk 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Throw in a full-bore interaction ban, clarify if "broadly construed" also means articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and I'll be quite happy to stop this puerile pissing contest like this. Shame on both editors for this display - so much for higher education (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban of both editors from articles about Clemson and Carolina sports teams, and an interaction ban per Bwilkins. Though GarnetAndBlack has the more impressive record at the admin boards, LesPhilky has been several times at the 3RR board, though each person was sometimes there as the filer of the report and not the person reported. Though GarnetAndBlack has caused more trouble overall, it will be simpler to have the topic ban apply to both parties. In terms of block log, each party has been blocked 24 hours on this issue in the past. Per Prodego, if the topic ban is not approved then escalating blocks should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention in the matter, and I will refrain from butting heads with GarnetAndBlack in the future. I honestly don't enjoy these battles.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support an interaction ban and a topic ban. Prodego et al, thank you for digging deeper than I had energy for last night. I can't judge right now which of the two is worse (though of course I'll ALWAYS side with the guy from the SEC!), but it's clear that the combination of the two makes for an unhappy cocktail, kind of like a Boilermaker, which is an abomination (every Bama fan knows you do shot of bourbon at the beginning of every quarter, and adulterating whiskey with beer is just blasphemy). Let's see if these editors can find other interests on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you down your whole flask after the first quarter, like I did when we played you in 2008. Congrats on your title.--LesPhilky (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooooh, that first remark is an unwarranted personal attack and I'll block the hell out of you for it. Thanks for the second one--in all honesty, my contribution was limited to yelling, but it sure felt good. Les, nothing against you or your opponent, or y'all's schools, but clearly this isn't productive. I hope at some point you two will meet and eat some gigantic baconcheeseburgers and drink a few beers and talk about the good old days. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm sorry it went this far. And I hope Clemson keeps y'all off our schedule for a while. My wife still nags me about my debauchery after the butt-stomping y'all put on us.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion GarnetAndBlack is "worse", but both editors are quite too far. We can throw in an interaction ban if we want, I'm do not want to do that without seeing if the topic ban resolves the interaction issue. Most of the interaction has been fighting over these articles or personal attacks which can be dealt with in the usual way. That isn't the usual case for an interaction ban. I'd rather prefer a ban on discussing football, but again that's something I'd rather leave to the future.

"Articles related to the Carolina-Clemson rivalry, broadly construed" includes but is not limited to articles relating to the rivalry, both schools and their sports teams, games, coaches, and players.

Drmies, I'd rather you not block anyone. Also if you could stop the SEC comments, I suspect they are a joke but it doesn't translate too well to text. Prodego ^talk 18:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he was joking, and I took it as such. No harm. And I will avoid disputes with GarnetAndBlack in the future even if you decide against the interaction ban.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Pretty obvious call. Leave each other alone. I'm tempted to suggest that as an alternative the pair be required to collaborate writing an article about something completely different so that they'd learn to interact a little in a collaborative rather than a combative manner, but that's probably asking a bit much... You two might think about trying that though... Carrite (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this.--LesPhilky (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've got a list of public high schools from the Mississippi Delta on my user page that don't have a single word written about them. Picking one at random, just in case you need a starter idea, here's a red link for O'Bannon High School from Washington County, Mississippi, located in the county seat of Greenville, Mississippi. I'm sure there's a football aspect to that somewhere... You might want to simultaneously work on the other high school in that town, which would be Greenville-Weston High School, also a red link... Carrite (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It could work! Those high schools live and die for football. Add in the private former seg academies and the arguments and lawsuits over which teams will play one another because of who does or doesn't allow black kids on their teams and which schools get to use the public football fields and there's an endless amount of editing to be done. No one editing regularly in the area has done enough with football, and it's clearly important.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hehe I like that. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• If I could make a request: I understand the admins' position and thoughts on imposing a 6-month ban on GarnetAndBlack and me for the Carolina-Clemson rivalry page, and I accept it. I would like to say that GarnetAndBlack is passionate about Gamecock sports and does a good job of maintaining the everyday edits that the pages relating to his team require. I am passionate about Clemson athletics and would like to also ensure that those pages (such as Clemson Tigers football, Memorial Stadium, Clemson, Dabo Swinney, etc.) stay up to date. Could it be possible that, along with your proposed ban from the rivalry page, we are relegated to our respected teams' pages for the same duration along with an interaction ban so as to avoid any possibility of us butting heads again? Thank you for your consideration.--LesPhilky (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• LesPhilky, you're getting more reasonable by the moment. The proposed topic ban would allow that, as long as you both keep in mind the spirit of the topic ban, which lies in the "related to" part. Honestly, the best thing that could happen (outside of baconcheeseburgers and beer) is that you butt heads and talk it out, but that would fall within both parts of the ban, of course, the topic part and the interaction part. An example is to be found in who chipped that piece of rock: if you two could ever agree on what it is that the sources say and how that is to be worded in an article, then we've won the war. For now (that is, until we hear from Garnet) I think that the proposed ban is a good idea, but if Garnet responds here, and you do too, and both of you agree to a. not bicker b. not edit-war (or even revert--a "don't revert each others' edits" rule is a possibility as well) and c. use the talk page to discuss topics and edits, then we've settled matters. So Garnet--what do you say? And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)? Drmies (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Really, any of the above suits me just fine. What I find almost comically absurd about this entire affair is that someone who just a little over a year ago attempted to belittle and insult me[46] by remarking, "This isn't my life like it clearly is yours...Honestly, I would shoot myself in the face if I found myself spending two hours on Wikipedia over the weekend", has spent so many hours of his own life since Wikilawyering, forum-shopping and posting mind-numbingly long-winded reports on various noticeboards complaining about the editing of one "angry little man". I will say that any topic ban that forbids me from contributing to articles dealing with the University of South Carolina or its athletic programs will basically result in my quitting this project altogether (especially with college baseball season starting next month), and I guess Les wins in that scenario, since that seems to have been his goal from Day One. The project will be the worse for losing a dedicated editor, but my life will not be, I can assure you of that. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• "And Les, what do you say to what he says (when he says something)." Well, to answer your question, Drmies, his response isn't exactly encouraging. I'm not trying to win anything, and frankly anyone who takes a "victory" out of this situation clearly has some issues. As my original complaint stated, I admit my actions a year ago as a new user were less than adequate. But my original complaint was over recent activity. Again, I'm not sure I have faith in cooperative collaboration at this point as GarnetAndBlack's response still seems filled with animosity towards me, and a "if I don't get my way I'll just quit!" type of response. I don't want to quit maintaining Clemson sites, but can see how a fresh 6 months away from the idea would probably be good for the mind and soul.--LesPhilky (talk) 12:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with his rock edit. Honestly, another user had written the text before and I just added a source (I think I may have also copied and pasted from one article to another... can't remember). That wasn't one of the ones where we disagreed. Bacon cheeseburgers and beer sound great, only as long as I get to cook, because my burgers could likely solve most world crises today. But seriously, my main concern is that we agree to do this and things deteriorate back to square one as soon as admins aren't watching. I'm concerned GarnetAndBlack sees absolutely no fault in his actions and will continue the hostility whenever I try to make good faith edits. I dunno, maybe banning both of us for a duration is the best way to calm it down. That's why they pay y'all the big bucks to make these decisions, right?--LesPhilky (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for another addendum: I also like the "don't revert each others' edits" rule until we discuss. In fact, another Gamecock fan, SCrooster, and I have an agreement that we will not revert or change each other's edits, or, if necessary, even make any additions, until we can talk things over. Thus far, this has worked well.--LesPhilky (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm willing to consider alternate proposals both parties agree to. One that is not an option, however, is allowing party A to only edit about team A, and party B to only edit about team B. This has too many COI issues to be a reasonable solution. Prodego ^talk 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks anyway.--LesPhilky (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new wording

1. User:LesPhilky and User:GarnetAndBlack are hereby subject to a formal interaction ban, and all restrictions noted in that policy for a period of 6 months;
2. Both are topic-banned from the article or talkpage of Carolina-Clemson rivalry for a period of 6 months;
3. Both are prohibited from editing any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months, although changes may be proposed on the associated talkpage in order to obtain consensus;
4. Both are subject to civility restrictions during all discussions, including being prohibited from making derogatory comments directly or indirectly about universities, their sports teams, and the athletes involved indefinitely

Violations of any of these restrictions will be met with a block for 1 week for a first violation, with escalation for additional violations of any of the restrictions.

• Support as proposer (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as overly broad I can support points #1, 2 and 4, but I don't believe either Les or myself has ever had a dispute arise due to updating Carolina or Clemson articles with game results, current events and the like. Prohibiting us from maintaining these articles with this type of uncontroversial material (can't argue about the score of a game, ranking in a poll, etc.) seems highly punitive, so I do not support point #3. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ditto.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am in full agreement with points 1, 2, and 4, but have to agree with GarnetAndBlack above that barring them from any edits on the topics that each of them most frequently edit seems especially harsh. Both of these editors have proven able to provide value to their topics, and GarnetAndBlack in particular has done great work creating and updating the last few South Carolina baseball season pages as they progress. The issue seems to be when they a) interact and b) add things that might be controversial or viewed in a different light from the other side of the rivalry. I'd propose that they both be permitted to make routine edits to articles - adding game results and other sorts of events of an ongoing and routine nature, so that they will both continue to be engaged with Wikipedia. If either or both were to stretch the limits of this either in their edits or in edit summaries, I'd be in favor of reopening this to give the offending editor a full topic ban. I just think the block as constructed above will simply result in both of them never coming back, which would be a net loss to Wikipedia. Billcasey905 (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Provisional Support - 1, 2, and 4 are clear preventative measures. And while 3 is very broad, it is also preventative. GarnetAndBlack and LesPhilky this may be hard to take, but how you have been handling yourselves makes some version of #3 needed. The last thing that is needed is for this to come back here in a few weeks time because the disruption has moved to the articles on the schools, athletes, teams, etc. Normally a topic ban would cover everything related to the topic. The latitude BWilkins took with #1 limits that but leave everything else open.
  That all said, I'd rather see #3 softened a little to give both a chance to show they can work in the area. A proscription from editing the games and sections of articles that reference/deal with the rivalry makes sense. But starting off with them having to come hat in hand to make good faith, constructive edits to the remainder doesn't. With that, the interaction ban should prevent most of the problems and possibly a 1RR limit to encourage discusion on thing other editors take exception to.
  - J Greb (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - It's nice to see the parties agreeing on 1, 2, and 4. That strikes me as a reasonable remedy. Carrite (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Given the apparent support for (and parties agreement to) 1, 2, and 4. I suggest turning 3 into an expanded WP:0RR for the described articles. Revised #3 would read: "Both are prohibited from performing reverts on any articles related to the sports teams of Carolina or Clemson universities (broadly construed) for a period of 6 months. Undoing other editors, whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert." --Tgeairn (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support proposed remedies #1, #2, and #4, very strong oppose proposed remedy #3, following the reasoning of Billcasey905, J Greb and Carrite. Both parties to the dispute have apparently already either explicitly or implicitly agreed to that solution.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

POINTy and disruptive editing, and harrassment by Cptnono

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

Cptnono is a regular editor at Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) related articles. He has made it clear that he opposes SSCS but claims to remain neutral,[47] however, this is not always evident in his edits.[48] (Unfortunately that page was deleted some time ago, but I assume admins should still be able to get to it) Lately, this has become more and more the case and he is now resorting to WP:POINTy and disruptive editing, as well as outright harrassment. He opposes the use of primary sources if they are sourced from SSCS,[49][50] and will use the flimsiest of excuses to remove them, and associated content. (Despte his claims, there is no consensus that SSCS is not reliable, and he doesn't present proof that "they have told reporters and written in books that they do not necessarily intent to be honest".) Most recently, this has affected editing at Paul Watson where he removed an entire section inappropriately.[51] His excuse was that "editors are reverting over material", but that was misleading. An IP made an inappropriate change that was not picked up for a month and when it was, the editor who reverted the change went a bit overboard in what he reverted so another editor reverted him. That was Cptnono's cue to remove the entire section. However, much of what he removed was cited by secondary sources and removal was unjustifiable. Eventually, he grudgingly conceded that the content could return but insisted on content being sourced from SSCS being attributed to it.[52] This was a redundant demand, as the content sourced from SSCS include citations attributed to SSCS, and therefore the content was already attributed. Still, he insisted on this edit. A fuller description of the previous information (with even more diffs) is available here.

Fast forward to this discussion which was about use of the word "Captain", referring to a statement in the article that "Watson uses the title "captain" although, as of November 2007, he had never been licensed as a ship's captain." Cptono is well aware that there is no reference to "Captain Watson" in the article (he would never have allowed it!), and this edit is transparent as an excuse to issue a warning not to use evil primary sources. (In fact the claim is cited to a secondary source so primary sources are completely irrelevant) Immediately after that he added {{BLP sources}} to the article.[53] Paul Watson only has 3kB of readable prose, and yet it has 100 references, an average of 1 reference for every 31 words, which seems more than sufficient referencing. Of those, I counted 11 primary sources, all used in accordance with WP:PSTS so I removed the tag with an appropriate edit summary,[54] before explaining to Cptnono exactly why I didn't feel it was appropriate.[55] Today, he replied, acknowledging that he "was a little lazy and should have tagged the section or individual refs", but he followed that up with "stop being a jerkoff and fuck off my talk page".[56] The remainder of the post included a veiled threat, "I will show you pointy if you want but I prefer to give you a lesson in policy and guidelines instead". He then restored the tag to the article, instead of addressing the claims with which he had issues,[57] and then slapped an inappropriate warning on my talk page,[58] including with that a smart-arse "templating the regulars sucks" comment. After I reverted that, because it was clearly bad-faith, he added another.[59] He then blanked his talk page with the ominous message "coming for you" as an edit summary.[60] Then he added four more warnings to my talk page, each time I reverted the last,[61][62][63][64] The last two were bogus warnings about me using twinkle to revert his inappropriate warnings on my talk page and were added after I had posted to his talk page asking him to please stop his harrassment.[65] Given the events of today, I don't have any confidence in his claim that he's "OK with us finding resolution to the article content" especially since in the same breath he again accused me of misusing twinkle and called me a dick.[66] This is not a nice person. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice persons hardly ever edit Wikipedia anymore. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(((H))) Drmies (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Aussie has disregarded BLP and misused Twinkle. I can lay out a proper defense if needed but it will amount to more time than I am willing to spend unless it is demanded by admins to prevent a block. I have simply asked Aussie to let certain edits (after he edit warred on a BLP) and a tag (after he again edit warred on a BLP) stand while we look into finding alternative sources. Like most people, I have little regard for hypocrisy and I do not have any problem putting a warning on a guy's talk page after he did it to me. I also do not understand why he feels justified in making repeated personal attacks while raising a stink over pretty minor infractions. Aussie knows my concern and can attempt to find consensus (as I have asked through edits and talk pages) but he should be spending time trying to improve the article instead of coming here. Maybe it is time for me to take this to the BLP noticeboard. Or instead of being jerks to each other, we can allow the tag to stand while we research alternative sources. Related discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#tumblr.com Cptnono (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Cptnono has a strange idea of what constitutes edit-warring:

• 06:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - Cptnono adds {{BLP sources}} for the first time.
• 07:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - AL removes tag, explaining "article has 100 references. If you have issues, use citation needed tags, not a confusing generic tag"
• 07:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC) - My explanation on Cptnono's talk page as to why the tag was removed, with a recommendation to tag specific claims with {{citation needed}} instead
• 05:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Cptnono acknowledges he "was a little lazy and should have tagged the section or individual refs".
• 05:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Despite the acknowledgement of laziness, Cptnono restores the tag to the article instead of tagging specific claims.
• 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Cptnono posts first warning to my talk page. Given that we had already discussed this on his talk page, and he had acknowledged his laziness, this warning was clearly inappropriate.
• 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - Another editor removes {{BLP sources}} from Paul Watson.

Cptnono's claim that I misused Twinkle is hypocritical at best, given that the first four inappropriate warnings that he added to my talk page were added using Twinkle. The addition of inappropriate warnings using Twinkle is a misuse of the tool, not the removal of obvious harassment from ones own talk page. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuous removal of links, categories

The below listed users continuously remove links and categories from specific articles, which looks like to be their own POV and might fall under WP:ARBEE. At first, I've created a category titled Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina and added to the related articles. Many of them, however, were soon removed, and replaced by a number of badly named, new categories created by Account2013 (talk · contribs).

As immediately pointed out on the category's talk page, it was a bit rushed and eventually it ended up in a mass category deletion as these were found improper (pretty much went to overcategorization).

I've also requested comments from experienced users, who suggested a new, probably more proper name for the category, however, this was rejected by Account2013 (being the lone one to do so), which led to a hiatus, as now some of the articles are in the category while other ones (from where the badly named categories were removed) are not.

Being stucked at this point, I was bold and listified these settlements and added to the articles, however, just after a short while these were also removed. I would like to ask your attention to stop the removal of the info and to find a solution finally. Thank you, Thehoboclown (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nado158 (talk · contribs)
• Account2013 (talk · contribs)
• 79.175.95.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There's no reason to place this at these places. Why should they? Neither they are there a community or a majority. I would like to ask your attention to stop the insert of the Hungarian communities there, where they are not significant. Thank you.--Nado158 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thehoboclown is a nationalist Hungarian user who, for some reason, trying to describe settlements with Serb majority in Vojvodina as "Hungarian communities". One can see that he included category "Hungarian communities in Vojvodina" into article Ruma where only 2.17% of population are ethnic Hungarians. How exactly is that town a "Hungarian community"? This is obvious nationalistic disruption of user who want to make impression that everything that was under administration of former Kingdom of Hungary is somehow "Hungarian". There is no logical reason to describe Serb communities as "Hungarian communities" or to include link to article List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina from articles such is Novi Sad. "See also" section should have links to related subjects, not to unrelated ones. Novi Sad article already have "Demographics" section where one can see how many Serbs, Hungarians and others live there, so one does not need link to article List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina to read this same thing. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The lone thing I try to do is grouping those places where Hungarians are forming a significant community. Although, dear Account2013, it took a while to set the standard at first due to behavioral difficulties like the one above, Ruma is out of the scope, of course, and you know it. However, there are a number of others, which are in. The demographics section tells information about that city, while this list collects all of those with a Hungarian community, gives broader information and helps to navigate between those related artciles. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Ruma is out of the scope"? Then please explain this edit. I personally included link to your new article into Hungarians in Vojvodina article, but I removed it from article Novi Sad because it is simply not related to that subject. One who read article Hungarians in Vojvodina or Senta would indeed want also to read article List_of_Hungarian_communities_in_Vojvodina, but one who read article Novi Sad would be rather interested to read Serbs in Vojvodina. Or to say it like this: you created article List_of_Hungarian_communities_in_Vojvodina, Wikipedia readers can acces this article from Hungarians in Vojvodina article or from articles about some places with Hungarian majority such are Senta and Kanjiža, and finally, article can be found in two categories: [67], [68]. So, everybody can easily find your article. But there is no reason to include link to your article just everywhere. Inclusion of this link into Novi Sad article would be same if article Budapest have link to Serbs in Hungary. This is exactly example of abusive promotion of your new article all over Wikipedia, which is opposite to Wiki practice. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As it has been discussed earlier, Ruma, with its rather small Hungarian community is out of scope and is not included neither to any category nor to any list. The category was added way earlier, have been removed since, talked over, and everyone got well with it - so what's the point?

It's kind of a POV if you want to declare what one would be interested, and you know Wikipedia is not going that way. Novi Sad is home of a large Hungarian community, which is present since centuries, and the city is also an important cultural and educational center, as given in the article above, thus adding it to the list is completely obvious. Adding the list to other cities that are on that list are also self-evident, since it meant to connect all of those cities with a Hungarian community.

While I think adding Serbs of Hungary to the Budapest article would be a bad call, creating and linking an article like Serb communities in Hungary would be welcomed and definitely would add valuable details to the subject! Be bold and go ahead!

No, Novi Sad is not home of a large Hungarian community - 4% of population or 12,000 people is certainly not large. And, besides the fact that this city have Serb majority, there are numerous members of other ethnicities in this city, so I do not see that this city have much more connection to Hungarians than to Croats or Slovaks or others who live there (other ethnic groups also have their ethnic cultural institutions in this city). Members of your own ethnic group are maybe most important to you but they are not most important to the World or to readers of Wikipedia. Your approach is obviously ethnocentric and therefore also nationalistic and POV. And if "adding Serbs of Hungary to the Budapest article would be a bad call" then it is same with "adding List_of_Hungarian_communities_in_Vojvodina to the Novi Sad article". It is not only that your approach is ethnocentric but seems that you have obvious double standards as well. Serbs are also present in Budapest "for centuries" even to the point that they formed majority of population in the city some 300 years ago. But, Budapest of today is ethnic Hungarian city and I do not intent to describe it as "Serb community in Hungary". Also, what you want to achieve by your actions? If you aimed to collect data about presence of Hungarians in places of Vojvodina then you already done it in your new article. I will repeat, this article is already well linked and categorized and there is no need for it to be linked just everywhere. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact Novi Sad has the seventh largest Hungarian population among these, and is been a cultural center for the Hungarian community living around since a good while. Definitely, it is an important city for a number of other ethnic communities as well, nobody denies it, however, the solution is not to clean all the stuffs that are not connected to the Serb majority of the city, but rather create articles about these to show what other groups live there. What you try to achieve here appears to be a whitewashing. I have no other goal than give a reasonable coverage of those of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina by linking those of listed articles.

The second part is way off-topic, and will only answer short and only for a last time. I suggested to use the form "Fooian communities of Wonderland" over "Fooians of Wonderland" as I find it a more descriptive title. Same as using the Hungarian communities in Vojvodina instead of Hungarians of Vojvodina, as the latter one covers a much broader topic. That's it. No need to twist my words. There are no double standards and no, there is no one who want to take away the chance from you to cover the area you wish. It was just a suggestion. Once again, be bold and go ahead, expand the Wikipedia! Thehoboclown (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Novi Sad might host relatively large Hungarian population" compared to some other settlements in Vojvodina, but it is because this is large city with some 300,000 inhabitants and it hosts relatively large populations of other ethnic groups too. My point is that Novi Sad should be seen in the context of its 300,000 inhabitants, not in the context of some members of some of its ethnic groups who live in some other places. And speaking about "cultural center", yes Novi Sad hosts few ethnic Hungarian cultural institutions of local importance, but it is one of the most important cultural centers of Serbs in the World and it is also important local cultural center of Slovaks, Rusyns, Croats, Roma, Ashkalis, Muslims, etc. Local Hungarians simply should not be emphasized and pulled out of this context. Following your logic we can also add to "See also" section there links to articles about Roma communities, Slovak communities, etc. But, we should not add those links because of the simple fact that Novi Sad is a large city and that percentage of all these ethnic communities (including Hungarian one) in the city is not large. Important question is why you insist on it? Do you suggest that Wikipedia readers will not be able to find your article about Hungarian communities if it is linked only from articles about places with Hungarian ethnic majority but not from the articles with Serb ethnic majority? I certainly do not agree with that. As for your accusation that I "want to clean all the stuffs that are not connected to the Serb majority of the city", I reject it. What I want to clean is "all the stuffs that are not connected to the city". Or to say it like this: if you created an article with name "Hungarians in Novi Sad" then such article should be linked from the city article. But, your new article is not related to the city and therefore it should not be linked in the article about the city. In fact, I can propose a fairly reasonable solution to this: perhaps you can go to "ethnic groups" section of Novi Sad article where you can change that link to article Hungarian people points to Hungarians in Vojvodina instead and article Hungarians in Vojvodina hosts link to your new article in very visible place. That would make more easy to people to find your new article and this solution will not undermine general quality of the article. Contrary to this, if we fill the article with unrelated links that will certainly undermine article quality. 79.175.71.180 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

So, it looks like you just deny that the minorities are connected to the city and you are desperate to hinder to show there are places (not focusing only on Novi Sad) that host other minority communities. Actually, if a place is an important cultural center for whatever community, or hosts a significant minority group, the article definitely should be there. This gives a broader coverage and helps the reader to better understand the whole topic, add further details about the subject, which much rather improve than undermine the article and the whole group of articles about the theme. Though, since it looks like a never ending discussion, and the administrators did not pay any attention, I've forwarded the issue to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thehoboclown (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Continued tendentious editing at Village Pump (Policy) by User:Sreejiraj

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

---

After a long an fruitless discussion regarding the appropriateness of characterising living individuals by caste at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Caste identification, where it was apparent that some contributors were entirely unwilling to consider the core Wikipedia policies regarding the rights of individuals to privacy, as set out in WP:BLP policies, I decided that the best course of action was to seek wider community input, and therefore raised the matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy, per WP:BLP, and if so should we make this explicit?. Sadly, the behaviour at the India noticeboard has been repeated by User:Sreejiraj, who has filled the thread with repetitious and off-topic original research (already posted at the India noticeboard), gross misrepresentation of sources, and other forms of tendentious editing, with the clear intent of diverting discussion from the purpose of the thread - which was to discuss the extent to which privacy concerns should limit the labelling of individuals by caste without encyclopaedic justification, without self-identification, and frequently on the basis of questionable sources, in the light of knowledge that caste is a contentious subject touching on issues of religion and social class (with all the economic and political baggage that entails) as much as of 'ethnicity' (if not more so - I'm unaware of any academic sources that consider 'caste' and 'ethnicity' to be synonyms). Despite my repeated requests, at no time has Sreejiraj answered my request for him to address the subject of the thread directly, and he has instead taken every opportunity to drag the thread off-topic. Given this behaviour, which to my eyes clearly falls within the bounds of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing policy, in that it is intended to prevent discussion of the intended subject, I ask that the community consider topic-banning Sreejiraj from all caste-related articles and talk pages unless and until he can make it clear that he will cease such behaviour. Caste is a complex and controversial subject, and the way that Wikipedia represents it needs to be properly discussed, rather than contributors having to deal with stonewalling behaviour evidently intended to prevent the issues being resolved. It should be noted that the 'caste' topic is already covered by Wikipedia:General sanctions, and that Sreejiraj has already been informed (in several places) that General sanctions apply (see for example User talk:Sreejiraj#Caste discussions, where it was made clear by another contributor that Sreejiraj's behaviour was unacceptable - and note the complacent response). Given that the key issue here is the sheer volume of Sreejiraj's repetitive and off topic postings, a diff seems rather pointless, and I ask that those wishing to become involved take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
In addition, somebody needs to tell Sreejiraj to at least not bold and color his text walls. It's disruptive. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

@Seb_az86556, if it really is a grave problem, did you try telling Sreejiraj to use a certain font and colour that is your favourite and sooting for your eye? AndyTheGrump has also been bolding many texts a many number of times. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the evidence that Sreejiraj is editing tendentiously, I've left him a warning using the {{uw-castewarning}} template at his talk page. Editors who want to determine the best way to mention caste in WP:BLP articles are *not* free to ignore regular Wikipedia policies, or to violate the norms of civil discussion by swamping the thread with excessive text. That falls under the traditional warning language, embraced by both Arbcom and the community in their templates, about "repeatedly or seriously fail[ing] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@AndyTheGrump, you are partly at fault here for making Sreejiraj repeat his comments twice. The discussion that was going on at WT:INB was forked by you to Village Pump. (You have your own policy based or biased reasons for that.) You restarted the thing all over again at another venue and that is why Sreejiraj had to put forth his points again. Although they might be repetitive to you, they were well received and replied by User:Masem and User:Bus stop who were not part of the initial discussion that happened at WT:INB. So it is your fault here.

Of course Sreejiraj could have simply directed all to his previous posts. But he being new with around 200 edits should be excused for not being superlatively brilliant like you with around 18000 edit. Also, Sreejiraj posted his huge post at Village Pump on 7th January. The personal clear notice to him on his talk page given by Sitush that asked him to not repeat his say is dated 8th January.

For a complex issue like caste system, the discussions are bound to take long time to conclude. If you are so impatient and grumpy about it, i would suggest you take up other discussions too that would keep you busy elsewhere. Sreejiraj is not vandalising any of the actual articles. If you do not want us to edit the articles nor discus on talk pages why don't you simply rewrite that dogs and Indians are not allowed? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NPA. Can I ask that an uninvolved admin take a look at Dharmadhyaksha's comments, both here and in the discussions linked, and consider what actions might be appropriate in this user's case too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(Yeah, he's calling you a racist, but I wouldn't even dignify that kinda junk with a response Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

I am simply pointing out what you did. If you have a label for that and want to use it, its your choice. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely appropriate to move a discussion from a walled garden of India editors to the general discussion area, in fact, it would have been a better idea to have done that early on in the history of the discussion. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not seeing the problem here, other than the fact that Sreejiraj used a lot of words to make his case at the RFC. There is no word limit on such things. I suspect there are some frustrated advocates of a majority position that are aggravated by a verbose and committed advocate of a minority position, but that doesn't excuse a race here in an effort to have a bureaucratic hammer wielded... Carrite (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sreejiraj has at no point made a case at either the India noticeboard nor at Village Pump (policy) - he has utterly refused to acknowledge that WP:BLP policy respects the right of individual privacy, and on that basis, any discussion of an individual's caste needs to take this into consideration - he has attempted to ignore the issue entirely, and posted reams of irrelevances. In any case, it wasn't just 'a lot of words', it was the same words, repeatedly. This clearly falls under the scope of Wikipedia disruptive editing policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Note - for clarification, Bus stop had posted here, hence Sitush's response below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you have said this here. It is surely better placed in the discussion at VPP? - Sitush (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, you are right. I am now removing the post above. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I just saw the message on my talk page (since my days and nights are different.) That says something about me being warned for Tendentious editing. I looked up Tendentious editing. "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." I would like to know which are the edits that you find biased. In fact, it's been a few weeks (or months?) since I edited any Wikipedia article, except for trying to put in three items into List of Ezhavas, which was promptly removed by Sitush, quoting reasons such as people need to self-identify to be identified by Jati etc. I am assuming adding those three items did not amount to "sustained bias", did it? Thank you. Yes, I frequently change the color of my font in discussion pages when I am doing an "overnight editing", long after everyone else's gone to sleep and I have to comment on individual comments. Otherwise, there is not way to highlight that a particular comment has been inserted in between a dialogue (or multilogue, if there be such a word.) Yes, so will someone tell me how inserting three items into a list, and having them rejected, amounts to "sustained bias"? Sreejiraj (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody else is doing that. Just don't. It's disruptive, just like yelling and screaming or throwing stuff at people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hijacking a discussion when it was nearing consensus and raising it anew at a new forum (creating duplication) by User:AndyTheGrump

Hi, this is with regard to essentially User:AndyTheGrump causing much trouble to all involved by creating a duplicate discussion on a subject that was being discussed at Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Caste_identification at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Is labelling individuals by caste a violation of privacy, per WP:BLP, and if so should we make this explicit? and not telling anyone there that the discussion has been transplanted to the Village Pump, leading the others to be unaware that the topic has been escalated, and the others consequently wasting their timing arguing their points on the India page. This required some participants, (including me certainly) to have to repeat much of my arguments before one forum at the new one as well, creating much inconvenience, and in the end, leaving me feeling like an idiot for having wasted my time. Are there are any policies to warn users not to shift goal-posts (rather, the whole football ground) when they find consensus forming against their own "sustained biases" ?? Can such disruptive (not to say ungentlemanly) users be banned? Sreejiraj (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an outright lie - Sreejiraj refused to address the BLP concerns at the India noticeboard, and instead filled it with off-topic stonewalling - hence my attempt to get wider input at the Village Pump. And note that Sreejiraj is still engaging in the same behaviour he has already been warned against - posting ridiculous walls of text full of WP:OR, guesswork and speculation (and incidentally engaging in personal attacks in the process) [69]. He has already been warned. Is action going to be taken? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha and violations of WP:NPA

I would at this point in time like to formally ask an uninvolved admin to comment on User:Dharmadhyaksha's violations of WP:NPA above, [70][71] and to take what action is deemed necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha! I like this strategy of are-you-against-me-lets-get-you-blocked. Has worked on ANI at numerous times. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I presume that any admin looking into this will take the above comment into consideration too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind even if every comment and action of mine from day one is under consideration. If you want i can help you by giving names of few more editors who can help you get me blocked. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dharmadhyaksha, this is not like you at all. Hope you are ok - how about a cup of tea, eh? - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think i am ok. Thanks for the cup. But me backing off means encouraging AndyTheGrump and others of such strategies; of getting opponent editors blocked by filing trivial complaints. Hey, you are writing essays, block you! You wrote in green bold, block you! Its not Arial 10, block you! That's no way to deal with new comers. There is some essay on that somewhere here. (If you remember, there was another such ANI case, probably filled by you, where a newcomer was blocked for what you all call as "tendentious editing". It was on some Rajput or Jat articles. The blocking admin did not even think of the fact that the new user would now not be able to reply to any ANI posts and defend himself. How is that just? I had opposed that too.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are referring to WP:BITE. The problem here is that the "newcomer" (assuming that you are writing of Sreejiraj) has had quite a lot of advice prior to things getting reported above. Even now, they've not been blocked. It might be best to concentrate on advising them because, honestly,some sort of change is needed. - Sitush (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Then do that; advise him. Andy did not come to ANI for getting him advised. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already tried but was (very politely) brushed off. Maybe it needs someone else to have a go. - Sitush (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have tried again here. Can we all now back away from the precipice? I feel sure that Andy will not object to any request made for "thinking time" as mentioned in my post, and I'm hoping that Dharmadhyaksha and others might be able to engage in a brainstorming session at the user's talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have warned User:Dharmadhyaksha for the personal attack on Andy. Ed has posted a warning on Sreejira's talk page. As far as I can tell, we're done here. Therefore, I'm closing after I post this comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User/user talk page misuse

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

---

Could someone please take a look at User:Alfiyafahad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? Contribs don't seem to bear any relation to building an encyclopedia.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've CSD'ed user and talk page. NE Ent 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've SNOW-deleted 'em. Not really a CSD criterion, I know, but Wikipedia doesn't need to be a free webhost for some company's technical manual for more than nine months. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless you're going to indef the editor, I would have deleted the garbage from the talk page but left the other stuff, including the notice of this topic.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. I had already left him a note explaining what happened, with a link to this thread; should I do more than that? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that's good enough. Restoring the talk page and then deleting everything but legitimate messages is the other alternative, but it's probably not worth the hassle. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Picasso Animation College

We appear to have a serious problem with our article on Picasso Animation College. Until recently, the article referred to a college headquartered in New Delhi, India (see here [72]). There have however recently been multiple edits attempting to make the article instead refer to a college in Jaipur India (see here [73]), involving an almost complete substitution of text, together with links to primary sourced documents referring to 'copyright' and a 'trademark'. I note that a previous contributor who earlier made this type of edit (which I reverted), User:Jaipurpicasso went on to attempt to create a (rejected) article at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Picasso Animation College, Jaipur, and was subsequently blocked per username policy (there have also been IP editors involved). A new user, User:Umesh.naga (whom I shall inform of this discussion) has now stepped in, making the same changes. As to whether both 'Picasso Animation Colleges' are still extant, and whether either one of them would meet our notability guidelines I don't know, but it is clearly unacceptable for a 'new' college to hijack the article about an 'old' one in this way. At this point, I am unsure of the best way to proceed, and would welcome outside input. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the New Delhi school has a franchise option. Perhaps the Jaipur school is a franchise? Of course I agree with your assessment about the hijacking and will work more on it momentarily. Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Banned/blocked user has made a fourth account

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

---

User XGabriel86X, a sockpuppet of users Necroshine95, Phantomlord95 and XGabriel1986X, is still block evading, albeit now seemingly adding (unformatted) sources which are more accurate than on previous attempts. This kiddie is hard to keep up with.. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think they are banned, but I've blocked the new account anyway for evasion. I've also created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Necroshine95. GiantSnowman 11:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Retrieving account

Hi, I had an active account under my passport name "Marijhaa" and one day my password was not working, and I can no longer sign in. However I hadn't changed the password, and apparently I hadn't registered an email for the account. How can I get the account back please? I don't mind verifying anything should this be a requirement or a way to retrieve an account. Any help would be most welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMarijhaa (talk • contribs) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you're out of luck, see forgot password. NE Ent 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is nothing confidential that anyone here knows which you could use to verify your account. The only things we could confirm about you and your account are already public knowledge, which means that anyone else could verify them too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

IP Vandal 74.201.26.151

Ip vandal seems intent on continuing to vandalise 4 pages related to Singapore politics, as seen from his edit history[[74]]. Even after being reverted and warned, he had responded to warnings by purposely vandalizing the page further[[75]], and proclaiming his intent here to vandalise further [[76]] Zhanzhao (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the place to report vandalism. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked 72 hours for disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism of my talk page/IP posting personal attacks against editors I've been in dispute with possibly trying to frame me

This edit made on my talk page by an IP insults an editor that I've previously disputed with. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TeeTylerToe&diff=532234149&oldid=532137058

My talk page was previously edited by another IP with suspicious content as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TeeTylerToe&diff=530586398&oldid=530581764

The IP made a juvenile edit on sept 3 '12 fwiw. TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Response. Please report any reoccurrences. Nyttend (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ThanksTeeTylerToe (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Mentor: I've already spoken with the user that the vandalism was targeted to incite to action against TeeTylerToe (TTT). They agree that it does not seem like someone's planning a joejob and they're willing to let it slide. I think that Nyttend's final warning is enough for now. Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry, striking one word that changes the entire posting Hasteur (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the appropriate level of protection for an article with the following characteristics ?

What is the appropriate level of protection for an article in the WP:ARBPIA topic area with the following characteristics ?

• 1948 Arab–Israeli War

Data covers 2012-04-08 - 2013-01-10 (the last 508 edits).

• 33.3% edits by sockpuppets of indefinitely topic banned editors
• 7.7% edits reverting sockpuppets
• 1.4% article protection related edits
• 39.4% edits by non-sock accounts with >500 edits (38%=currently active editors + 1.4%=editors who went on to be topic banned)
• 13.2% edits by presumed non-sock accounts/IPs with <500 edits (some of these edits were vandalism but like most articles the level of vandalism is relatively low)
• 5.1% bot edits

Summary

• 42% of edits are sockpuppetry related. Indefinite semi-protection would not have prevented them.
• The probability of a new account/IP (<500 edits) being a sock is 71.5%. Perhaps this calls into question the wisdom of the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions statement "Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute."

Sean.hoyland - talk 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What administrative action that you want?I think if you want to do something about sockpuppetry you should make a request atWP:AE or maybe even an ARBCOM request.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like administrators to answer the question asked so that the appropriate level of protection can be requested and applied to the article based on the information I have supplied. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't understand where 71.5% came from or the significance of the 500 number. NE Ent 18:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• 71.5% = number of sock edits / (number of sock edits + number of edits by non-sock users with edit count < 500)
• 500 is an arbitrary edit count to try to distinguish between new may-or-may-not-be-sock accounts and not-new non-sock accounts. I picked that number because it is the number has been used in discussions in the ARBPIA topic area as a potential edit count requirement to be able to edit in the topic area (together with account age requirement). Sockpuppetry is extensive in ARBPIA so there have been several discussions about ways to reduce it. Setting entry requirements for the topic area is one of them but that is a different discussion. My question here is just about protection for one article e.g. does it need full protection ? Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Applied pending changes level 2 protection. All edits by non-reviewers will require approval before going live. Therefore, even sockpuppets who have taken the time to become autoconfirmed cannot vandalize the article. In the future, WP:RFPP would probably be a better venue for this discussion than here. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, that sounds like the most sensible option, however it has been requested that PCPP level 2 not be used at this time, per community consensus, or lack thereof. It's not my intent to throw a wrench into things, and I leave things to your administrative discretion, but I wanted to make sure you were aware. Rutebega (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, you're right. I wasn't aware of that RfC until now. While PC2 protection is clearly the best solution for this case, I suppose that the RfC voters didn't consider cases of persistent sockpuppetry. If we're not allowed to use PC2, then I guess the next best tool we have is full protection. I've fully protected the article for a month, hopefully that will be long enough for the sockpuppets to lose interest and move on. After the full protection expires, the article should probably be semi-protected again. And someone should re-run an RfC on PC2 protection. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 19:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, you're right. I'll start drafting an RfC that anyone is free to help with in my sandbox. Vacation^nine 20:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it actually, PC level 2 might not be that useful here. Pending changes is supposed to be used to prevent vandalism or BLP violations, as reviewing editors would most likely not have any idea about the sockpuppetry case. Striking my previous edit. Vacation^nine 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that is one of the problems, how do you check to make sure an editor isn't a sock? At best you made be able to look at some socks active in the past there and try to detect similarities. I think that was why PC1 was rejected for fighting socks as well. Monty₈₄₅ 20:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The most important thing in using PC against socks (which I've seen done several times, with significant success) is referencing it in the protection log summary, which is available to anyone who clicks on the "show pending changes log" link on the reviewing screen. Of the times I've rejected changes as sockpuppetry, it's been because I was familiar with the case already, though, so I'd encourage admins to explicitly describe the editing behavior when PC-protecting for socking, if it's anything distinctive (for instance, the sockmaster who kept on adding content to lesbianism-related articles about how men can be just as good in bed as lesbians - an unfamiliar reviewer could easily accept an edit by him, as they often don't themselves meet any of the basic rejection criteria). — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there more than one sockmaster? Has blocking account creation been attempted? If there's only a few sockmasters, just giving them a hard block seems like a better option than full page protection. Just a thought. Rutebega (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of any RFC, we can apply PC2 for now until we decide what else to do, to prevent further damage while we all talk about this. I can personally guarantee that any edit from an autoconfirmed user on that page will be accepted within 10 minutes (we monitor a legobot in IRC). I'd say IAR and just go PC2 for now until we determine the best course of action. gwickwire^talk_edits 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Hell, Bwilkins half-accidentally had two pages level-2 protected for like a week before anyone noticed (and even then, the only complaints were that it wasn't necessary, not that it was some vast administrative overreach). I think the fact that no one's seen fit to raise a ruckus here about the great injustice of PC2 is evidence enough that there's a sufficiently unequivocal need. Furthermore, the great thing about level-2 is that it can be combined with semi-protection. The thing I really like about pending-changes protection (and I think anyone else who's worked on 2012 Delhi gang rape case can agree with this) is that, as a bare minimum, it calls attention to edits on sensitive topics. If there's this much systemic abuse on this article, then what could be better than a system where uninvolved, trusted contributors will be called upon to keep an eye on what's going on? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but you forced me to move them back to PC1, even after the discussion...and the discussion I read was that people did consider it the right thing to have done, but ya forced me to remove it anyway (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If it was me, sorry. All I remember doing was requesting removal of some PC2 that was in place since back in September or so (before consensus existed on how to implement PC) on certain pages. Regardless, I think PC2 is a much better option here than is PC1, semi, or full protection. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(He's talking to me, I believe, Gwickwire.) As I recall, we left off with me saying that I really couldn't find any point where the discussion had been resolved; you downgraded the protection without responding. If I really have been so stupid as to overlook an endorsement of the merits of your PC2 application, would you be so kind as to link to it? Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 23:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on WP:IAR and the comments above, I have PC2-protected the article. I think from now on, in cases where PC2 would be useful, we should hold a discussion about it, and allow it if consensus agrees. After all, there is no consensus that PC2 should be prohibited; it's merely that it failed to gain consensus for implementation. Thus, the community can call for its implementation in certain cases where applicable, or in other words, local consensus cannot override global consensus (in most cases) but it can override a global lack thereof. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, if I may add some bureaucracy to a wonderful application of WP:NOTBURO, would it perhaps be better to hold any future ad hoc discussions at AN proper? It seems to me that there are many well-respected, clueful users who steer clear of ANI but like to chip in on useful threads at AN. Thought I doubt anyone could argue against as well-reasoned an explanation as KoH has given. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reporting user Hari Krishna Valiveti

I have seen that a user, Hari Krishna Valiveti is trying to push and promote a particular website (apherald.com) that he is affiliated with on Wiki. I tried explaining him not to do so on the edit summary as well as on his talk page. I have seen that another user also warned him concerning his edits at Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu article. I asked him if he was anyway connected to that website and i haven't got any response. But, one of the apherald.com links (here) he posted has his name as the author. I don't know if this is the right place to report this, but i request to please look into this. Thanks, krZna (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this. Comparing the user's contributions with the timestamps of those warnings that actually mention spamming and promotion, I see that the user won't have gotten the orange banner telling them they have spam warnings until they posted this edit, their last so far. In other words, they haven't actively ignored the spam warnings. Now they will have seen them (assuming they know what to do about the orange banner), and hopefully won't spam any more. I'll keep an eye on the user for a day or two. Bishonen | talk 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC).

It is clear that the account's only purpose is to advertise that website.[77] As krZna pointed out, the names of the spamming editor and apherald's reporter are the same. The account should be permanently blocked as this has been going on for three months in dozens of articles. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he made his last edit after the warnings were posted. The warnings were posted at 16:31, 10 January 2013‎ and his last edit that i reverted was on 20:59, 10 January 2013. My issue is that if he an editor at that website and he is using wiki to promote the website, isn't that considered a violation? Thanks, krZna (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that he is using his account solely to advertise his website is a huge violation. His obvious conflict of interest is a separate issue. If he did it once or twice, got warned, and then stopped, it would be fine. But it's been happening for months. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Wow, edit conflict, apparently: look at those timestamps!)I guess I didn't make myself clear. Yes, it's a violation, but new editors don't necessarily know that unless they're told, and unless they see that they've been told. You're right that he made the edit you mention after the warnings were posted, but it was only after he'd made that edit that he got the orange banner coming up, telling him that he had talkpage messages. Do you see my point? We won't block somebody until they've knowingly ignored the spam warnings. It takes another edit, after the orange banner, to knowingly ignore the warnings. That's why I said I'd be keeping an eye out for his next edit.

And indeed, I see he has made another edit now, continuing to spam, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. I do understand your point that the user seems to be here only for spam, but we still start with a short block. If he comes back to spam again after this block, the next block will come quickly and be longer. Thanks again for your help. Bishonen | talk 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

I understand and appreciate your patience Bishonen, but this a clear-cut case of a single-purpose account being used by the editor to advertise their website. In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether he saw the warnings or not since there is a months-long history of doing nothing but spamming. And now, as you just mentioned, he has spammed yet again! You must be Wikipedia's all-time most lenient administrator. :p Block that account forever. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In thinking about this matter further, perhaps it is better not to block him forever because he'll just create a new, anonymous account and continue his spamming. I suppose it's more beneficial to let him keep the account so his edits can be monitored. But I still feel his actions definitely warrant a block longer than 24 hours. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha. Well, there are one or two other admins as namby-pamby as me, I think. Please don't worry, if this doesn't stop, he soon will be blocked for ever. I've watchlisted his page, but in case I forget to check his contribs after the block, I'd appreciate it if either of you two would tip me off about any recurring spam on my talkpage. Just a quick note, and then you may find that I'm an admin made of iron. :-) And if spam for apherald.com should turn up from another account, as you suggest, then the website itself will simply be added to the spam blacklist. Bishonen | talk 01:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

OK, you somehow managed to turn me around. I've decided that you're a great admin and I fully agree with your handling of this matter. However, I do not concur with your self-description of being "namby-pamby". I just think you're a very nice guy person who has no interest in wielding his her power unnecessarily. That's very admirable and appreciated. --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Blush, tee hee. (I'm a nice gal, actually.) Bishonen | talk 02:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Oops, sorry about that. Haha. Well, you're a very nice gal! ;) --76.189.103.146 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's kinda your fault, Bish, for choosing a username that's almost exactly "beautiful boy".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 05:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Hinata

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

---

This user probably needs to be warned (at least) for this and this.--В и к и T 23:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And warned he should be, but I'm not sure what we could use. I think a custom "don't inject your opinion on a topic into every post you make" warning may do. Note however the user claims to be inactive now. gwickwire^talk_edits 00:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

He probably has a grudge against me for my being anti-gay thing. This will likely go nowhere though. And I'm not a he. --Hinata talk 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim of inactivity was placed on 10 September. Since that time the user has made over 100 edits, including 30 in the last five days. Clearly the user is not inactive. - htonl (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Warning seems too mild. Hateful comments are actionable in and of themselves, but the editor also explicitly states that zie is making the edits that zie's making out of personal bias rather than out of a desire, however misguided, to improve the encyclopedia. Such editing is disruptive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If nothing else, it has to be considered grossly uncivil to post on a wikiproject which (presumably) has a majority of LGBT people that they should all be killed. - htonl (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I do support the death penalty for gays though. I don't know how that would be offensive though. --Hinata talk 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yikes... Not exactly the way to respond to a thread on your hateful comments about LGBT individuals. Hinata is either trolling or seriously disturbed. Could somebody please block her, or at least give her an only warning? — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

To elaborate: You either do know why that would be offensive, in which case you're an obvious troll, or you legitimately don't know, in which case your paradigms are so out of whack that you'll be incapable of ever constructively collaborating with others. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that death penalty for gays would be controversial. --Hinata talk 00:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You appear to have a history of trivializing/justifying discrimination, as well [78]. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hinata is apparently not here to improve Wikipedia but to push a point of view. Binksternet (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is clearly more than enough. I've blocked him, indef until he can demonstrate that he is willing to work constructively. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Threat following reversion of IP edits at Jill Kelley

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

---

After I reverted apparent conspiracy theory edits by User:24.43.201.210 and User:68.54.80.89 at Jill Kelley, User:24.43.201.210 posted on my talk page "you do not want to get yourself killed tampering with information on this topic, child." diff Recommend page protection at Jill Kelley, IP blocks, and possible Checkuser if others think it's warranted. Jokestress (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

RevDel requested

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

---

Could we please have a RevDel for this? As the editor is already blocked and I am requesting no further action against him, so I assume notification isn't necessary. (If I'm wrong about that, thanks for doing it for me; I'm cooking and need to get off the damn computer. Sorry if this isn't the most precise venue. The pot is boiling, then I'll be busy for hours.) Rivertorch (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean really, is there a reason to? The edit has been removed, so what's the point? Especially given the tone of that particular comment. Prodego ^talk 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is support for a portion of our community. Endorse revdel. NE Ent 02:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, everybody, Hinata's gender is set as female. I have no opinion as to whether this is or isn't true. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Rev delete seems unwise. Why would we not keep that comment for evidence of bias, if such bias shows itself in the future from this editor? (Assuming that indef does not mean forever). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That did occur to me, but I'll tell you what: there should be no future for this editor at Wikipedia. The continued presence of anyone who is so hateful as to "support the death penalty for gays" is incompatible with a project purporting to be collaborative in nature. It is not ununsual for racist, sexist, and antisemitic viciousness to be RevDeled, and once again I'm taken aback that a different standard is evident for homophobic viciousness. Worse, I see from the user's talk page that an unblock is apparently under serious consideration by at least one administrator. Reality check, people: we have a diverse body of editors, and the ones who manage to get through each editing session without advocating death for minority groups are the ones who deserve our continued support and respect. If the community won't act decisively on something this far beyond the pale, maybe the Foundation needs to step in. I hope to God I'm wrong. (My apologies to the editor in question for getting the pronoun wrong; I had never heard of her before today, and I didn't scrutinize her user page or contributions before posting here.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Whether Hinata was simply saying one of the worst things she (or he) could think of to say to get a rise out of us, or whether they actually believe what they're saying is totally irrelevant. Either way, this is not someone we need or want on this project, and in this case, "indef" should mean "forever". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I commented on my talk page about the topic. My thought when seeing the comments is similar to what Alanscottwalker stated above. But Rivertorch has made an excellent point on this issue, and so has Beyond My Ken. Flyer22 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

On Hinata's user page there is a link to a personal youtube blog. In the blog Hinata says she is from Germany, she hints that she is a school student, and she says that she approves of Rebecca Kadaga's call for Uganda to pass the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill which offers the death sentence or life imprisonment for homosexual sex acts. Hinata posted this opinion roughly "1 month ago", so it is not a newly invented position with which to annoy Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Good block, good riddance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree, and forever. However, have we made it permanent (someone above suggests she is young)? Won't we lose the history of this if we just rev delete? And there is, of course, the issue of "improper" ways to return with the issues of linking that history in the future. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Support revdel. It falls clearly under the banner of "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material". Revdel'd content is available to admins, so it can still be used as evidence in any potential future SPI. (And I strongly endorse the indef block.) Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Well, it was hardly likely I'd clamour for the return of someone who wants me and everyone like me murdered. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• Revdeled. This is clearly RD2 material; not really sure why we needed to make a federal issue of it, but whatever, no big deal. Maybe if it was on their userpage (ahuge maybe), but putting that on the LGBT wikiproject talk page is just not cool. No reason to oversight, so it can still be seen by admins; if we need it as a reference, we know where to find it. If people could please make sure i got it all, that'd be nice. For reference, Hinata's post right before (the one using the word "condemn") was unsavory to me, but not bad enough for revdel imo. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I don't think Prodego's comments could be called "seriously considering an unblock". I'll concede that a user saying the same sort of thing about some other groups would find themselves with an immediate indefblock for trolling, and probably talk page access revocation after the first unblock request, but, hey, it is what it is, and I think we're sometimes way too quick to jump to a conclusion of trolling, regardless. @Binksternet: One can troll more than one site - though I hope you'll agree with me that if this isn't trolling, that's actually probably worse. @WK: Would you mind making some sort of dummy revdel so the page's deletion logs can link to this conversation? Just so we can balance the need for removal of hate speech with the feeling that this should be kept on the record as evidence for the future. Oh, and, @all: I think it's very important to remember that not only did Hinata say all this, she also insists there's nothing controversial about it; this is why I said, above, that she must either be trolling or seriously disturbed, and that is still my feeling now. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Reporting user Subman758 for Personal Attack

I am reporting that User:Subman758 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), on my own talk page this evening, made a Nazi-reference to myself regarding my reading of another user's talk page about a previous edit I had made. As my talk history on Subman758's talk page, regarding this, shows that I was polite and civil. The Nazi-reference in particular was him citing myself as a "Gestapo wannabe." Usage of that terminology appears to follow under the guides of a personal attack— as described on the Wikipedia:No personal attacks page, (Under "What is considered to be a personal attack?," fourth bullet item "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons"). With the exception of the required ANI-notice, I have since ceased any further contact, response or communications with this user. Anaheimer (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems Anaheimer left a cordial warning about general civility on Subman758's talk page after a message the latter posted on Vercillo's talk page vaguely referring to "idiots" editing Brea Police Department; Subman758 apparently reacted strongly to what he perceived as an intrusion in a private conversation. Perhaps, first of all, it should be explained to the user that all pages (including User Talk pages) are public and viewable by anyone... Salvidrim! ✉ 05:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes the term VAGUELY is correct! No specific person was called an Idiot! However Anaheimer feels he should be responding to a message that was not sent to him, intended for him, or related to him. He tries to say I called him an idiot, in that I referred to Idiots because "HE" made an Edit! Which is not the case. I don't know him, I have never dealt with prior to this so why would I want to call "him" an idiot! When I go to someone's talk page, I don't go there to read their mail. I leave a message, and leave. Anaheimer feels it is HIS DUTY to read someones mail and respond to it, whether the recipient wants him to or not. It is not up to him to correct someone for a message sent to someone else. If the person receiving the message is offended then he should tell me. Anaheimer seems to like to nitpick on people, I guess that is how he blows off steam, me on the other hand I am a Cynical Bastard. At least I can admit it though. If talk pages are Public, (which I did not know!) then I might suggest there be a way to contact a user in private. I feel there needs to some measure privacy here to prevent users like Anaheimer, who trolls users pages looking for a way to cause a problem. I would there is some way for Wikipedia to do this. It is not like they don't have the money, because I know they do, after all they have 10,000 of my hard earned dollars over the last four years.--Subman758 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Subman, if you want to contact another editor privately, you can use the "Email this user" function. Not all users have this enabled, and not all editors are receptive to being contacted by email in all cases. On-wiki discussions, however, are open to any editor's participation. I often find that conversations on my talk page benefit from the participation of other editors who can offer insight or information that I may have overlooked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You can e-mail any user that has a confirmed e-mail address. However this is a collaborative environment, thus private communications generally aren't common. Please make sure you understand that Anaheimer's concerns are valid and it helps create a better atmosphere to follow basic civility guidelines. There is also no justification whatsoever for referring to another editor as a "Gestapo wannabe"; I believe we can all agree that whatever happened before, that particular edit falls well into the realm of personal attacks. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Anaheimer also wrote "typing in all caps and excessive use of the exclamation marks is not very friendly, and in fact, offensive" Prehaps Anaheimer finds it offensive. However; there was no intent to be offensive. If I use CAPS, IT IS BECAUSE, I AM TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT CAN BE SEEN!!! Those History pages can often be filled with a lot of stuff, cause important information to be easily missed. In this case I wanted the editor to go back and read his source. Wikipedia could be, and should a source of information. Have you ever tried telling someone this line "But that is what it says on Wikipedia" Room erupts in laughter right? Wikipedia is mocked because to many inappropriate edits are being made. In this case an edit was made, and the user assumed that it was more than it truly was. Vercillo wrote an AWESOME article, that because of these inappropriate edits is now a shadow of its former self. I find that sad.--Subman758 (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and I hope you all are well. I wanted to start out by saying that I had every right to file this discussion, and I have kept things civil and polite. For what I was called on my own talk page, by Subman758, it was clearly an offending remark as stipulated in the personal attacks guidelines. That's really my only issue as being labeled with a Nazi connotation was very disheartening. Now, within regards to the Brea Police Department page— I have no concerns within regards to the present state the page is in or any subsequent edits that may be made by anyone else. Sometimes we may make little mistakes when updating content, and I today I did catch my own oversight on the Brea Police page where I was only thinking about the Yorba Linda factor, and not the continuance of Brea itself. It was a simple oversight. But to get back to this issue... I had gone through my own contrib history earlier today, and for kicks I clicked the Brea Police page, saw it had changed (which did not bother me at all), but when I saw the edit comments, and the other verbiage seen on Vercillo's talk page, that's when I had reached out to Subman758 and left the comments that I did— just like how Salvidrim stated above that I had "...left a cordial warning about general civility." As we have seen now, and with his responses above, it really had upset this user, and that was not anyone's intent, let alone mine. I do in no way, shape or form "nitpick" on anyone or anything here on Wikipedia, nor am I one who "...trolls users pages looking for a way to cause a problem." I am not new to Wikipedia; I have been a reader since the site was launched, and am coming up six years this month as having been a registered editor. I am not full time on my contributions, and the like, on Wikipedia, but occasionally I will dedicate time to go through various pages of interest and go from there. One of the things I like to do, which is what I did this afternoon, was view pages in my contrib history. Its interesting to see what subsequent changes and, most often, improvements that have been made. In closing, within regards to the Brea Police page, if it is strongly felt that Vercillo's original content is better preferred— a revert would be easiest solution to be made in no time flat, if desired. I'm not one who takes control of pages. This is Wikipedia— a great community of folks. We can agree to disagree. This is a positive place on the internet. And thanks again. — ANAHEIMER (TALK) 09:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violator needs a block

At User talk:Seraphimblade#Violation, and further clarification needed, the closer of the topic ban against User:Apteva agrees that the ban has been violated. Can someone please give him a temporary block to remind him that we're serious? Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Him or her", please, see below. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Should I start taking bets on how many minutes will expire after said block is enacted before he's unblocked? I think I'll open with an over/under of 20 minutes. --Jayron32 06:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"He or she", they, xe, or even "it", is preferred, please. Anything gender neutral is fine, though I have never seen "it" used before. Apteva (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It stops violating topic ban or it gets the block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't see it nearly clear-cut enough to block. Considering the heat that's still on, I say 10 minutes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd tend to see it as a violation, since that discussion on applicability of MOS to titles was essentially precipitated by the War of the Dashes. However, Apteva didn't specifically mention them, so I'd tend to see it as more a warning than blocking issue this time around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Warning heard and heeded. I had no intention of violating the topic ban in any way. A block would serve no purpose whatsoever. The connection between the MOS and wp:title mostly affects other issues, and it was those only that I was addressing. But I had no intention of stirring anything up. Apteva (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want people to look into this issue, a link to the wording of the topic ban and a diff of the proposed violation would be a whole lot more convenient than making us hunt around for it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case, I've hunted around and found both, and I don't see a violation. The wording of the topic ban is specific, and prevents Apteva from modifying or discussing issues relating to punctuation. The discussion in question is about whether WP:TITLE should have a link to WP:MOS in some way, and is not specifically about punctuation. Apteva's comments are also not specifically about punctuation. If you want this type of comment to be included in the topic ban, my opinion is that you need to reword the topic ban. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 15:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• As this was already being discussed at WP:AN#Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?), and in fact Dicklyon participated in the discussion there prior to starting this one; starting a second discussion here is inappropriate forum shopping. Monty₈₄₅ 15:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights movement... again.

The talk page of Men's rights movement has erupted in nastiness again. Due to the recurrent problems, the article was placed on community probation some time ago, the terms of which can be read here. The most problematic current section on the talk page is found here, although some other recent talk page sections are also problematic. Most if not all of the people posting in recent sections are aware of the terms of the probation, and at least one of them has already previously been sanctioned. (You can see a list of who has been formally notified about the probation on the probation page that I linked.)

I would ask for any set of uninvolved admins that feel up for it to wade through recent conversations on the page with an eye towards enforcing the terms of the probation (and general Wikipedia policies as well.) Given the tone of recent conversation on the page, I doubt I need to point out too many specific problems, but to excerpt one example - User:Enjois asks "why are there so many misandrist feminist users on Wikipedia that like to censor the truth regarding men's rights issues? These people are sexist ***** and it is a shame there is such censorship and dishonest propaganda present on Wikipedia" and proceeds to call Carptrash a 'sexist feminist'. I know that as Wikipedia nastiness goes, this definitely doesn't top it.. but the fact that this stuff erupts on the talk page every couple months is really unproductive, and makes it hard for any good faith editor to want to work on this and related articles.

I'll drop notifications of this thread to everyone who has posted on the page recently about this thread as soon as I hit submit. Thanks, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have completed all necessary notifications now. If I missed any it was just an error on my part given the number of people I notified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: My input at the talk page was only supportive of the preceding comment by Kyohyi. That being the case, I've no personal association with him/her more than any other user here and it does not mean I fully or partially endorse or support his views, comments or edits. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 07:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC).

Hafaz Refrisa Maulana

I am concerned that User: Hafaz Refrisa Maulana is not here to improve Wikipedia, but is rather attempting to use his userspace as a free website in contravention to WP:WEBHOST. The user has made nearly 300 edits so far, but of those, only 3 have been to articles, while all of the rest have been to her/his userspace. These edits involve a large number of different sub-pages, all revolving around Captain Tsubasa, a long running Japanese comic book. These user pages are not article drafts; they're all WP:FANCRUFT—and attempt to document every little detail about the series. While this may be appropriate for some sort of dedicated Wikia site, it's not information that would ever be important enough to include in Wikipedia articles. I've asked the user several times to explain what she/he is doing, but I've not gotten any response other than one WP:BLANKING to my first request (see the user's current talk page and its history).

I'm inclined to block the user as WP:NOTHERE and trying to use us as a webhost, but this is certainly a subjective judgment, and I'd rather others give their opinion as well. Similarly, it's probably appropriate to take all of the subpages to MfD, though, again, opinions are welcome. Also, is there anyone more technically capable who knows how to get a list of all subpages the user has? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex, and search on "Hafaz Refrisa Maulana/" in User namespace. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just post a direct link for us lazy folk? NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, because that would not provide the same educational service ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh. Wow. There are 30 pages in his user space. All of the one's I've looked have no encyclopedic value. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. It's just a kid using it as personal web space for stuff about their favourite comic book. I see nothing remotely of value in any of it, and would support a block and a deletion of all those pages. I think one MfD for the lot would do - but I'd be tempted to block first and then wait a short while to allow chance for a response. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mfd = bureuacracy. (WP is not). The issue is the pages, not the account, so nuke the pages except the user talk page but don't block the account. NE Ent 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a valid speedy category, but I guess G6 housekeeping might stretch to it? (I'm all for avoiding bureaucracy if we can). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Send it to MfD, (as one large bundled nomination) its unreasonably harsh to just delete the pages without giving the editor a chance to defend them, or transfer the content off wiki, both of which a week at MfD would allow. Monty₈₄₅ 15:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Syria flag replaced with a map? Can an admin undo this?

An admin removed the current Syrian flag (Template:Country data Syria) and changed it to a map of Syria. However, this a BIG mistake, per discussion here and here. Can an admin undo this?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)