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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Harassing, island-hopping IP editor

This individual, who seems to hop IPs every few edits was blocked for similar (although more aggressive) behaviour in November and has long been back with a vengeance. Although this person's editorial mishaps extend beyond mere edit-warring to harassing, I felt it would be easier to single out a single behavioural issue. Also, at Tainan this editor showed his/her true intent of tracking me down by reverting in a non-politically contentious content area. The questionable conduct extends to the 111.243.45.* and 61.219.36.* ranges as well, including outright vandalising of other user's talk pages. It is high time that this person's ranges are executed Wiki-style. GotR ^Talk 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP should be blocked and harassment has not, should not and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And (s)he's back to it again! GotR ^Talk 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected List of cities in China. Vandalism on Makecat's talk page has died down; if it flares up again that talk page should be semi-protected as well. There isn't much else we can do, I think, but an IP-range specialist can maybe figure something out. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(S)he has yet again reverted me without explanation. GotR ^Talk 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reblocked 61.219.36.0/24, but my comments about the other range from the last time still stand. --Rschen7754 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[1] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He has been warned about this various times,[11][12][13][14] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter ^Isotalo 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.

Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably an inappropriate statement, but a quote from elsewhere and about a different person. Still, I would advise Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That kind of blasé comment does not alleviate any concerns, you know.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not be so much concerned about this particular statement to bring the matter to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

These examples are merely to show that Niemti refuses to take feminists like Sarkeesian seriously. This is about campaigning for months to skew the article to fit his own personal preferences, and for choking the talkpage in the process. Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If the comment were isolated it would not be a matter for ANI. However, it's part of a pattern of similar negative and unsourced comments about a BLP along with various other disruptive behaviors that have continued for over two months.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I still do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer ^talkcontribs 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)I've decided to remove my !vote per the comments responding to this and other comments; I thus have no opinion on this issue.Satellizer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Wikipedia these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter ^Isotalo 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It's really simple. Hot Rod Magazine might be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of cars, however it is not a reliable source for the theory of relativity...even if the theory of relativity is applied to cars. Similarly, game journalists might be reliable sources for games, however they are not reliable sources for cultural studies/women's studies/etc...even if those things are applied to games--which is what's going on in this instance. So no, a reliable source for one topic isn't a reliable source for another topic. As mentioned above, failing to get this point (WP:RS) is one of the problems. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Wikipedia; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Echoing DaveFuchs and NE Ent, as I see it there's already consensus that Niemti should not be editing video game articles at all. bridies (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I came from my weekend and I see what. You "should not be editing video game articles at all", too, but also maybe first decide if this is a video game article or not (allegedly it sin't). The article is also using Kotaku, which is a very unprofessional video game tabloid blog (as noted by the acclaimed game director Hideki Kamiya[15]). And you know what's "disruptive"? Not allowing a discussion on talk page, replying with "fucking deal" and such, doing things like this thread. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, amd also I just though about it, and this single-event article should be merged into something like "Women and video gaming controversies" (or some better name, it was quick). Which would also cover the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, the game writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on (who all have no articles on Wikipedia, despite being widely reported, too, including in the mainstream press, and often in the very same articles as Sarkeesian - just google them and you'll see). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a fine example of the incoherent, attitude riddled rantings you tend to muddle discussions with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, also not. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to midirect attention away from your disruptive behavior and towards abstract content issues. That's not going to fly.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Niemti shows no sign of relenting either here or at Sarkeesian's talkpage. He's even calling WP:VG/RS "a joke".[16] And then there's the deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies. Topic ban now, please. Peter ^Isotalo 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has been going on for just a few days. As an uninvolved admin, in my view it would be premature to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's time to move forward with this proposal yet, but Niemti's recent spate of commentary contains more of the same problematic behavior and suggests he has no intention of changing.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because treating Kotaku (a source of such fine "journalism" as this or that) an unconditionally reliable source surely must be a joke. Anyway, I'm done hopelessly trying to initiate a proper (with arguments and counter-arguments, instead of abuse and bullying that I'm getting from you) discussion on the changes with the article (the article that I've previously edited more than anyone else). See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and (of course) I never made a "deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies", and with this bizarrily absurd comment you've just got a taste of what's going on at this talk page. Now I'm unwatching it, like I just unwatched this article, after being central in building it up. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD right after a unanimously opposed RM. We can add WP:FORUMSHOPPING to the list of disruptive behaviors.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough about Kotaku. If you don't like that there's a consensus that it's reliable, start a discussion at WP:VG to change it. The issue at hand here is the edits you're trying to make to this article, and how you handle yourself on the talk page. Neither of those things have anything to do with Kotaku's status of reliability, so it's irrelevant to discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support narrow topic ban -- it's way past the question of right/wrong or POV. Niemti is being moderately rude (which is hardly unusual) and has shown that he is unable to discuss politely and constructively about, at the very least, this specific topic. This isn't "improving Wikipedia" in the slightest, and that should be everyone's main goal. There's no reason to allow this to further devolve into something even worse and there's plenty of other articles that can be improved. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban The problem is evident, even on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - My conclusion after having read the various points put forth by editors here and at the RM is that a topic ban is appropriate in this situation. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per DreamGuy. And frankly I find the comments by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ("get over it" and "get a on with your life!") and even those by Cúchullain (in the way he describes Niemti's comments - which appear to be civil and reasonable - as "he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants") to be way more uncivil and sanction worthy than anything Niemti has said or done.Volunteer Marek 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I highly suggest you take a look at the related RfC and see that RedPen and Cúchullain's comments, while not necessarily excusable, are small potatoes to the majority of Niemti's reported behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't accept that any of my comments, or Red's for that matter, have been uncivil, though I'll gladly tone it down in the future if it takes some edge off the discussion. It also bears reiteration that no one else in the discussion has made unfounded or inappropriate comments about the subject, gone off on tangents irrelevant to actual article improvements, refused to hear it when consensus is against them, or engaged in forum shopping when they don't get their way. That's the issue here; it's not one problem, it's a pattern of behavior.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't believe calling someone's responses "incoherent rants" is uncivil, especially in Niemti's case, where he almost seems to do it on purpose, or uncontrollably. In calmer past situations, I've kindly asked him to slow down and address issues one by one or with more concise responses, because I couldn't understand what he was trying to say, and he simply wouldn't. He's been told he's hard to understand when he responds like this, and he does it anyways, and yet isn't above complaining when no one sides with him. It's not an attack on him, it's merely an observation on how he handles himself. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. I reviewed the diffs as well, and I see a lot of hair pulling over Niemti's responses, some of it uncivil, but nothing worthy of Niemti being TB'ed. Perhaps some new eyes whose owners blood pressure is 120/80 might be helpful at the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo the sentiments of ThomasO1989 and suggest that you take a look at the related RfC about his reported behavioral patterns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I count at least thirteen users, including myself, who have tried to debate Niemti regarding Sarkeesian, a few with a bit more intensity than roughness than necessary, but most of them have engaged with him in a civilized manner. If you want to see a particularly frustrating example of how Niemti has operated, take a look at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian/Archive 2#Dubious. Fifteen posts in 24 hours just in an attempt to hammer home his own views about what "university-level women's studies courses" means. And that's just one of the early ones from back in November. Peter ^Isotalo 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think this is the situation when someone (Niemti) actually does a lot for the project, but he is stubborn, strongly opinionated at article talk pages, and he tells exactly what he thinks. However, the info he actually places in articles is good and comply with NPOV. What I did in such cases is allowing the editor (Niemti) to take a lead with creating the content, and discussing only as much as necessary. He suggests merging at article talk page? That's fine. Simply tell "no" and explain why. No need for a long discussion. He proposes and AfD? That's fine. Just vote "keep" and explain why. Hence my "oppose" above. My very best wishes (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Niemti is clearly driven by a personal disagreement with the basic tenets of gender studies and critical feminist analysis. And all because someone had the nerve to aim it at his favorite form of popular culture, video games. He's certainly not alone in this, and while he's not the kind of person who is sending death threats and anonymous misogynist abuse, his rants has an openly anti-feminist edge that equates analysis of gender roles with extremism and a host of other prejudices about academic media studies. In other words, you're suggesting that he be allowed to engage in activities that don't have anything to do with article improvement. Why exactly should we humor him, or anyone else, in that respect? Peter ^Isotalo 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It was precisely my point that most of his mainspace edits are actually improvement of content (they have everything to do with article improvement), as evident from his successful participation in creation of good articles and his edits in another subject area where I collaborated with him a few years ago. As about rants at article talk pages (if any), it always takes two or more to tango. Tell and justify your opinion one time if this is something like RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
      • We're discussing a topic ban relating to the Sarkeesian article. Niemti's participation there has been extremely negative with little or no improvement. And the RfC suggests there's been disharmonious dealings in the GA process concerning video game articles. So no matter how many good edits there are elsewhere, they don't simply cancel out the looong sting of bad ones relating to feminist media criticism. I'm not sure what you feel you want justified, btw. Can you be more precise? Peter ^Isotalo 19:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the quality of Niemti's article work, or any other content matter, isn't at issue here. The problem is his behavior at the talk page, which has been consistently disruptive on multiple fronts.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. It is my understanding that Niemti voluntarily will not edit article about AS and its talk page [17]. I also assume that he will not edit anything about AS on other pages. I hope this thread can be closed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • His voluntary withdrawal can be revoked whenever he wants, a community topic ban can't. If he'd volunteered to do that at the start it would be different, but effectively cancelling consensus already established for a community topic ban with something voluntary he can choose to cancel at any time (and thus forcing the ban consensus to start again from scratch) seems a little too much like gaming the system. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 01:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought consensus is not determined by head count, but by the quality of argument. So, I am not sure if we have consensus. No, I do not think anyone can revoke their promise. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I am, of course, making my own evaluation of consensus in my comment above, based on the quality of the arguments presented. Whoever eventually closes the thread will make their own evaluation. My point, however, was that it's easy for someone looking at consensus for a ban to make a last minute act of apparent concession to try to mitigate the inevitable outcome. Offering to cooperate at the eleventh hour can easily be seen as a 'save your own hide' kind of thing, and doesn't mean the community automatically accepts that the ban is no longer necessary. Some people may not have faith that he'll be able to abide by it, particularly given his history. – NULL ‹talk›
        ‹edits› 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is pretty common that people on the verge of being banned/topic banned to suddenly volunteer to stop, but as Null said, it's not reason to stop this process, as he can chose to change his mind at any point, where it's not the case with a topic ban. I think it's especially important not to stop this discussion based on past comments Niemti has said. On the talk page, he has alluded to the fact that he may wait until things die down and go at it again, and that he believes since he edits the article more than anyone else in the discussion, his opinion counts for more. Sergecross73 msg me 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to take Niemti at his word, considering his lack of regard for other editors' input over the last two months. However, the bottom line is that he shouldn't touch anything related to Sarkeesian on Wikipedia, voluntarily or otherwise.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. This whole BLP thing is terribly overblown. What Niemti actually suggested was to merge or delete the article. That certainly would not hurt the person. Banning a long term well-intended contributor because of this is over the top. My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The "BLP thing" is certainly an issue, and one of Niemti's making. Taken together, his disparaging and unsourced comments about the subject form a pattern of behavior that shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia (and of course that's on top of all his other disruptive behaviors).Cúchullain ^t/c 14:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Stongly oppose topic ban: As an uninvolved editor, I think it is premature IMHO to go directly to an indef topic ban (without even suggesting 3-month ban), which smacks of forever silencing an opponent in a wp:POV_dispute. Meanwhile, the use of non-wp:RS sources, as mentioned above, indicates that all sides of the dispute should request mediation to use sourced text, or perhaps merge the article for lack of sources which sustain a separate page. Also, should disregard "Support" !votes from involved editors, as this seems an atttempt to force the outcome of a "fair fight" by censuring opponents. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If Niemti was an outspoken creationist who engaged in destructive campaigns for months in an article about evolution, would you also describe a call for a topic ban as "forever silencing an opponent"? Peter ^Isotalo 15:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again, content issues aren't up for discussion here. This proposal is about Niemti's behavior on the talk page, examples of which are highlighted above.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover and Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

User:Tagremover has been using Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner to push his/her POV on the Boeing 787. He/she even resorts to accusing us editors of being biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda. I personally think some action should be taken here, since he/she is abusing the talk page for a reason that is not allowed. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Its true i used some clear, bold language (bleedless > bleed, nightmare) but also newer sources like the established Time magazine use the same. Just to give a short scientific result. Seemed to be too "emotional", although it will get clear if it is read fully it wasn´t meant so.

biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters: I did not mention anyone personally, but this article is somewhat "pro-Boeing". But:

Other Aircraft articles (Airbus) are somewhat biased, too. Its IMHO a common problem in Wikipedia product articles. Losers are articles like TU-144, which have less (russian?) editors. I think this "fight" to mainly write positive about products is NOT good and is not what is meant by Wikipedia:Assume good faith (about the products, of course good faith for editors). I just think it should not even allowed, but it MUST be allowed in Wikipedia to call an article or statement biased. And i wanted to share info to improve this. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Did User:Andros 1337 respect that related to me? Tagremover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I collapsed one forum-type discussion and left a note reminding users that continuing to add commentary, speculation and the like may be disruptive before I was aware of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My reasonable small inline tags: [18] were removed: [19], my critical comments and suggestions were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor of the article, and i was taken to ANI. Remarkable. Please could we stop at least this ? Tagremover (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I must say, Tagremover's edits are very WP: FILIBUSTER-ish, to say the least. Tagemover claims he is adding a "short scientific result", but is instead loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV. When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage, along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters". In my opinion, MilborneOne has every right to collapse that section. It was completely redundant and disruptive. Sadaam Insane (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sadaam Insane makes wrong statements:

• "loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV": Wrong: What, when? Diffs?
• "When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage" I feel insulted. What, when? Diffs?
• "along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters": A user answered;

• "Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it." I answered:
• "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine." [20] Clearly meaning no one personal.

Tagremover (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying our editorial effort on the article suffers from "Too many biased 'America the beautiful' Dreamwriters here." smears the editorial pool for the article in general. Your complaint would have more validity and perhaps be accepted if you were to provide diffs instead of simply making a nebulous, non-specific claim. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

continuance. Regarding the instance you cited above, where you tagged "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as and objected to your "dubious" tag being reverted as evidence of a bias, the fact that Boeing indeed said that is indisputable and is cited. This clearly is an objective, non-biased revert. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I apologize for that earlier outburst. It doesn't take much for me to go off like Joseph Goebbels. I will strike out that section as soon as I remember how to strike out comments (hopefully one of the kind admins will refresh my memory). Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike MilborneOne (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. This crazy anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and i think about solutions to decrease its effects. But changing the brain and believes of humans is not quickly possible. But again: Thanks for thinking clearly.

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "change the brains and believes of humans". Is that what you are trying to do? Because that would fall under the WP:ADVOCACY rubric, which you might want to review. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a longer reply to the others, latest posted in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Takes a little bit longer, is a longer reply. Tagremover (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, ok, i´ve done some research in the history of Dreamliner. Most important first:

I apologize for writing: "Too many biased ......(not repeated)" Also i used the words like a joke and meant nobody personal, it was bad. Sorry.

Wrong accusation by User:Marteau is that i : "smears the editorial pool for the article in general": that was CLEARLY never said and of course never meant.

Correct is: Too many biased edits at Dreamliner. A lot of other aircraft articles are biased, too: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner):

(moved text)

1. 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [21]

Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature.

1. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected
2. User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality.
3. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better.
4. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [22]
5. Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
6. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk.
7. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. (copied)Tagremover (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content mostly tangential to the discussion about Tagremover's conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...." Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different! Are all systems included, for example de-icing? 35% compared to what EXACTLY? An equally modern system isn´t meant: Airbus disputes that. Stop that biased anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing thinking ! Technology has to be understood: But this statement is vague. Reference is OLD (6 years?), a clearly PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, a time diff in which the whole system was constructed in reality. A NEWER ref of EXISTING tech is needed. ...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy. see above. "The total available on-board electrical power is 1.45 megawatts, which is five times the power available on conventional pneumatic airliners...": Sounds not very efficient: Has to be explained/detailed. Advertising primary source Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! "According to Boeing, the 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767" This is a message of MAJOR importance, the KEY reason for the Dreamliner: FUEL-EFFICIENY ! Avoid ANY biasing, it bias the message of the WHOLE article! Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS AIRCRAFT IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! Outdated: [23]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. Clearly ADVERTISING: "super-efficient airplane", "top aerospace companies", "unmatched fuel efficiency", "exceptional environmental performance", "exceptional performance" ...I wouldn´t trust this text a thing. Minimum this section seems to be written by advertising department, sentence with 20% just copied from old text. "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague ! 787 : What version? Vague ! How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague ! But: ANA said 21% fuel savings. [24] But: Tokyo-Frankfort is nearly out of range even for the 767-300ER, an extended midrange-model, must be measured in shorter distances, like North-American east-coast <> Western-Europe. Vague: Per seat, aircraft, or whole payload? And: A350 - direct competitor - not mentioned: Also its preliminary. Results (major message): Reference as unreliable, primary, old, vague and advertising: disputed ! 20% highly questionable (deleted), 21% (ANA) vague. Has to be rewritten! "...the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction" IMPORTANT message. Facts: Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume. Outdated: [25]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight) Result:: Has to be rewritten. Airbus A350 Now i´m not pro-Airbus or somewhat: But the competitor A350: Is not ready Not such a major change in design preliminary data of unready plane So: Easier to believe. But: "with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787": 2006 reference: 787 changed: Outdated: Has to be REWRITTEN ! Tupolev Tu-144 Example for some pro-American or anti-Russian/Soviet bias: Especially the Tu-144D was a really good plane. Not copied from Concorde, but developed out of the Tu-135 variants, the Tu-125 and other not realized projects including Myasishchev variants/projects. Now, where does biasing come from? Its not exactly clear. Chronology: 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [26] Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [27] Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. Low Article quality Especially Aircraft articles seem to consist of quite isolated, ordered sentences; a list of sentences. Also articles contain a lot of info, no real concept or coherent explanation. Talk pages sometimes similar: "Does this isolated sentence comply with the following reference?" This is no real discussion. Improvements Must mainly be done regarding a few editors. Difficult. But this anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and leads to biased, low Article quality. Talk? Discuss?

Remarks

"OK, we do the change: But later, in a few weeks/months, we revert everything and let the Dreamliner article be again the dream of all fans and Boeing." is not good. Tagremover (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting that mass of text which as the comment says is content and not really germane to the issue at hand. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about assume good faith and suggest we didnt need this thread as Tagremover has raised his issues on the talk page, but he edited the article again to add back in the two dubious tags on referenced statements, so we are getting close to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed tags: [28] I just added them a second time (according WP:3RR, update: first revert), placed my reasons on the talk page: NO ANSWER. Removed them. But discuss on talk page. Tagremover (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this [29] together with a lot of edits also of User:MilborneOne on the talk page, but NO contrary statement, as an agreement. Again: Discuss. Give (contrary?) reasons. Tagremover (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: This is IMHO and according to other users (collapsed above) not the right place to discuss article content. First the article talk page should be used. But: My reasons were ignored, and with the result or even intention to take any editor, who tries to remove biased, pro-Boeing statements and is obviously able to discuss, to ANI and get him blocked: WP:GAME.

Again: I propose you or someone else give reasons on the article talk. Discuss.

And: This case should be closed, as it is annoying for me and everybody else taken to ANI without reason or the reason to suppress any removal of bias, see also WP:OWN. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Marteau:

1. It would be nice and easier, if you post your new comments, where they could easily be found: At the end.
2. "change the brains and believes of humans" was directly related to anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war: I am not and will be not the main editor of Dreamliner and even a lot more aircrafts: As i already said, i highly respect for example User:Fnlayson for his great work. So: This are only a few statements which are obviously positive for Boeing, and if the bias (my result) should be removed permanently, editors with a some participation have to agree.
3. I am absolutely open for a discussion. IMHO this could be done on the article talk page; no dispute resolution needed now: The problem is ignorance, not reasons. But if someone thinks dispute resolution is needed and he will participate, of course.

Please, could a nice administrator close this case of WP:GAME and WP:OWN quickly: Also i think it was wrong and aggressive to accuse me here, its wasting my (and others) time as it will not satisfy me if other users get punished for accusing me. And: IMHO everything is said. Thanks in advance. Tagremover (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is violating WP:GAME to impose your anti-Boeing POV. WP:AGF does not apply here since you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Administrators, have this user permanently blocked. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Andros 1337: I hoped we can close this in an friendly manner, but again i am feeling personally and inappropriately attacked. WP:AGF is somehow independent of WP:POINT, which doesn´t fit here. For example: Finally, recent talks about the 787 article content were mostly good and successful. But: some borderline comments.[30] Tagremover (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone else reading this seething pile of ... er, den of ... whatever and thinking "I see a couple of topic bans that could easily drop the drama level down a few notches"?? The level of dismissiveness by one side is startling, but the other side is just as aggressively annoying (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd certainly go with that. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"dismissiveness": You are right, i have done some edits like that, and i am sorry.

It began when i proudly posted my analysis giving exact results - approved by the current events - about the recent incidents of Dreamliner at the talk page, and used some direct, bold language. English is not my motherlanguage; this probably caused additional problems. The analysis was posted with best with best intentions and to start - and somehow enforce - a discussion about the incidents and related article sections. This was unsuccessful, received some aggressive comments, reduced my tone, but it didn't stop.

Posted detailed arguments: But i see there were some words in it which can be seen as dismissiveness. Sorry, i wouldn't justify me with too frankly talking over "bias", again. Sorry.

Again, recent edits are better from both sides. But: Its a lot easier for me, to carefully select words for an article - especially scientific or technology related - then just talking.

Probably this hadn't happened if i had more practice with common speech, and also understand the cultural background better: Couldn't find the right words. Also i tried to be calm, and simply bring in my scientific, engineering knowledge and opinions, it didn't worked. Tagremover (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing a technical analysis of what you think is the problem on the article subject, however the article talk page is not the place to do it. That section was correctly hatted, although I wouldn't have called it a forum style posting so much as it is original research. The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article. There is a very subtle difference between the two. The former is discussing the subject and its details while the latter is not. Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct. The whole point of the article is to describe the 787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus. That would belong in another article like Comparison of Airbus A380 with Boeing 787 Dreamliner so stop bringing that up on the 787 talk page. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please wait, i will give you an detailed answer in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: Please, frankly, is there something in any point or subsection which could get me blocked or topic banned, yes (please give reason(s), best diffs) or no? As this is a complex case, and i see questionable valuations here (see below), i can start a Wikipedia:Editor review/Tagremover, some Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or even Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or do you know anything better?

1. The only section which had only few direct calls for a directly related article content, but included more original research, is [31]. I have already stated a lot about this section, see above, so: Please, frankly,....
2. Now section: [32]: See above: Please, frankly,....
3. Now section: [33]. The only subsection which seemed to be noticed here, but with questionable valuations, is [34]. Your statements:
   1. "The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article.": Partly questionable valuation. See: [35], and [36].
   2. "Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct." See all my arguments. There are special Wikipedia:Dispute resolution about neutrality and reliability of sources.
   3. "...787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus": I never said that.
   4. "And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged.": Please no speculation: My reputation and patience is grilled here enough.
4. My article edits: There were only 1 revert by me, other contributions were accepted. IMHO clearly nothing to get blocked, but: See above: Please, frankly,....

I have given a lot of reasons and answers, see all text above and my history, and i repeat: My reputation and patience is grilled here enough, and i see questionable valuations here, even from admins. If necessary, i start other projects to state that, as i already said, a few talk page edits weren't good, but also: Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that there is no need for additional or even more reliable sources to questionize one. NPOV, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:PRIMARY is here a basic dispute. Tagremover (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more looking at a week-long block for Tagremover for a profound inability to stop editing tendentiously two weeks after his last block for the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: WP:Ignore all rules
2. "..after his last block for the same" Wrong: Edit war/ tag removal.
3. "profound inability to stop editing tendentiously" Wrong. Diffs? Tagremover (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who needs diffs? Every single post you made to this thread proves it. You are obviously incapable of recognizing your own behaviour - and your draft RFARB will quite likely turn into the biggest WP:BOOMERANG on the face of the planet. Probably not a moment too soon (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to echo what BWilkins said. I'm not entirely sure what you were thinking when you included me, Thumperward and The Bushranger on the list. Thumperward and Bushranger are admins while I am not. I certainly am not in any content dispute with you and I certainly have nothing against you personally. However, I, along with a large number of other editors, have been trying to get you to see that what you are doing has not been gaining any traction on the article talk page, i.e. you haven't gained consensus, but you often go back over the same points, repeatedly. This is the very definition of being tendentious and prolonged tendentiousness is disruptive. I'm not here to get you blocked nor am I aiming to push any POV with regards to the article. I had hoped to throw in an outside opinion with the view that you might see what others are seeing you do. If you don't take that on board and get blocked, it's no skin off my back. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"you haven't gained consensus": Look again. But: IMHO you haven't fear anything: Calling someone "tendentious" is too low for wp:npa.

As it is known, i opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes, as i have doubts in getting an appropriate decision here. Hopefully we can wait with any decision here, or even close the case and block me afterwards? Tagremover (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I withdrew from the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes: A decline is clear and i do not want to consume anybodies time. Thank you very much. Tagremover (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

SUMMARY and FINAL STATEMENT by Tagremover:

This very long case is mostly about different opinions at Boeing 787 Dreamliner. The Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner, where opinions should be discussed, is the key thing under investigation, mainly regarding one analysis (original research as discussion entry) and 3 sentences with rewording discussed.

TIMELINE:

At recent incidents of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner i posted an original research on the talk page: [37] to start an discussion. I used a bold language, as the consequences calculated by me were serious, proved by later events [38] and other analysts later joined my results.[39] But this was the main fault: Other editors regarded me as: Anti-Boeing.

I was taken to ANI: [40], done some article edits and posted detailed reasons, why 3 sentences should be reworded.[41] First sentence has an agreement, a second has a proposal.

Although the talk wasn't good and i already apologized above, IMHO there is nothing which needs a block or topic ban for me, else please give reason(s), best DIFFs.

Normally i do not like to discuss articles and therefore do not talk very much: Edit Counter Tagremover (SUBSTRACT exceptionally high 50 article talks for Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner), but felt to be FORCED to talk because i was taken to ANI. Especially in this one i hope talks can be over VERY soon:

1. Someone just have to agree to the proposal of the second sentence or propose something: Don't be vague.
2. Third sentence should be solved.

To make it perfectly clear: My proposals at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner are nothing i insist on: If there is an QUICK agreement: OK, if there is a QUICKER disagreement: Better. ASAP, all facts are listed. If there is some agreement that i should not edit any "Dreamliner" article or talk for about a year or so: I will enjoy following that without any topic ban.

Please don't post a summary of the opinions of others, it will look as an independent opinion. Instead post your own results by especially looking at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Thank you.

Who needs DIFFs ?[42] Wikipedia is based on WP:VERIFIABILITY, imho even regarding blocks or topic bans. I see in this case a problem of minority editors.Where is help for editors if the majority of editors is somewhat biased?

There is some speculation here that i MIGHT do anything worse in the future: Please do not believe and do not speculate. Thank you.

There are some comments here above and below related to my personality which might fulfill even WP:NPA – even by admins; also this might be notable it is independent from the question if i need to be blocked or topic banned for Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

ABOUT ME

I had two blocks: One for edit-war at Fisheye lens, where the other editor was blocked, too: Somehow understandable; mostly i wanted to include minimum one of the imho most notable fisheye lenses: Ultra-wide 220° hemisphere Circular Fisheyes which are the only known ones to look behind – old but much sought-after.[43]

A second recently: For Edit war/ tag removal with the same user at Superzoom, where he placed various tags, proposing even article deletion, (AfD, [44]) at last requesting a reference about the exact definition of the "Super": There is and never will be such a definition, as there is no clear definition for ship or boat, see Talk:Superzoom#Synthesis. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: The most basic one: WP:Ignore all rules: to improve Wikipedia.

These blocks are not questionized: Just trying to avoid being blocked a third time BECAUSE i was blocked twice.

I have been the main editor mostly of technology related articles since many years, first as IP. I am a scientist, an engineer with decades of experience, speaker on and leader of many scientific congresses and events, and you can check the value of my contributions, often to photographic related articles, which is my hobby.(Nokia 808 PureView, Nikon 1 series, often Nikon related because Canon Inc. is stronger in North-America (compared to world-wide) and had "unbalanced" detailed articles) English is not my mother-language. Thank you for investing your time by looking at the facts especially at Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

This extremely lifetime-consuming case is the point of no return: If i am getting blocked or topic banned, i will leave Wikipedia for ever: Aren't there much better things than annoying (WP:NPA) discussions?

Tagremover (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Some updates integrated in summary for coherence: Important in this very long case. Thank you for respecting that. Diff.[45] Tagremover (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC) [46] Tagremover (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the main point is to block your editing, but rather to direct your edits into a more suitable page, which is why I suggested to discuss proposed changes in talk-page "Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/POV" as explained in my note below. Other editors can become frustrated if you suggest too many changes too fast for their comfort zone, so using another page to debate changes might allow for smoother talks. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"If i am getting blocked or topic banned, i will leave Wikipedia for ever" ... do not ever play the "if I don't get my way, I'm leaving" game (not just on Wikipedia, but anywhere in life). That's childish, ridiculous, and prevents you from saving face in any way, shape or manner later. It is one of the most WP:DIVA-ish, bullshit ultimatums available, and the usual answer is "with an attitude like that, we probably don't want you anyway" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That falls into the same category as the "I donated money to Wikipedia! You have to let me have my way!" sort of comments. Blackmane (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really relevant side discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Recommend using a 787 POV talk-subpage: This whole situation is apparently a wp:POV_Dispute, with numerous details being discussed, and seen as cluttering the 787 talk-page. Instead, I suggest to use a talk-subpage, such as "Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner/POV" and link that page in a top tag-box of the article, using Template:POV_dispute. It is common for some people, overwhelmed by detailed discussions, to view a long debate as being "wp:tendentious" when it is merely very "tedious" to document all the aircraft-technology issues which might be considered slanted to one side of a wp:POV_dispute. So, instead, by moving the debate into a talk-subpage (such as "Talk:.../POV" or similar name), then extensive analysis of bias in sources can be debated, perhaps using "10 threads" in the talk-subpage to settle each of 10 major issues of alleged bias in the article. We should not hound User:Tagremover for expressing numerous viewpoints, but instead, use a subpage with ample space to carefully address numerous issues. The word "encyclopedia" means "all-encompassing" and that is often far more tedious than many people wish were the case. Use talk-subpages to keep the highly-detailed debates from cluttering the main article talkpage. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The reason that editors tend to consider editors who repeatedly post walls of text and ignore what they're being told to be tendentious is because they are. Given your considerable history of blocks and restrictions along the same lines, including at least one topic ban still in place (unless you've been let off your Meredith Kercher topic ban and that hasn't been reflected in your talk archives), you'd think you'd be more aware of what consituted tendentious editing than average. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The topic bans against me, re Meredith Kercher, were not for "tendentious editing" but rather a feeling that I was "disparaging" other users when I said the progress in updating the article was "slow" (which someone twisted to mean "slow thinking" or such). Remember that I was advocating to split the article, to have subarticle "Amanda Knox" (re-re-created later), and prepare the article to describe the acquittal of Knox and her one-week boyfriend, Sollecito, while several other editors did not even think the article should explain how the convictions would be overturned (despite many wp:RS sources explaining that), and I was viewed as moving far too fast and disturbing (or disrupting) the status quo of the article and those editors. When Knox/Sollecito were both acquitted in October 2011, then I was proven right about the need to note the acquittals in the article and acknowledge the separate notability of Knox; however, the basic issue is to not go faster than many people are prepared to change at a specific time, which I only realized later after September 2010. Often, the best place to discuss numerous proposed changes is in a subpage, as less of a disturbance to other editors who want to proceed more slowly. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC) At risk of veering off-topic for this discussion about Tagremover, here is a link to Wikid77's topic ban discussion from June 2011. Wikid77, aren't you breaching that ban right now by discussing the case here? --John (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

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

---

This grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

• Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here --Guerillero | My Talk 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article talk page and the section Didymus started on tommorris's talk, I'm not encouraged that Didymus understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work. This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a PR center, nor is it a shouting contest. NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from, all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him. Didymus's repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him. I would support, at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of responding to all of these posts re "WP:NPOV," "Topic ban (Didymus)," & "A sidenote" in one post, I am going to respond to the posts one at a time for ease of reading/discussion.

1. fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to support the above stated opinion that I do not "understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work," That it "isn't a courtroom," "nor is it a PR center," "nor is it a shouting contest."

2. fluffernutter posits that: "NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from..."

3. fluffernutter does not respond to my above grievance.

4. WP:NPOV clearly supersedes WP:CONS because it states: "The principles upon which this 'policy' is based cannot be superseded by other 'policies' or ... 'by editors' consensus'." WP:CONS clearly is an "English Wikipedia 'policy'." There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this"policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. This does "not" mean that WP:CONS is "not important," & fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s ) to show that I do not believe this.

5. fluffernutter goes on to characterize my conduct as: "all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him." I, in return will not characterize fluffernutter's conduct as "complaining very loudly" as it serves no purpose.

6.. fluffernutter implies that I am "repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him," yet provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to show I am "biased."

7. fluffernutter supports "at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was. Thank you very much. 166.205.55.23 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

Topic ban (Didymus)

User:Didymus Judas Thomas's editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. The consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary. His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS. I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support sounds reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• I almost forgot about this until... Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support At the very least. I did the Google search proposed by Tom Morris above, and it's obviously the same person. Seems obsessed by this topic and probably a COI. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --John (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same. Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them. We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them". Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Is it possible, Nstrauss, that you're misunderstanding what a topic ban is? It's not a block or a technical limitation of Didymus's ability to contribute; it's just a way to redirect him to an area where he doesn't get into so much trouble. Most editors regard a block as significantly more harsh a punishment than a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence suggests not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I just noticed that Didymus has been editing for less than two months and has worked exclusively on that article. Don't WP:BITE the newbie. A permanent topic ban would probably cause him to leave the project. That may be an appealing prospect to some but it wouldn't serve the editor retention cause. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as an involved editor. This editor has turned this area and the talk page into a near impossible place to edit collaboratively. Learning how to edit Wikipedia in an area outside would likely be a benefit, and also stop the disruption in this area. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• 1. Tom Morris, I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & Tom Morris provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing.

2. Tom Morris, I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [55] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [56] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's [57] [58] and (PDF's) [59][60]

3. Tom Morris postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support.

4. Tom Morris posts: "I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was.

5. After my grievance was blocked I gave Tom Morris the opportunity to respond to it [61] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.40 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

What's wrong with a temporary topic ban of, say, 30 days? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as why 30 days won't be useful, Nstrauss, let me put it to you this way: read Didymus's contributions to this thread. Do you see any sign, any at all, that he's open to being corrected or that he'll operate or believe any differently 30 days from now, whether he's removed from the topic or not? Or does it sound a whole lot like he's dug in, sure he's right, doesn't plan to change, and in fact plans to go down swinging? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We won't know unless we try. He's never experienced the swift justice of AN/I. :p --Nstrauss (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nstrauss posts: "Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated?"

I agree with Nstrauss. Nstrauss seems to be the only one (of possibly a few) of the Administrators / Experienced Editors up to this point of the discussion who in "good faith" has not gone over the top.

Please "educate" me on WP:NPOV, especially those of you familiar with WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6):

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,". Thank you very much. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

• Alexbrn posts: "The evidence suggests not."

Alexbrn, you were the first one who had the opportunity to explain WP:NPOV. Why didn't you "in good faith" do so when you had the opportunity to do so & provide [WP:NPOV]], WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6) support?

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," references in support of your position? Thank you very much. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

• Nstrauss posts: "No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time."

I agree with Nstrauss: ""Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. "

I somewhat agree with Nstrauss. I'm a slightly clueless NPOV pusher because up to this point no volunteer editor, experienced editor, or administrator has in "goof faith" addressed the grievance issue & provided any example of WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, &/or the "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6).

Guerillero; who blocked my editor grievance, was given the opportunity to respond: [62]

• Tarc, posted on Guerillero's Talk page, & was given the opportunity to respond. (Content # 5) [63]

Tarc posted: “The problem with your analogy is that on a sports team the two ides are equal, in that both take the field with the same opportunities to advance, score, and win.

Here, the two sides are not equal. We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.

Here, the two sides are not equal.

We have a word that is widely used to describe a particular prejudicial belief, and we have a tiny handful of people off to one side who don't like it.

WP:NPOV doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table".

If you're so fond of analogies...we're at the main Thanksgiving table in the dining room, while you're at the kids' fold-out table next to the kitchen."

Tarc used quotes on some statements, so I thought WP:NPOV was being cited / referenced, so I questioned it.

Tarc, I do not see: "...doesn't mean "everyone gets a seat at the table", it means "everyone of significance gets a seat at the table" on WP:NPOV.

Exactly where are those quotes from on WP?

Because I did a search on WP & did not find either one.

However, I do find: "1 Explanation of the neutral point of view."

"This page in a nutshell:"

"Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias."

"This applies to both what you say and how you say it."

"Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another."

"As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all notable and verifiable points of view."

WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by sources."

[WP:NPOV]] "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6). "The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," references." Thank you very much. 166.205.55.30 (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013lj

I object to the below characterization as being biased & personal opinion. Thank you. 166.205.55.18 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Unreadable copy/paste rehashing of numerous comments by multiple other editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Guerillero posts: "Support sounds reasonable". Guerillero was given the opportunity to respond to my grievance after it was blocked, [64] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.28 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 fluffernutter posts: "Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area." 1. I take it, fluffernutter, in "good faith," might not have read my grievance since fluffernutter requested that I post my grievance though my grievance was clear from the difs I provided (Content # 20.) [65] 2. fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" does not recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [66] 3. fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" claims COI, but provides no proof of WP:COI Thank you very much. 166.205.55.35 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 Seb az86556 posts: "I almost forgot about this until... Support" 1. Seb az86556 posted, I take it in "good faith:". "Wrong venue; use dispute resolution... though this was an editor grievance (CONTENT # 20) [67] and WP:DR resources indicated: "This is not a place to report editor behavior or other conduct related issues..." "For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard." 2. I had already filed a separate action on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard re the Article, which was ignored. [68] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.28 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 2/22/2013 1. Dave Dial indicates "probably a COI" but provides no proof of WP:COI. 2. Dave Dial, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my User Talk page WP:COI statement [69] at the bottom. 3. Dave Dial, I take it, in "good faith," doesn't recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [70] John posts: "Support per all above." 1. John, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my posts not exactly complementary to SRB on google. 2. John, I take it, in "good faith," doesn't recognize my request; for information not exactly complementary to SRB, to be added to the Article (Content # 14.) [71] 3. John, I take it, in "good faith," ignores my User Talk page WP:COI statement [72] at the bottom. 4. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris' postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support by John. 5. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris' I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [73] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [74] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's) [75] [76] and (PDF's) [77] [78] 6. John, I take it, in "good faith," supports Tom Morris', I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & John provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Fluffiernutter posts: "Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute." Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" & civility, characterizes my conduct as "badgering" but provides no support for such a claim. [79] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 Nstrauss posts: "(Non-administrator observation) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no?" I think some individuals on here are making a mountain out of a molehill as I have stated: "I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was." Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013 Nstrauss posts: "(Non-administrator observation) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here?" No, this is "not" what we have here, as if that was the case any of the numerous editors acting as gatekeepers for the Article had every opportunity to raise this issue since I started posting 12/2/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didymus Judas Thomas (talk • contribs) 04:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC) fluffernutter posts: "Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same." fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" provides no proof of what is meant by "disruption," & cites no WP policy in support, so that this claim can be addressed in "good faith." Disruptive editing? Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Disruptive user? DisruptTalk? I'm not sure how fluffernutter expects generic statements to be responded to in " good faith." Nor am I sure how fluffernutter expects WP:NPOV; which is the grievance subject, to be discussed in "good faith" when fluffernutter does not provide an opinion of what WP:NPOV means. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" does not mean what it says, what does it mean? "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." What is "neutral point of view" if it's not what it says it is? "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." What does "nonnegotiable" mean if it's not what it says it means? "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as part if the "three core content policies?" "The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as "[t]he other two?" "These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS? "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." What "other policies" is this referring to if its not referring to WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS ? What does "cannot be superseded" "by editors' consensus" mean? If no Administrator or Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you? fluffernutter posts: "Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them." fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" believes that after my editor grievance was blocked, that I was advised it had been unblocked, yet provides no proof of this & again provides no proof of "badgering" or what it is. Fluffernutter posts: "We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them." Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith" provides no example. Fluffernutter posts: "Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith," does not indicate where there has been any "informal discussions" of my editor grievance. Fluffernutter, I take it, in "good faith," has not discussed: WP: NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." What does "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" mean? What sides? Only your side? Only the side you agree with? If no Administrator or Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you? Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013 Nstrauss posts: "There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. " I note that no post that I have read up to this point from an Administrator or Expert Editor has mentioned anything in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial WP:NPOVT in support of the position that has been posited re WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2003 Alexbrn posts: "(Non-administrator observation) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn" Alexbrn, I take it, in "good faith," you are able to answer the below questions re WP:NPOV, which is the grievance subject? "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" does not mean what it says, what does it mean? "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects." What is "neutral point of view" if it's not what it says it is? "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." What does "nonnegotiable" mean if it's not what it says it means? "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as part if the "three core content policies?" "The other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS as "[t]he other two?" "These three core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles." What does this mean since it does not mention WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS? "Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three." "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." What "other policies" is this referring to if its not referring to WP:CONS or WP:MEDRS? What does "cannot be superseded" "by editors' consensus" mean? WP: NPOV "This page in a nutshell: Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." What does "Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without bias" mean? What sides? Only your side? Can you cite anything in the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial WP:NPOVT in support of the position that has been posited re WP:NPOV ? If you , no Administrator or no Expert Editor is able to provide the answers to these questions, why can't you? How am I to accept you are acting in "good faith" if you are unable to explain this so that I can in "good faith" apply the policy? This is not a threat but a fact. If I proceed to WP:M mediation or WP:AP arbitration, this will be the issue. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 07:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

A sidenote

In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus), is anyone interested in teasing out what's going on in the history of User:Houseac, where a couple of SPAs and the aforementioned IP/Didymus have been active? I can't find a connection between the subject of that fake article and the clinic Didymus was so interested in. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what's going on there. I'd love to know though. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the IP appears to belong to a wireless (mobile phone) company, it's entirely possible the two users have nothing to do with each other other than using the same cell network. It's not impossible that there's a connection, but the confluence of IPs doesn't necessarily show much of anything, since wireless IPs tend to be dynamic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Drmies posts: "In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus)."

Drmies, after looking at the page, I have no idea what you are referring to re: "identifying themselves as your client Didymus)." Thank you. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Another sidenote

I'm leaning towards having to seriously look at WP:CIR in this instance... Didymus, can you be more concise and less utterly incomprehensible here? Pretty please? — foxj 15:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I have no horse in this race at all, despite this guy thinking that I do. What happened is that Guerillero quoted a post of mine concerning NPOV during the course of a discussion on his (Guerillero's) talk page. This guy seems to interpret this as if I had directly participated in the discussion, and is now getting all ronery that my direct quote about turkeys and Thanksgiving tables cannot be found on any WP:* policy page. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• fox, re your "Didymus, can you be more concise and less utterly incomprehensible here?"

I am quoting directly from WP:NPOV, WP:NPOVT, & the "History of NOPV."

If you find that "utterly incomprehensible," than unfortunately I can't help you if you don't understand it.

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered," [WP:NPOV]] "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6). Thank you very much. 166.205.55.24 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/21/2013

You need not indent so often. You need not finish all of your statements with "thank you very much" as though you are scanning my shopping at a grocery store. You need not write out your name after typing ~~~~. Taking this advice will allow others to communicate with you much more clearly. If you cannot communicate with others clearly - something that is of utmost importance to a project like this - then I can't see any way forward here. — foxj 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Tarc, no, it is obvious that I question the statements of yours in quotes. I guess G should not have just copy/pasted your post onto the User Talk page without removing your name. Thanks. 166.205.55.24 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/23/2013

Blocked

Ironholds has indef-blocked User:Didymus Judas Thomas under WP:COMPETENCE, and also blocked 166.205.55.24 short-term under same. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to harp on this but was that really the appropriate remedy? His comments were really, really hard to read and annoying but there were nuggets of logic embedded in them. Would not a temporary ban/block plus a stern education (along the lines of Foxj's comment) have done the trick? Or putting him in mandatory WP:AAU or somesuch? Aside from the fact that if editors are going to be indeffed for WP:CIR then perhaps WP:CIR should be promoted to policy status... or at least guideline status... --Nstrauss (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, people appear to have been talking to him for days. The response is generally 'YOU ARE WRONG AND HERE IS AN ESSAY AS TO WHY'. It's nothing to do with how annoying his comments are; it's to do with the fact that every comment is a refusal to accept why his contributions are problematic. That's pretty good evidence that mentoring wouldn't work; it requires the willingness to confront an issue and move on from it. That's the competence he lacks. Ironholds (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I feel bad for the guy but I also feed bad for the folks who've battled him for the last 2 months. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Viriditas at Talk:Burrito

In an ongoing discussion regarding bold changes to content restructuring, content removal, and re-reversions (1, 2), at the article Burrito, Viriditas has indirectly accused myself of sock-puppetry, with this edit. In the edit he/she claims that Biancles is an SPA. This is the latest reply, in what I have considered a series of uncivil replies made by Viriditas (please see the candidate page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1 (which still requires an additional certifier) for further information). This discussion, already had a third opinion (by Go Phightins!), and RfC to receive additional editors opinions in an attempt to build a consensus. Up until this (what I believe is) NPA, I had repeatedly asked for civility, and was attempting to start an RfC/UC; however, due to the NPA. I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional accusations of puppetry and incivility While I have no beef (well I hope it's beef) in this burrito article (for the record I love S.F. burritos), I too have experienced recent unpleasantries with Viriditas being uncivil and accusing others of puppetry. In a unrelated burrito & Viriditas matter, I politely asked another user on their talkpage to be more careful about using "vandalism" in edit summaries when reverting edits. Viriditas joins the conversation and accuses me of editing on behalf of a "block sock puppet". Then further on in the conversation Viriditas makes a completely unfounded and grossly offensive statement that I have "been on an anti-LGBT crusade for Christ". I assume being called a homophobe is a violation of WP:NPA. I also personally find the statement claiming I'm doing something on behalf of any religion repugnant (my apologies to editors of faith in advance, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your beliefs). Despite Viriditas requesting me not to post on his talk page, I ignored his request in light of his gross accusations and warned him with a template. His response was to delete the warning (no big deal), however his edit summary once again made another accusation of puppetry stating "What part of "banned from my talk page" don't you understand sock?". I had some email conversations with another editor about this incident, and as a result of those discussions and some passing time I decided to take no action. However I see that this is not an isolated incident. I don't know what administrative action should be taken here, but at the very least Viriditas should be admonished for this behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, looking back, is not the first statement made by Viriditas that could be considered an Ad hominem argument which falls under WP:WIAPA. The initial re-reversion came after this statement:

We don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT.

This reversion of a reversion, did not abide by WP:BRD. I replied to this by asking for civility, as at that point I continued to assume good faith. Therefor this makes, IMHO, two events where Viriditas had posted something that falls within WIAPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The aforementioned RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1, is proposed for deletion, "Uncertified RFC/U after 48 hours". However, the RfC policy says "Any RFC/U not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours"; it does not say that it needs to be certified within 48 hours, and the RfC makes a claim that more than one user tried and failed to resolve the dispute, though there is as yet no second certified. As such, I am unwilling right now to delete it since I don't think the letter of the law says I should. A second opinion from an admin would be welcome; there do appear to be concerns about Viriditas's behavior, though I cannot judge the validity of such claims--I'll err on the side of caution since, as far as I know, RightCow and Rosetta are not trolls. For the record, I also like burritos, though for some reason they remind me of sepositories. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC is gone now. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, is it possible to undue the deletion? Although all the content can be found through searching through the history of the article, its talk page, and the talk page of Viriditas, the work done to create it already alleviates the need to do much of that searching. This will assist non-involve editors in quickly looking at the history of the discussion, and the issues I believe have occured.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against restoring the RfC; I did read it before deleting it, and I couldn't see anything that is worthy of an RfC, which is probably why nobody would certify it within the time limit. Why not just continue to discuss the matter in article talk? Or not; it's hardly an earth-shaking issue you are in dispute over. --John (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the RfC and I agree with John on its content. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my first try at formating an RfC/UC, I sincerely hope that the events in question were not lost due to my poor formatting. Moreover, I hope that I rarely (if ever) have to create another one. Ideally all editors whom I happen to discuss content with will not require an RfC/UC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIVIL  I added Viriditas' talk page to my watch list after an incident, and regularly see personal attacks used to remove edit comments.  I support the call for an admin warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have not accused RightCowLeftCoast of any sock puppetry. He has apparently misunderstood my comments as well as most of the discussion on the talk page, including: how we use appropriate sources (not poems that you find in a Google search!) what constitutes original research (we don't add source A and source B together to come up with content C), how verifiability helps us choose content (if we can't verify what a source says we usually can't use it if there is a dispute), and more importantly, how to resolve disputes on the talk page (it means actually discussing the topic not asking others to answer for you or relying on the answers of others). In response to all of these questions, he has made repeated accusations of incivility rather than engage in the discussion. This pattern tends to look like WP:IDHT after a while. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a board to discuss content dispute, but editor's actions. I believe that I have responded by attempting to refute the points brought up, by explaining the guidelines and policies as I understand it, and so far there is a plurality of editors who have stated that I have and for the most part agreed with me. I have gone through dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion, and began an RfC which has lead to the plurality that I have stated above. When faced with comments that I believe were uncivil I kindly asked that incivility ceased, only for continued incivility. I had hoped that it would not come to this, however after two instances that IMHO fall under WP:WIAPA...

Regardless, if I am not accused of sockpuppetry, it is still bad form to address that statement by Biancles as a SPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you've tried very, vey hard to turn into a conduct dispute by ignoring the questions and points raised in the discussion and accusing me of incivility over and over again. To me, this is a case of IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet I have not ignored questions, and points, and have answered them. Others have stated, not just Biancles, that I have done so. However, at the same time I have had several replies which IMHO are uncivil, and have been accused of IDHT and not answering the questions and points posted by Viriditas.

Based on what others have posted IDHT is not the case, therefore please stop making the false accusation. If Viriditas believes IDHT still occurs, may I say sorry in advance for any misunderstanding this may cause, as I have done in the past I will continue to reply and answer questions and points (even if others believe I am not).

As I said before, it is OK for us not to agree, as long as we remain civil. As I have said, since we did not disagree I followed the dispute resolution (3O & RfC) process and a consensus was formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous thread and it's implausible that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please expand, I would like to know why any editor is above any action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But, that's not what he said or implied. This is another example of your continuing misreading of comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What is implied? This is why I am asking for an expansion of comment, for clarification. What about this thread is ridiculous? What is meant by "it's implausable that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas"? What is implausible, that admin action will occur, or that admin action will occur that reflects upon Viriditas, something else?

I would have liked to avoid all this. This could have been done through civil discussion; yet here we are.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why any editor is above any action No one is above any action, but your alleged question is a simple example of "Begging the question", where it assumes that there is some action that needs to be taken. And "we" are here because you chose (unnecessarily) to be here, so you really shouldn't be talking about how you wanted to avoid anything. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I meant. When I say I would have liked to avoid all this, I mean I would have liked it if Ad hominem arguments made against me did not happen, I mean I would have liked it if the conversation on the Burrito Talk Page was civil, I mean if those two things did not occur, the situation would have never arose that lead me to starting this discussion. I hope this is more clear.

I had tried to ask (multiple times) Viriditas to be civil. I had went through the dispute resolution process(es) that has established the present consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The word "ridiculous" is defined at wiktionary as "Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd."  The use of such language does not befit a collegial atmosphere.  The use of such language should inure to the originator.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that this thread is "ridiculous" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

So far, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. The only comment actually calling anyone a sock was in removing a generic warning template placed by User:Little_green_rosetta (whom Viriditas had previously asked not to post to his Talk page.) That was somewhat inappropriate but, given he wanted no contact from the editor, Viriditas was understandably upset at having a template slapped on his Talk by someone he wanted no contact with. And, given that this was from December 27, I don't think it qualifies as an "incident" needing immediate action. A troutslap is about all that would be warranted.

I haven't got time at the moment for a details combing through contributions to see if the accusations of meatpuppetry are valid or not, so I'll refrain from comment there. It does warrant some investigation to see if those comments are appropriate. If nothing else, there's a possible WP:BOOMERANG here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in WP:CIVIL are there allowances such that an editor who is "understandably upset" can call another editor a "sock"?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You stipulate that you have no evidence, yet by using the word "boomerang" suggest that RCLC is under suspicion of meatpuppetry.  Your point in doing so escapes me.  Here is a better question, in the circumstance, what was an appropriate response from Viriditas?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Viriditas could certainly consider not immediately jumping fown the throats of editors working on said article (when last I worked on that article, it was implied to me that there were geographic qualifications required to edit it), but there's now an RfC on the content in question and ideally that discussion can continue without all the bad faith. The accusations regarding LGR and proxy-editing are mostly separate from that, and should be addressed independently (preferably by Viriditas, Binksinternet et cetera actually taking the matter to SPA rather that casually referring to an editor as a sock and a POV pusher all over the place). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not a sock puppet. I'm just a new, not-very-active user. I know a sock puppet would say they're not a sock puppet, so I'm not sure what else to say here. Biancles (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Cantaloupe2, assuming bad faith, Wikistalking, misinterpreting policies

User:Cantaloupe2 has recently decided to Wikistalk me and remove a large amount of content that I have added based on misinterpretation of policies and fringe theories on policies that he conceived himself. After disagreeing with me on my talk page, the user decided to head off to iPad (4th generation) and remove a large amount of content that I have added and claim that it violates policies by cherry picking bits of information and rewording perfectly fine sentence to suit his "writing style". 1 User is currently misinterpreting the WP:CLAIM policy and removing every single instance of the word even though the policy clearly states that care should be taken, not remove upon first sight. Similarly, he cherrypicked information on the iPhone 5 article and claims that I'm misinterpreting the matter or that what I've written wasn't in the source when it undoubtedly is. Latest example of this is in this edit 1. This matter has been occurring for four months now and frankly I'm sick of this user altering or removing everything I insert into articles when there isn't a problem with it. More example of this user's disruptive behaviour includes not assuming good faith, an example of which includes the user claiming that I've vandalised an article when I clearly removed copyedited content by accident.

• Talk:iPhone 5#stock prices - User believes a claim isn't represented in the reference when it is.
• User claims I vandalised when I clearly made a good faith mistake
• Talk:IPhone 5/Archive 1#Bias in wording Claims I'm deliberately playing a cat and mouse game by replacing the word ass with arse, neither are offensive in my opinion but Cantaloupe begs to differ.
• User is now claiming that I'm deliberately adding bias information when I'm trying to portray the information as neutral as I can. See my talk page for more details on that.
• Uncountable number of times when he removed content based on his misinterpretation of policy
• Claims what I wrote is interpretative when it clearly isn't while citing irrelevant policies based on his misinterpretation. 1
• Repeated asserts that I or the editor who cited references did so with the intention of boosting traffic to their site. See [80] Believes editors deliberately introduced links to promote their website even though the links were considered relibale - Search for the term "traffic" Again accuses editors who cited a certain source that is considered reliable of having a commercial interest when none was proven
• I understand this verges on assuming bad faith but I'm almost certain that the Cantaloupe2 is attempting to sabotage my GA nominations. The user made extremely controversial edits right after a reviewer committed him/herself to assessing the article and after showing no signs of further contributing to the article for several weeks. Edits that this user made after a reviewer committed themselves include removing large amounts of information that was unsuccessfully discussed before the issue became stale as Cantaloupe decided not to respond to the latest comments/replies. Article was stable for weeks before Cantaloupe returnedAgain article was stable for about a week and a half before Cantaloupe returned to make more controversial edits that affected the stability of the article, many of the issues that were raised by him then, could have been put forth weeks or even months ago yet Cantaloupe brought it up at the last minute.

Honestly, I don't want to discuss matters with this user on talk pages as it will take weeks or even months to finalise as evident on the iPhone 5 article. User also seems to have a battleground mentality, once he is unable to support his claims any further, he will move on to using other tactics to get the content removed, clearly indicating he wants to win an argument for the sake of it. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#iFitit YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been voiced by another editor that he/she felt you were unwilling to allow your version to get changed. I think that YumaNuma has a territorial mentality on articles as if they're his articles, in particular iPad and iPhone products. Here is the concern.

Overlapping article contributio as "Wikistalking" is a poor accusation.

this edit is WP:UNCIVIL, because

“ take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere ”

is personal attack.

Typically this user competes against my edit until a third editor comes along and specifically acknowledge agreement with my edit.

He continues to exhibit edit warring tendencies.

• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Revert 3

my first revert

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said many times in the past, I have the right to defend content that I have added, and in most cases the most stable version should be retain as per the BRD; You boldly remove content, I revert and provide a reason, you're expected to discuss it before making further changes. Actually, to this date, no one has fully agreed with your changes on the iPhone 5 article, generally we were able to reach an agreement by coming to a compromise. Also it appears that I'm not the only one who has an issue with you removing content that's supported by valid sources, you have been to ANI five times in the past and brought to RSN a countless number of times for your interpretation of policies and controversial ideas of what constitutes a reliable source. It's interesting how you cited a sockpuppet as evidence for my alleged edit warring behaviour, using his old account, that user had a lengthy debate with me on the iPad (3rd generation) article, hence it's obvious that he has some remaining bias against me. A detail account of what happened can be found in his sockpuppetry investigation. 1 Despite this ongoing ANI case, the Cantaloupe is now attempting to use the 3RR to his advantage by once again reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (In regards to Cantaloupe's revision to his comment)It must be a huge coincidence that 15 minutes after you commented on my talk page, you made huge edits to an article that was listed on my user page - assuming that you spent time reading the article, the timing is perfect, hence my accusation is appropriate. Furthermore this user has been accused of WikiStalking other editors, an example of which includes User:M0rphzone who came to my talk looking for assistance after Cantaloupe2 Wikistalked him across several articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut your snark with addressing me "the Cantaloupe". "fully agree" is also known as "unanimous" and it is not a requisite, because we work by consensus. WP:BRD you cite is only an ESSAY. Interesting you keep track of how many times I go to noticeboards. Perhaps you're the one following me around huh? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, address your snark with cutting the cantaloupe. The debate could turn into a melon-drama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY. (Whoops, WP:ATA is only an essay too...) Just because it's "only an ESSAY" (and please don't shout like that, it doesn't help your case) is irrelevant when it's well-established process. Also, "fully agree" =/= "unanimous". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They agreed to a compromise, not with your actual edit. (Sorry for the confusion but by fully agreed, I meant that no editor has agreed with the alterations in your first bold edit and a compromised had to be reach) BRD is a widely accepted essay nonetheless, pointlessly claiming that an article that I have cited is an essay is not going to help your case, as you're clearly WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM with your most recent edits on the iPad 4 article. Furthermore your accusation is actually quite laughable, have you even read WP:HOUND? you should have because you've been accused of it a few time. To make things clear for you, knowing the past history of an editor does not constitute hounding, nor does monitoring the contributions of an editor without intervening. Sorry for referring to you as "The Cantaloupe", naturally I associate that word with a fruit not person - and no that was not a snarky comment, I seriously meant it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2 is becoming a problem across a number of unrelated articles, and all those other editors involved are finding much the same problems. Can those looking at this issue from outside please take a look broadly (the edit history is pretty narrow), not just at this one case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley's observation above. I have been a victim of Cantaloupe2 for about a month now where he has been WP:Hounding me in the well defined sense. I will be supplying diffs to demonstrate this later, when I have the time. Complaints to him have not resulted in any change of his WP:WikiLawyering battleground behaviour. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous complaint is this where I attempted to point out that after having his edits disputed Cantaloupe2 apears to pursue temper tantrum behaviour and attempts to flood articles with flags and edits to provoke the disagreeing editor, making the articles look amateurish and unreadable. here is an example in his edit history after locking horns with two different Candadian editors disagreeing with his edits. He has been told repeatedly by many editors that he is not WP:COMPETENT in many of the subjects he edits and inserts nonsense. Here is another article where he hounds another editor each edit. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not leave out assumption of bad faith accusation of "genocide" in the ANI title which another editor had to edit. You also inappropriately accused me of canvassing and directed me to not inform another user that he was being discussed and you labeled him "hostile user", which is highly contentious and such disparaging reference constitutes personal attack. And at this point, you're leaving notes on others talk pages which contradicts your own contention. What about your public repository of various contentions against various editors on your wiki talk page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Sheldon Brown, please explain why you're providing a 2006 diff. Following around interrelated articles by see alsos/external links is not even remotely relevant to WP:HOUND. It is correct that I do follow things around by topic. Your contention that I am following around by the editor is unsubstantiated. Topical following is perfectly legitimate.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the 2006 diff is just a mistake. Perhaps he meant this, this, or this. Just guessing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound melodramatic but as indicated above, Cantaloupe has intimidated many users through his irrelevant use and misinterpretation of policies. Also as above, he has hounded numerous editors and has been brought to ANI time and time again for it. As evident in his latest behaviour, he has clearly not learnt his lesson and continues to persist in conducting his poor behaviour. All he probably has learnt is how to get around the policies and how to intimidate other by citing policies that are not relevant to his case. I've lost count of how many times Cantaloupe used WP:NPA or WP:INCIVIL to get his point across instead of arguing the pertinent issue. Personally I resisted reporting him as I thought he would actually learn from his lessons and "act more moderate", however that clearly isn't the case. Cantaloupe wikistalking me was the last straw. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is used in reference to support your contention that I'm "misinterpreting policies" ? is it your interpretation or an establish community consensus? Please link the latter. If it's the former, its merely differences in opinion and the accusation of misinterpretation is a cheap jab. In the "ass" "arse" game, you striking out the English variant and replacing with British variant can be construed as disruptive inflammatory editing and you're encouraging combative editing with uncivil, hostile personally directed edit comment saying my edits are delusional.

Fact: You and I edited the article iPhone 5. I have also edited an article or two on iPads, which are all devices from Apple running iOS, topical relations. You contend that I'm following you. From the way you responded during GA process for iPhone 5, it comes across to me as these are YOUR articles that YOU own. Saying that I happen to edit in two similar topic articles is stalking is contentious presumption of hounding. Please demonstrate your accusation that I'm following you by your edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More recently you're removing every instance of the word "claim" even though the policy clearly says that the word should be used with care, not remove it upon first sight, this applies to other MoS guidelines as well. You removed content that isn't verify by scientific analysis and since that strategy has failed to assist you in removing content, you moved onto removing or tagging content that is anecdotal even though it's supported by reliable references and no policy states that anecdotal claims must be removed, it needs to be analysis on a case by case basis. According to RSN, and the iPhone 5 talk page, others disagreed with your opinions on what is considered a reliable source and stated that common sense is required when interpreting and analysing sources. To date, you have failed to explain or provide me with a reason why "cover their asses" is considered offensive to you, despite this I have apologised. I also requested an apology from you for devaluing my comment by saying I'm "spurting off", however I have yet to receive one. In regards to ownership of articles, I welcome contributions and copyedits as many have done before but when content is removed, I have the right to challenge it, I fail to see why you can't understand and distinguish that from ownership. You have had long track history of Wikistalking, so the benefit of the doubt cannot be applied here, you edited an article on my userpage that you have never edited before 15 minutes after posting a hostile comment on my talk page. If I didn't file an ANI complaint, you could have easily stalked me across several other articles. The only reason why you didn't wikistalk me earlier was because I solely focused on editing the iPhone 5 article and debating matters with you in Oct, Nov and the first half of Dec. What you were doing is clearly considered retribution and thus considered hounding. I have never seen you edit any iPad article apart from the iPad (4th generation) yesterday, I've also thoroughly checked the history of every iPad article and unless you were editing as a sock, you have never contributed to those article; lying is not looked upon favourably here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing some iOS related articles, and I branched out to iPad. I am not lying. You're making a false statement of fact that I'm lying and that is libelous. I'm certain that no personal attack does not allow you to make libelous claim. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, stop Wikilawyering, it is not impressing anyone and certainly does not help your case. Secondly, I've again spent time checking all 5 iPad articles and your name did not appear once apart from the ipad 4 article, which you edited yesterday - as mentioned; I've also taken the liberty of checking the articles' talk pages and unsurprisingly, your name didn't appear once. If anyone wants to confirm or verify my claims, please feel free to analyse iPad, iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation). YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your allegation of "Wikistalking" is your opinion. Editing two articles and your perception of "15 minutes later is too soon" is all your interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

Cantaloupe2 has been editing articles related to iOS jailbreaking since early November, and those articles include discussion of iPads - perhaps that's part of what "editing some iOS related articles" was referring to? (The context is that Cantaloupe2 and I have had disagreements related to those articles and my COI on them, but my intent here is just to point out that editing as extra information.) Dreamyshade (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why he edited an article that happened to be on my userpage 15 minutes after posting a hostile reply to a message that was intended to inform him of my intentions. It was undoubtedly an act of retribution for what he believed I was trying to do. He acted in the exact same manner that he did on the iPhone 5 article and removed content, an act which he knew I would disagree with. Given his past history of Wikistalking, I intervened as quickly as possible before he moved onto other articles that I have contributed to. There are many articles related to iOS, 360 articles to be precise, along with dozens of concepts that have articles and have been discussed by you two on the iOS jailbreaking article, so why that article and why now? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it wasn't. Your word against mine. You contend that "It was undoubtedly an act of retribution", that in itself appears to be an act of assumption of bad faith and direct attack on me. You do not have exclusive rights to Apple mobile devices page and what I see as your unwillingness to deviate from your version was also demonstrated by another editor who offered their opinion that you're the cause of causing iPhone 5 page to get locked. Skimming through an article and changing wording to improve article to be more neutral is a good faith edit. You saying that I'm misinterpreting policy in protest is an assumption of bad faith, the very same thing you're accusing me of. I should also note that your exclamation that you will revert absent reply, then following through with it after six minutes appears to be jumping the gun and unreasonable expectation of promptness. This concern was addressed on your page.[81]. I'll take a topic ban on Apple iPad, iPod and iPhone hardware devices on condition that YuMaNuMa agree to the same ban for himself as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right? Your latest replies are another indication of your battleground mentality, instead of defending yourself, you decide to attack me by once again Wikilawyering and repeatedly using WP:NPA and other nonsense to form the basis of your argument. "My word against yours" - given your history as a Wikistalker and tendency to assume bad faith, I can't see how anything that you've said can hold up as evidence. And yes, unfortunately I am assuming bad faith at the moment but when the evidence piles up in this manner and several users that I have never come in contact with adds their input on how your behaviour has affected them, it surely does raise a question or two. And yet again, I repeat myself, I like every other contributor on Wikipedia have the right to defend content that I've added, numerous editors have copyedited the iPhone 5 article and I have had no issues with their edits but when you decide to make controversial edits that I disagree with, it is obvious that I'd want to discuss it first and possibly reach a consensus or compromise before they're settled upon, much like how other editors frequently revert your edits and request that you discuss it on the talk page first, hence my reverts. Also, by another editor are you referring to the sock or the editors that were referring to our disagreement, in which you refused to further discuss the issue before making more controversial edits and where I intentionally reverted three of your edit separately instead of using twinkle to restore it, so I can provide you with a reason why I disagreed, in an attempt to compel you to continue discussing it instead of inciting an edit war. I don't see how anyone would agree to a topic ban proposed by you when you've become such a disruption to the entire community as evident by the seemingly endless number of people coming forward with their concerns regarding your edits. By the way, I disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes the assumption of bad faith, stating that you're misinterpreting policy isn't assuming bad faith, I'm not saying you're deliberately doing it, perhaps you lack WP:COMPETENCE as others have suggested but whatever the reason is, I have provided evidence for your misinterpretation of policy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time another editor has complained about Cantaloupe. I personally recommended another editor seek an interaction ban based on Cantaloupe's abrasive editing style and such. Unfortunately, it seems he has not improved in his relationship skills here. (Take that with a grain of salt, though, as I'm obviously involved, at least in a historical sense.) --Nouniquenames 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the public relations editor CorporateM, let's not forget that conflict revolved around his WP:COI andthe contents decision did not consistently result in consensus resolving in his favor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that a few editors that disagreed with you all had WP:COI problems according to you. Others, such as myself get labelled anonymous IP editor in a provokative tone during content disputes. Here is one you couldn't better so you made a suggestion that accused him of having a sockpuppet. Strange that three of the editors (User:Wtshymanski, User:Puhlaa, User:174.118.142.187) you clash with are all Canadian and you attempt to post insults like "Canaduh", and to rid articles of anything relating to American or Canadian content. This is well documented in several articles where you have removed "America-centric" (your phraseology) examples with your "bias" claims. Edit histories do not go away and your attitude begins to show via a pattern of edits in a very obvious manner. You were advised several times not to do this, in the past, by various editors. Those are clear examples of an abusive POV application of WP policies applied only to win content disputes. Now you have enough editors repeating the same complaint and yet your response is Oh yeah! Look what you have done!. You assume no blame or responsibity for any of these, or past, complaints and observations. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I notified another editor that was directly discussed in ANI discussion you started, however it seems like you're looking for anyone and everyone who might disagree with me and notifying them even though they're not directly discussed. This sounds to me that you're hoping that they'll comment in favor of your position which I think is WP:CANVAS to sway consensus. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to notify any other editors that interacted with you, as I have. I picked major contributors (easy find) to a few of the articles you edited. Perhaps you can find some to support your denials of any responsibilty in these conflicts. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't solicit for your approval. I feel that you're votestacking by going out of the way to find someone who are likely to disagree with me even if they're not directly discussed or if they haven't raised the issues themselves in order to sway consensus and my issue with you here is that I feel that you're trying to interfere with consensus building by lobbying. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 Proposal

Okay, it appears that we have several editors in a variety of subject areas that have similar complaints about User:Cantaloupe2. What do we propose be done? This is my first time participating in a discussion here, the guidelines above don't seem to explain how to keep things moving forward, it appears that no administrator is going to magically appear to make everything better, and in other discussions on this page, a concrete proposal with consensus behind it, appears to be a way to make progress. What would we like to see done? Block, ban, topic ban, article ban, interaction ban? I'm not sure myself. Since so many editors, pages, and topics are involved, I don't see how any of the limited bans will help. Blocks are specifically not supposed to be punitive, but some sign that current behavior is not acceptable seems to be necessary. Perhaps these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps we can request that a block be imposed in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." With that in mind, and subject to the caveats that I don't know what I'm doing, let me propose that User:Cantaloupe2 be blocked for 24 hours. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A different option could be for involved parties and admins to come up with a concise list of relevant policies and well-accepted essays such as Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Systemic bias, compare Cantaloupe2's interpretations to the interpretations of editors who have been frustrated by Cantaloupe2's edits, and try to figure out which of our interpretations are outside consensus and should be consciously amended in order to maintain peace. (As noted above, I'm an involved party.) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, but half the reason we are here at all is that we've all gone round and round with User:Cantaloupe2 recently with no resolution in site. What you are proposing sounds like a lot more of the same with very slim prospects for results. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a list of specific statements supported by admins could be stronger than what individual editors have said (especially individual editors already involved in disputes). Also, is there such a thing as a temporary block from mainspace editing? If people think that the problem here is bold editing without consensus, temporarily limiting Cantaloupe2 to talk page discussions might be a way to encourage more of a focus on consensus-building. This is advice from my own experience: I have to stick to the talk pages on articles where I have a COI, which really encourages proposing well-supported changes and prevents edit warring. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 is a big policy and rule guy. How about a self-imposed edit ban for a period of 7 days and make him observe his own beliefs? Let's see if he gets the message or sloughs it off as us just being a bunch of pricks, like every other complaint result. The stress break may be just the thing he needs...not like WP can get anybody wound up (sarc) but after repeated arguments with other editors everywhere he goes, lately, it may clear his head a bit or with his newly found distractions he may not come back for a while. It seems the admins have had their claws trimmed recently and are all trying to retain every editor they can without the new rules being real clear and established, shyness seems to be prevalent. If he was an IP he would have been indeffed on the first complaint at his hint of a request. The guy can be good at what he does but he seems to think the whole thing is a joke when people attempt to help him, maybe a little obscurely, but still complaining to him about his obsessive edit attitude. He should be encouraged, but not completely gone. A shot across the bow? This one time. The record will stand as a future warning to collaborate on a little more personal level. Maybe this kicking will result in a much better editor? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that explains that. No wonder this place seems like just an empty echo chamber. So now it appears that there will be no resolution, we might as well all just home, and the most tenacious editors get to do whatever they want. What a total friggin' waste of time. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflecting from your exhibition of unwilling to focus on contents through lashing out emotionally rather than reasoning brings up a question to your ability to competently, and impartially edit articles. Looking at your reversion patterns, it seems to me that you have a possessive mentality on certain articles. Unnecessary emotionally driven comments like "Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?" You were unable to address the issue through reasoning, so you said that "it happened" even though sources didn't disclose everything and attribute that my edit is "delusional". [News site don't disclose everything but it occurred and they have proven, take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere) diff]. I feel that if you're letting your emotions derail into personal attack and impair your ability to handle content disputes, that's a matter of competency as suggested by that essay. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again with the unfounded accusations. You still haven't shown where I deleted your "SPS tag from some Michigan bike shop's employee commentary" from over a week ago. Please, please, please, just show us once where I have demonstrated "a possessive mentality on certain articles." Even easier, show us where I wrote "Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right?" or "it happened" or called your edit "delusional". I can see that you do know how to provide a link to show the difference between revisions. Would you please provide a link for these? As for willingness to focus on content, I've wasted weeks already trying that tactic. What's the use when you are free to make accusation after accusation and never back them up or retract them? You think I've made a personal attack? Please provide a quotation of my words and the diff to show that I wrote them. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What experience has taught me is that there is no point reasoning with you, you're unwilling to forfeit your stubborn ideals unless other editors intervene, I've always maintain the statement, "give me a proper reason why you want to do something instead of mindlessly quoting policies that don't support your point either because you're misinterpreting them or they're irrelevant." You can see that at the start of our dispute I primarily communicated via the talk page with you and refrained from reverting your edits that were at least supported with a reason of some sort, I informed you that your edits were considered controversial, however I received no reply while you continued to remove content and make more controversial edits on the iPhone 5 article and others - this led me to revert a few of your edits that I felt were inappropriate. Diff of me informing Cantaloupe of how I felt about his edit If a reliable source has confirmed a matter but didn't provide the details behind their findings or feel uncomfortable about disclosing the detail of their sources due to legal issues, it's inappropriate for you to remove information on the basis of the source not telling you the full story. It's assumed that information from reliable sources are accurate unless another reliable source disputes the veracity or accuracy of the information. I believe I've said this to you several times in the past. That's beside the point here, the actual issue is whether you are able to edit without accusing other of bad faith, wikistalking due to a disagreement with other editors about a certain point on one article and misinterpreting policies. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm willing to take this case to ArbCom if necessary. Cantaloupe has been to ANI, DRN, ANEW on numerous occasions due to his conduct, however all these cases have achieved absolutely nothing, hence a case regarding his conduct meets ArbCom requirements from what I can see. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This situation involves a lot of edit history, so I think we need to be somewhat patient while waiting for help. It might be constructive to provide more specifics (described as neutrally as possible) - additional links to problematic diffs, specific talk page discussions that went poorly, earlier noticeboard efforts, etc. If this discussion is closed without resolution, there's also WP:RFC/USER, which sounds like it might be a useful next step (before the last resort of arbitration). Dreamyshade (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The only reason this discussion will close without resolution is that no one who is able to take action is willing to take action. We've got six unrelated editors (YuMaNuMa, 174.118.142.187, Andy Dingley, Nouniquenames, and AndrewDressel) all saying approximately the same thing, that User:Cantaloupe2 is impossible to work with and repeatedly misunderstands or misinterprets guidelines. We're all in agreement, the only thing that connects us is repeated negative interaction with User:Cantaloupe2, and the only reason we're posting here is that the actions available to use have proven ineffective. -AndrewDressel (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

First of all, of the editors who've responded here, there are three who have enough trustworthy/helpful editing background to have reviewer and roll-back rights, so this is not like some incident brought up by whining IPs.

From what I can tell, Cantaloupe2 has been involved in at least 4 ANI incidents: [82], [83], [84], [85]. From past encounters with Cantaloupe2, he does not seem to an editor who edits with a purpose of reaching consensus and community agreement. In his interactions with other editors, he routinely stalks the contributions of any involved editors and brings up any form interaction or comment that seems to discredit and intimidate the editor he disagrees with, in order to bull his way through what he thinks are edits based on consensus. I consider Cantaloupe2's editing to be detrimental, unconstructive, disruptive to the Wikpedia project, and harmful to the principles and well-being of the community. Therefore, I propose that he be topic-banned from the articles where he has a tendency to disregard consensus and edit disruptively, or that he be blocked from editing Wikipedia until he decides that he wants to follow the consensus-building and constructive-focused policies of Wikipedia without trying to edit war. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just a coincidence? weeks later... sudden reversion. It was stable for weeks, and you reverted specifically my edit. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a response to my comment? "This is just a coincidence?" Are you asking yourself that? "It was stable for weeks". "Unreviewed for several weeks" is not the same as "stable for several weeks". "You reverted specifically my edit." You say you removed OR in your edit, but you also removed other content that you failed to mention. The paragraph had a cited sentence that I reverted and replaced with a better and working ref.

In any case, my current edits have nothing to do with this ANI, and this edit you brought up is one of many edits I'm making to improve articles. The way you're bringing up un-related edits like this shows how you're stalking contributions to attempt to find something to shift the blame/attention to other editors. - M0rphzone (talk) 09:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I could be included in AndrewDressel's list of editors too. I'm trying to be neutral in this discussion to avoid undermining my efforts to work constructively with Cantaloupe2, but I've had difficulty as well. This Editor Interaction Analyzer tool could be useful to anyone trying to review this discussion; it can generate lists of articles edited by both Cantaloupe2 and each complaining editor. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I completely forgot about the editor interaction tool - not to pursue old matters but as I said, Cantaloupe has never edited any iPad article other than the iPad 4 article 3 days ago or so. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of taking it elsewhere

No admin action is appropriate here. Recommend this thread be closed and the participants drop it, or take it elsewhere. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What part of assuming bad faith, antagonising other editors by accusing them of having a conflict of interest when none can be proven, misinterpreting policies and wikistalking/hounding is considered appropriate for Wikipedia? As indicated by the number of editors that have participated in the discussion without me notifying them in any way whatsoever (apart from M0rphzone), this is not an isolated incident. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if ArbCom uses the same attitude. Quite the editor retention programme. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with all three of you. No admin action is appropriate at this point, and yet what an awful way this is to run a community. A truly bad-faith editor who knows how to troll from within explicit policy can run riot around here. As has been so frequently demonstrated in the past, admins will also side with the rule-following troll, not the affected editor(s).

However, those are the rules. Within them, the next step would seem to be WP:RFC/U. This is toothless, but a demanded prerequisite by any of the later steps, such as ArbCom, who might be able to enforce something. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After reading the currently listed RfC/U cases, I believe this dispute is well suited for that board. Hopefully there, we can come to some sort of arrangement or agreement. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible that AN/I just isn't well-suited for handling this kind of complicated multi-editor conduct situation; I agree on RFC/U as the appropriate way to escalate. Looking at the guidelines, the first step should be for somebody to start a userspace draft - anyone want to volunteer? Dreamyshade (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the instructions on that page, the request can be created in collaboration with other editors who have had issues with the same editor. I suggest we do that and supply a wide variety of diffs/discussion logs, as many of our issues seem to be similar or even identical. We do need to keep in mind that Cantaloupe must cooperate with us in order to find a solution to our issues, if he refuses to and continues to accuse others of irrelevant misdeeds then RfC/U won't work and we would end up wasting our time - as the page says, decisions are not binding. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like an RFC/U would at least help put these concerns into a structured format and get outside perspectives, which seems worthwhile. To try to prevent this discussion from losing momentum, I've started a draft here: User:Dreamyshade/RFCU. It's just the standard boilerplate at the moment, and everyone is welcome to contribute to it. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably best to collapse this subsection, I don't know how Tom Harrison would feel about that, so if we do collapse it we should leave his comment out of the box. If possible I would prefer to have these two discussion occur in tandem, however that seems unlikely as RfC/Us do take a while and this thread obviously can't be placed here during that period to accommodate us. In regards to the draft, I believe you would be able to portray the case in the best light as it appears you don't hold or display any bias against Cantaloupe2 - you're obviously not required to, but I am just suggesting. I don't intend to speak for the editors involved as a whole but if you need any diffs or evidence, or want us to add something to the request, I'm sure we would be willing to provide it if you contact us via our talk pages. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems OK to me to leave this discussion open while working on the RfC/U draft - writing the draft is likely to take at least a few days, and it's possible that the proposal won't be accepted. I think it's important for you and other editors paste in plenty of diffs and any other material that you feel is relevant, to make sure that the things you consider important are represented, and after that I can try to write a neutral summary. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• In view of Cantaloupe2's recent and continued denial of responsibilty and arrogance in this matter recommend A one week (7 day) ban for User:Cantaloupe2 to send him a signal to take the advice here seriously, and a WikiBreak to reconsider his approach to interaction behaviour with fellow editors in the future. He has received some good input and concerns from many editors that needs to be considered in his future approach and yet just points fingers at others. He appears to be mocking the system in a continued gaming fashion. This seems to be the common complaint. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What appears to be IP editor's reactionary revert in retaliation. User waited 17 days to express their contention and just happen to "coincide" as this discussion is going. diff. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You and I have been editing electrical power related articles, but somehow, you sudden express interest by strange coincidence in editing an article on tire, which I just so happen to contribute on. If the complainant's claim was to be handled as Wikistalk, it should be applied here as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I want to inform you that claiming someone who has no visible history of wikistalking and made edits that don't even conflict with your recent edits to an article verges on assuming bad faith. The only reason I suggested that you were doing the aforementioned was because you had a history wikistalking and edited an article I've contributed to for the past several months, minutes after posting hostile and provocative remarks on my talk page. Now here's the real kicker, 174.118.142.187 edited the tire article before you did, if anything you were wikistalking him. Speaking of boomerangs. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 11:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2, what's your perspective on this whole situation? Do you think the general pattern of these complaints (incivility, hounding, assuming bad faith, edit warring, gaming the system, etc.) is unfounded? How do you think this should be resolved? Does the RfC/U idea sound reasonable to you? Dreamyshade (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

IP harassment

This IP is harassing me for days now. Knows all about my user account. It could be the guy that got his user account blocked because of me.

[86], [87], [88].

I doubt he will stop even if this IP is blocked. But it's annoying considering he is doing this every month for few days in a row, writing on other users' talk pages about me etc. --Wüstenfuchs 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an admin to read my talk page where IP want's my account blocked at any cost and represents himself as a "legion" that "doesn't forgive or forget." --Wüstenfuchs 16:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest page protection. Blackmane (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours for this edit: it is unacceptable. I've also reverted them on Flag of Syria where they falsely claimed a talk page consensus. On that note, a talk page consensus is necessary for that issue: there is some talk in the archive of that talk page but it is old and didn't really lead anywhere. An RfC might be an option though, of course, the situation is in flux--however, that shouldn't mean that a temporary agreement cannot be reached. If I remember correctly there was a suggestion in the archive that a second flag could be mentioned but not in the infobox, a suggestion that sounded reasonable and had some support. I am not prepared to protect Wustenfuchs's talk page yet, and I note (WP:BOOMERANG invites research) that Wustenfuchs has a habit of edit-warring, a habit they would do well to get rid of once and for all. Let's see what the future brings re:IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Blackmane: This isn't vandalism, and it doesn't meet the recommended criteria for protection on WP:SEMI. Additionally, Wüstenfuchs, you're talking about two different IPs. They're close enough that there's a good chance they're the same person, but they are nevertheless different. 92.40.254.14 has been blocked by Drmies for harassment already. That's the "We are legion" kid. 92.40.254.201 has not been blocked, and he was the one in the second and third diffs you linked. Just seemed worth mentioning. —Rutebega (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Both 92.40.254.201 and 92.40.254.14 are from the same range: 92.40.252.0/22 (geolocates to London). Some ISPs assign a new IP every time the subscriber logs on. Another possibility is the person is editing from a mobile device and is assigned a new IP every time they enter the range of a new cell phone tower. This tool can be used to calculate ranges. -- Dianna (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Wüstenfuchs, I will add your userpage to my watch-list for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Rutebaga, I blocked the most recent one. It makes little sense to block the earlier ones, as Dianna's comment suggests it's outdated. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, I didn't know that (IP addresses and how they work mystify me frequently) but I guess now I know. The WHOIS says it's a "mobile broadband service," so I bet it's somebody on a smartphone. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh, they're back at Flag of Syria; I've reverted and semi-protected for a month. Who knows what flag flies over Damascus then. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe a cases were made in the past(correct me if I'm wrong) for a user's page to be protected, if requested, but that user would normally then provide a page for IP's to post messages. Again, I may entirely be mistaken. Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're not mistaken, but semi-protecting a user talk page is something that is not done quickly. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Protection_of_user_pages, last sentence. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I find this highly amusing. That is all.
      • Ah, thanks for pointing that bit out. Must have skimmed past that bit. Blackmane (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

The long-running problems at our article on the Aspartame controversy have arisen again, with two anti-Aspartame editors apparently tag-teaming on the talk page in an effort to force changes to the article against policy and consensus. After a thread was started by User:Arydberg which (falsely) claimed that an article in the Mail On Sunday stated that Aspartame caused birth defects, User: Immortale stepped in to repeat the claims - multiple times, in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out that (a) the Mail on Sunday wasn't a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, (b) the paper referred to was a single (and very equivocal) primary source, and therefore not admissible per WP:MEDRS, and (c) that the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming. As the thread shows [89], Immortale in particular has persisted with the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:Tendentious editing tactics ad nauseam, including an attempt (after WP:MEDRS had repeatedly been referred to) to cite Fox News as a "fair and balanced source" for material to support the claims: [90] On this basis alone, I think that there might be grounds for calling for a topic ban on Immortale, if not a block per WP:COMPETENCE, given an evident inability to comprehend policy (or sources), or possibly an inability to comprehend that it applies to everyone. However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors, alleging that "a small but dedicated group of hostile editors refuse to report the controversy because of their original belief that it was a hoax", and alleging that editors are involved in spreading 'propaganda' on behalf of Aspartame manufacturers. This comment seems clear evidence to me that Immortale is incapable of complying with talk page guidelines, and is using the talk page as a soapbox. On this basis, I suggest that User:Immortale should be topic banned from any any subject matter (including talk pages) relating to artificial sweeteners, since they are clearly incapable of complying with the Wikipedia policies they have repeatedly been made aware of, and are instead intent on abusing Wikipedia as a platform for their own ends. I note that this is not the first time that Immortale's behaviour relating to this matter has been drawn to the attention of this noticeboard, and that Immortale has been both blocked [91] and topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (for four months, in February 2011) regarding the matter, and frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite tired of having to prove I am not some kind of paid operative of the international aspartame conspiracy. [92]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge them to prove they aren't a member of said conspiracy running a deep false flag operation. Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know this person but it is impossible to prove we are not connected. My opinion he is just one of dozens that have tried to change this article perhaps because they (like me) know people who's health has been destroyed by aspartame. All we ask is a chance to be heard. I will try not to repeat myself but it is hard when outright lies are accepted as truth. An example of this is the statement that "I'd like to point out that "artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks"is not the same thing as aspartame" when aspartame is used in 90 percent of canned soda. , Arydberg (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. I didn't say Grumpy Andy is this and that. I said it was a real controversy and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame. We are to report the mainstream media, so why would Fox News not be a valid source when it's clearly a large news channel. I dislike Fox News, but it's not about me, but about the neutrality of the whole article. The controversy is taken serious in the mainstream media and the scientific community. Otherwise, why keep pumping millions and millions of dollars and Euros in ongoing research if it was such a clear-cut case as it is stated in the current article. Shouldn't be an article called Controversy, be about the controversy? Why is it so hard to reach consensus about this? Immortale (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame" is a personal attack. You are accusing editors of being corporate shills, as you have many other times. Please stop it. Shall I say this again? I have no connection to anyone who makes aspartame. I am tired of having to defend myself against such crap. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but it's your free choice to feel attacked. No one asked you to defend yourself because no one attacked you, Dbrodneck. If I have to list of what the editors are called who try to present a negative fact about Aspartame, then we are here for a while. I've had to deal with real accusations and personal attacks of tag-teaming, of having multiple accounts, and so on. I was cleared every time but it's not the right way of editing an article together. So I have been away for some time because no matter what rights I had given, a persistent group of pro-editors, hide behind their consensus and doesn't let anything "anti" in their way. By the way, some of the statements about me above are plain false. Immortale (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which statements are "plain false"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are two editors who have been topic banned and blocked in the past and I would suggest an indefinite topic ban. It is disruptive to accuse other editors of conflict of interest on talk pages and to argue against Wikipedia policies and guidelines there. TFD (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False statements about me (and I won't mention the false allegations of tag teaming and me not following wikipedia guidelines): "the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming." Where did I claim this? "However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors" I never made personal attacks. You did and do. "a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue" (ignoring your Freudian typo here)I always followed policy and always took my edits to Talk Page. You seem to project your frustration of Arydberg onto me, since your complaint is mostly about me, even though I only made 6 edits on the article and Talk page in the last 4 months. Not exactly "repeatedly", is it? And once again, the hostility I point out to you, is completely valid when you write in large bold letters AndyTheGrump "How many fucking times" in the Talk Page. There are many more examples of your hostility. So my suggestion is, to topic ban you for a couple of months, until you've cooled down. Immortale (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

People are quite capable of reading the talk page discussion for themselves, and forming their own opinion - and when two 'contributors' are seemingly intent on adding the same material based on an entirely false section heading ('birth defects') nitpicking about which one used which exact words is entirely beside the point. And no, calling for editors who refuse to comply with policy to be blocked isn't a 'personal attack' - it would be impossible to block anyone if it was. As for topic bans for me, since mine isn't a single-purpose account, unlike yours [93] , it wouldn't be of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am not one of the members of the corporate shill group, who are these members who have a COI, and why has this not been pursued? You know, it is possible that you Immortale are simply wrong. It may be because you have a disruptive case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited and therefore I cannot spend my time to fight for every edit or to bring people to boards. I did this in the beginning, several years ago, and I ALWAYS got my right from neutral editors, until someone reverted everything bluntly again. That's why I stopped editing but this is about the current case, and you have no case. Unfortunately the article is so biased now, that people who want to know more about the controversy, go to other sites. You can see this in various forums and the mainstream media. I've edited other articles, so stop with that accusation. This is about me making 6 edits in 4 months and getting this ridiculous hostile reception. Immortale (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Outsider view

I don't edit this article, so I evaluated the difference in citation shown in this diff. Having read the cited work, I do not see that the synthesis implied by Immortale is significant. The report does list three specific flaws, and it is reasonable for us to simply state that they were found rather than spell them out. We are not constrained to simply relating slight rewordings of the conclusion section of the report. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

One disturbing comment is "All we ask is a chance to be heard." That betrays a lack of understanding of what wikipedia is supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS was written to cover exactly that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone read the links they mention? At WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS it states: "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals". Well, guess what, the controversy surrounding aspartame has been in mainstream journals. From the New York Times, to The Guardian, to peer-reviewed scientific journals. Still, the assumed consensus among some hardcore editors is that it's all a hoax, and everyone is a kook who doesn't believe this. Immortale (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban (Immortale and Arydberg)

• Propose indefinite topic bans on both Immortale and Arydberg from all material related to aspartame and artificial sweeteners, as both are WP:SPAs that have been previously topic banned due to disruptive behavior, with return to said behavior. It is time for that disruption to stop. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree As I explained above. TFD (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support as described, both editors are indeed SPAs here to push a barrow and not develop encyclopedia articles. They've already been given second and third chances, it's now time to make the disruption stop. Zad68 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Their disruption must stop, and neither editor seems to understand our policies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No to an indefinite ban, but yes to a six month topic ban to show they can edit collaboratively elsewhere. (While indefinite could turn out to be six months, in practice, it is almost always infinite.) -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Both have been banned before. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Split (involved editor): Support reinstating topic ban for Arydberg, indefinitely. Weak support regarding Immortale—an indefinite topic ban may be an excessive remedy. I don't see anything indicating collusion as opposed to activity-prompted involvement. That said, Arydberg is an unabashed advocate who has not shown any improvement after two topic bans. As this discussion proceeds, feelers about rescinding the past bans are being extended, separately from this discussion. During the last ban a post framed the issue as good vs. evil. This is a case of an editor with POV so polarized, that collaborative editing seems unlikely. An indefinite topic ban would seem in line. A clear statement should be provided, indicating that an indefinite ban can be lifted following a cogent expression of planned NPOV encyclopedic editing, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. On the other hand, an indefinite ban may be overkill for Immortale (then again, it may not). There has been an ongoing problem of accusations of conspiracy. While protesting innocence regarding sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, Immortale has been free with such accusations (see: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive672#Meatpuppetry, edit warring, unreliable sources, false consensus, business as usual on Aspartame Controversy, during which an edit warring block was followed by a evasion-by-IP sockpuppetry block). This prompted a single topic ban which has long expired. Immortale "gets it" in the sense of being able to recognize Wikipedia policies, but the imperative to edit which prompted the block evasion and perception of WP:CONSPIRACY (essay to which I have contributed) are problematic. These two editors should be assessed independently.Novangelis (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support We're on the third or forth iteration of Ayrdberg playing the role of WP:TRUTH teller. He is clearly here for the singular reason of pushing an agenda and when policy is explained to him he simply stops responding and then goes on to ignore it. After a year nothing has changed. I have no substantial opinion on Immortal as I haven't dealt with him personally but he doesn't look promising either. Sædon^talk 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses 116.202.144.148, 116.202.125.149 indulges in vandalism

An unregistered user from IP address 116.202.144.148 indulges in vandalising wikipedia Kochi page which contains information about Kochi city, urban agglomeration, wider metropolitan area and suburbs. The user was warned that what he is doing is contrary to the content and purpose of the page. On being warned, the user threatens to change the whole page in order to suit his designs. To quote the reported user

"(Article is not about Kochi UA. but Kochi city There is another article on Kochi UA. If there are other irrelevant information, they should be deleted as well.)"

In order to avoid the three revert rule the reported user used another IP 116.202.125.149 and continued vandalism. Prathambhu (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Request Urgent Admin intervention to block the IPs and restore information on Kochi pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathambhu (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody violated WP:3RR. You have both reverted the page one time. This just looks like assuming bad faith. Prathambhu created the first IP's talk page with a level 2 vandalism warning, which was inappropriate, then followed with vandalism level 3 8 minutes later, even though no further edits had taken place on Kochi. When the other user reverted the reversion under another IP (I think it's safe to assume they're the same person), Prathambhu gave both IPs level 4 warnings, then less than 30 minutes later, decided that wasn't enough, and took it straight to AN/I. No talk page discussion was ever opened, and this isn't even the first time Prathambhu has been involved in this exact content dispute; another editor wanted to make the same changes to the article back in 2009.

Content issues aside, the IP user tried to make several edits in good faith. Prathambhu, meanwhile, seems to have no concept of what vandalism actually means and how vandalism templates should be used. I would suggest he educate himself further, and perhaps consider expanding his scope a little more beyond Kochi and related articles. I don't think this warrants a block for anybody, as even Prathambhu didn't seem to be editing in bad faith, and doesn't appear to have been admonished for this behavior in the past. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False charge by Prathambhu. To quote the first paragraph of the Kochi page,

" The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is the most densely populated city in the state and is part of an extended metropolitan region (pop. 2.1 million), which is the largest urban agglomeration in Kerala. Kochi city is also a part of Greater Cochin region[6][7] and is classified as a B-1 grade city[8] by the Government of India, making it the highest graded city in the state".

I had also checked the discussions Talk:Kochi, India and found that the consensus was that the article is about the city not the UA. From this it is pretty clear that the article is about the Kochi and not about the Kochi UA or the metropolitan area. Some of the information added in the page are for the UA of Kochi, and should be entered in the Kochi metropolitan area. Quoting from the page Kochi metropolitan area,

"This article is about the urban agglomeration of Kochi. For the city of Kochi, see Kochi ". And again,

"The Urban Agglomeration (UA) of Kochi (Malayalam: കൊച്ചി [Kocci]; formerly known as Cochin) is a part of the Greater Cochin region and the largest urban agglomeration in the Indian state of Kerala."

So I hope it might be clear to you by now, which is the page on the Urban Agglomeration and which is the page on the city. I merely removed these irrelevant information's from the page. Aluva is a separate municipality from Kochi and a part of the metropolitan area but it is not part of the Kochi city which has a population of 601,574. So please allow me to remove these irrelevant information from the page. Kolenchery is a small town within a Panchayat which is outside the purview of both Kochi city, GCDA and Kochi metropolitan area. I didn't change the IP. I'm using a shared IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.91.114 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of content issues in most cases should remain on the article talk page. This thread is about vandalism by an IP user, and as soon as it can be verified or safely assumed that Prathambhu at least has read it, I would consider it resolved. —Rutebega (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for administrator intervention. The unregistered user reported for vandalism has returned with another IP 180.215.44.110, despite being given clear reason, supported with documents as evidence, by another user. He has reverted and edited out the factual information with the intention of removing important information on Kochi page. Prathambhu (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The user reported for repeated vandalism has one more IP : 58.68.91.114. He brings his own interpretations to continue vandalism and edit out important information like list of Medical Schools in the Kochi region from Kochi page, which would deny important information to people looking for it. Prathambhu (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that you have read the discussion, I have officially warned you for misuse of warning templates. Please gain a better understanding of what vandalism is before warning users in the future, and endeavor to assume good faith. Unless anybody thinks admin action is necessary, I'd say we're done here. —Rutebega (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Gun Powder Ma and the article Germans

Not sure were to turn - thus I am here. User:Gun Powder Ma has recently reverted a few times a consensus text at the article Germans. The overwhelming consensus at Talk:Germans#Article scope clearly indicates a broad consensus for the articles scope - that is an article that is all encompassing of the demographics of Germans citizens and world wide diaspora and not a semi socio-racial/ethnic group classification system article. As a group on the page we have moved on from this point of contention to helping with the articles structure and content based on the new consensus. Looking for how to processed when one editor does not see what the rest see.Moxy (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a contents dispute which Moxy is, unfortunately, now trying to solve via admin action instead of engaging in discussion on talk page. Since 18 January I have been on talk page trying to discuss it to little avail.

The contents dispute evolved in three steps:

• First, I reverted the lead definition (This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential) after I found it unsourced per WP:reliable.
• Then Moxy added a source, Lowell Barrington. This source, however, does not back up the claim, as anybody with access to the source can quickly see, so I reverted it per WP:reliable.
• Now Moxy added another source, Joyce Marie Mushaben, which does back up the claim but does not provides the definition of German ethnicity, but rather of the German nationality law. This topic, however, is covered in a different article as the disambiguation says (For an analysis on the nationality or German citizenship, see German nationality law). What Moxy does is simply equating German ethnicity with German nationality law - again without proper sources.

While I am trying to discuss the issue on talk (still do), Moxy has been more busy to threaten me with ANI. This is a contents issue and I would like to see it addressed on talk page by Moxy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting confused you seem here to imply its referenced. As for talking actually it was I trying to talk to you about it first as see here even directing you to the conversation that you missed after your first revert - You then (without taking about it reverted again) - Then as seen here you seem to have implied again your not aware of the conversation that led to the changes (so you reverted again) and again I indicated were the conversation took place to no avail. What would you like us to do - your edit waring on a point that has been resolved by the group and is referenced? We have had along talk on the matter that you seem to refuse to recognize or even admit has happened. Have you taken the time to read over Talk:Germans#Article scope yet? Moxy (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't you please stop talking in terms of pluralis majestatis and start giving answers to straightforward questions related to contents? There is no WP policy which holds that consensus, even if it exists, overrules WP:reliable or WP:OR. You are currently defining German ethnicity exclusively on German citizenship. But ethnicity and citizenship, also certainly overlapping, are not congruent. For German citizenship we have a separate article, German nationality law. Your definition belongs there, at least in its claim to absoluteness. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to say - we had ref that covered Germans - be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they Germanic peoples (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal) but your removing them with the agreed text - Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0. and Joyce Marie Mushaben (1 August 2008). The Changing Faces of Citizenship: Integration and Mobilization Among Ethnic Minorities in Germany. Berghahn Books. pp. 32–35. ISBN 978-1-84545-453-1.. I can get more if you like.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus on the page that the definition should include both ethnicity and nationality - this means that we do not need any single source for the definition, but that we can write a broad decision combining several definitions. Reverting a clear RfC consensus as Gun Powder MA is doing is disruptive. It needs to stop.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Side-issue

• This is the second time in a week that a content dispute has spilled over from Germans, which has, in my opinion, been irresponsibly turned into an amalgam of two different things — Germans as an ethnicity and Germans as members of a nation-state. There are tendentious ideological reasons for pretending that these two very different things are inseparable. This is an Arb Com case waiting to happen unless the owners of that page back the hell off and stop suppressing minority perspectives of their so-called "consensus." We've recently had an editor from Israel thrown off WP like he was some kind of crazy Nazi because his perspective didn't synch up with the PC "consensus" at Germans. The lynch mob obliged. Sickening. Fix it or this will go on and on. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your familiarity with that process and what has been going on at Talk:Germans seems fairly limited. The "owners" you refer to is a consensus of some 20 editors. Guitar hero ended up being on amiable terms with people with the opposing viewpoint in that discussion and he agreed with the redefinition of the scope as a broad article including both ethnicity and nationality which are two different things, but which cannot be meaningfully separated into two separate articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, while I agree with you that this is an ArbCom case waiting to happen, I don't altogether agree with your characterisation of other events. I'm still awaiting a good explanation of what 'PC' means in this context, and why it's a bad thing. 'Lynch mob' is a singularly inapt choice of metaphor in this context. And with the best will in the world, Guitar hero on the roof's battleground mentality was the main factor in his banning. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is not an arbcom case waiting to happen. The original debate was fuelled by a disruptive sockpuppet (Guitar hero on the roof (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) amongst others. It was reignited by the belated appearance of an editor who has not accepted the overwhelming consensus for the article to be as broad as possible. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar Hero was run off — meaning indefinitely banned plus topic banned — because he had a content dispute. No content dispute, no SPI. To wit: he argued that ethnic Germans as an ethnic group and the universal set of Germans as citizens of a nation state are not one and the same thing. The so-called "battleground mentality" was him standing up for what is a MAJORITY perspective in the literature, but quite obviously a MINORITY perspective among the handful of active (activist?) editors at that page. For not shutting up, he was crushed. Hurray for majority rule!!! The fact that the so-called "consensus" there is PC in intent is made quite obvious by your allusion to "... in this context, and why it's a bad thing." The context, of course, is that we are talking about GERMANY and not France, Albania, Sweden, or some other such place, for which there would be no doubt, no debate that those ethnicities and the superset of citizens of those nation-states are entirely different things. The so-called "consensus" is being enforced by bannings of dissident Wikipedians, it seems to me. Ergo, this is an ArbCom case in the making unless things change... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrite you're talking nonsense. He was indeffed because he socked, he was not communtiy banned, but topic banned because of his disruptive behavior. It was not his POV as that was supported by plenty of other people who nonetheless also agreed with the consensus to broaden the scope. Yuor assertions about the literature are unfounded. You are misrepresenting a process and arguments that you apparently didn't understand. Please stop doing that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guitar hero on the roof was checkuser-blocked by an arbitrator (AGK) independently of any SPI report. Guitar hero was clearly disruptive. If there are no incidents that require administrative attention, please don't use this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't start the thread, I'm just observing that this is twice in a week that a content dispute over a pseudo-consensus at Germans has spilled over onto this page and made the apt observation that it appears that defenders of the ill-advised and deficient status quo seem to be using power tools to crush their opponents. More eyes to that page would be wise. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure your aware of the problem - no content dispute - editor behaviors is why we are here. Pls take the time to read over Talk:Germans#Article scope see any dispute?Moxy (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

ABBA vandal

The following was posted at the "Village Pump" –proposals. I transfer it here without comment as to its merits. ThanX. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My issue is concerning user 89.98.37.96, who has edited a clfew abba related articles so far, falsifying information, and heaviky poving it towards Agnethac(the blonde one). Layer editors to tone of the pages havent reverted the edits creatibg a bi of a mess. As i am not in a position to go through all the mess and fix up the damae, i request that someone here gives it a peak. I KNOW IS PROB NOT THE RIGHT FORUM BUT I COULDNT THINK OF WHERE ELSE TO GO AT THIS TIME. IN ADDITION TO THIS, I THINK TGE USER MUST BE EXPLAINED THE RUKES AND IF THIS PURSISTS HE MAY NEED TO BE BLOCKED. Thankyou for reading this :). (btw i only realised now that a lot of my comment was in capslock. Sorry abiut that. Its so hard to edit wikioedia when on ones phone.....)--Coin945 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The contributions by 89.98.37.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are a bit onesided and they're unreferenced. You could call it WP:UNDUE but I don't see how this is vandalism. Nor has there been any attempt to contact the IP about these edits. I have now notified both the IP and Coin945 about this discussion. Coin945, can you please provide diffs of what you think has been "falsifying information"? De728631 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• The contributions included factual changes unsupported by sources (specifically chart positions [94]). --Nouniquenames 17:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • ...ahhh, "Sneaky Numbers Vandalism" - one of the most insidious kinds there is as it can look legit but slowly push the numbers into pure-fiction territory... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • "Ahhh", indeed. Thanks for pointing out the number changes, which I seem to have missed. The report is now stale but a block should be in order if this kind of editing reoccurs. De728631 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I've now restored a previous version of the main ABBA article and have undone the other edits that Nouniquenames had not already dealt with. De728631 (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban

User:Brocach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is making war around Gaelic Athletic Association-related articles. He is ignoring discussion, just to push his own POV. There is no effective support for his moves but he just invents excuses. By now he seems so frustrated, that he started vandalising articles. On the 19th, he was blocked from editing to stop him from edit warring over several article. In that same war User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was involved and blocked. They were involved in one of the most silly edits wars I have ever seen: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong. Both appealed the ban, both saw their appeal denied. Unfortunately, Brocach did not learn anything from his block and quickly resumed his disruptive edits and went on with, among others, a clear declaration of war.

An overview from the relevant edits after the block:

Insults

• [95], [96]

Move without agreement or consensus

• [97], [98], [99],

Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories

• [100],

Other disruptive edits

• [101], [102], [103] (later used to claim that people did not live in North Tipperary, while it was de facto there from 1838), [104], [105],

This drama is already going on for a year now. With pages moved back and forth, edit wars and a very nasty atmosphere.

I certainly acknowledge that a block is counter-productive but to restore peace, I request a long term topic ban for Brocach for all articles related to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Banner talk 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]and [116]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to Brocachs habit to remove everything from his talkpage that he doesn't like, I present here the proof that I have informed him. The Banner talk 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of accusations there so it will take some time to respond.

I have never vandalised any article on Wikipedia. Anyone who looks at my edit history will find a long record of reverting vandalism. Some examples: [117], [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=533547170], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122] and on and on.

I am not ignoring discussion. In relation to the GAA articles, most of the edits that User:The Banner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) objects to are actually reverts of previous controversial edits, generally made by User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without discussion, and generally moving articles about the GAA away from the common name of the topic - typically, renaming football competitions by inserting "GAA" within the competition name. Generally when I have moved things back to their common name, I have opened a thread on the talk page.

The POV I am "pushing" is Wikipedia policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing particularly controversial about that.

It is absolutely not the case that there is no support for my reverts of controversial moves. In the most recent discussion of this, here, you will see clear majority support for the reverts. That in itself should be enough to establish that the topic ban belongs with the editor who made the original controversial moves without discussion, and then busted a gut trying to undo all the reverts, namely Laurel Lodged.

Turning to the Tipperary question: for those unfamiliar with the sports, Gaelic football, hurling etc. are organised in Ireland on a traditional 32-county basis, not in line with newer administrative counties such as North Tipperary. Top-level inter-county players play for Tipperary, and the category for them has long been "Tipperary hurlers", just as it is for "Dublin hurlers", "Galway hurlers" and so on. Because only the GAA organises hurling, no-one had ever thought it necessary to change a category name until - guess who - Laurel Lodged, without any discussion, renamed that one category "Tipperary GAA hurlers" and moved many articles to that page. This now sits as a completely anomalous category: every other county lists hurlers in the long-established form, "Carlow hurlers" and so on.

Next, Laurel Lodged, as ever without any discussion, started moving individual Tipperary sportspeople from the long-established and well-populated category Sportspeople from County Tipperary into two new categories of his own creation, namely Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Sportspeople from South Tipperary. Again, of course, without discussion; and again creating an anomaly, in that none of the other Irish sportspeople by county categories use the new local government counties; they all use the traditional 32 counties.

The behaviour of Laurel Lodged in changing literally hundreds of GAA articles and refusing to engage in discussion frustrated me greatly; as my history shows, I have made a significant contribution to GAA coverage here. I regret that on one occasion I re-reverted a Laurel Lodged move repeatedly, following which we were both briefly banned.

I have not "resumed disruptive edits" nor "declared war" - follow the link provided by The Banner and you will find me quite properly taking the issue of Tipperary changes to the relevant talk page, and as it happens, securing support while Laurel Lodged did not.

Next, as for "insults": the first link provided is to me stating the incontrovertible fact that Laurel Lodged keeps changing pages without discussion, and it will be seen that I did not use any abusive language; the second link provided is to me rebuking what I refer to as the "disgusting behaviour" of another editor who, on the talk page of an unrelated (non-GAA) topic, referred to me as "arsehole" and, in another edit, "a stupid cunt". Now there's an insult; but I was not the person who made it, nor would any reasonable person think that referring to that as "disgusting behaviour" was an insult.

My accuser then links to supposed "Moves without agreement or consensus". But all three links were on the basis of consensus that anyone can check at the reference already given.

My next offence is "Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories", a plural accusation with but a single link, and this turns out to be, yet again, a matter of reverting changes made without discussion of consensus by, need I say, Laurel Lodged. The usual pattern applies in that I am the first one to take the issue to the talk page, and Laurel Lodged refuses to engage there.

As for the "Other disruptive edits", the first two again were reverts that were discussed and supported here, unlike the original moves which had not been discussed. The next is, far from being a "disruptive edit", a perfectly normal edit to an article dealing with local government history in County Tipperary. Looking at it now I see a little typo, which I have fixed; perhaps that what was thought "disruptive" but anyone checking the history will see that it was a simple mistake with no harm intended or done, and heaven help us if every case of clumsy typing is construed as vandalism. The next is, again, a normal and innocent edit to the template for Derry GAA clubs, ensuring that text appeared in black rather than red as per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR. Any problem with that? My last "disruption" was to add a factually accurate, and sourced, improvement to wording around the ISO code for "Ulster" - an obscure enough topic, but interesting for some, and worth getting right, which it now is. In short: these accusations of disruption are completely spurious.

I therefore insist that no case has been made for topic-banning me, least of all on a theme, the GAA, where I have made a substantial and worthwhile contribution. However, because of Laurel Lodged's long history of moving GAA articles without seeking consensus, reverting moves back, and refusing to engage on the relevant talk pages, I would be hugely relieved if he were topic-banned from the GAA, at least for a few months. I'm proposing that here, and notifying him on his talk page. Heading above amended accordingly. Brocach (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no connection whatever with Finnegas and if The Banner has some problem with him/her, this is not the place to discuss it. Brocach (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the usual modus operandi of mr. Brocach: I am the good guy, I am the victim, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and you guys are all wrong, had been wrong all the times and will be wrong forever more. The Banner talk 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You've said your piece; I would prefer that your proposal, and mine, be decided on the facts. Anyone who wants to know my "usual modus operandi" can look at my thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. Please keep the revised heading above as this section contains a counter-proposal. Brocach (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, please don't change the title as it breaks links to this discussion. File your own request when you want to bring Laurel Lodged to AN/I, don't hijack my filing. The Banner talk 14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to break links to this discussion, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to respond to a ban proposal by showing that another user is the real problem and should be topic-banned. For me to repeat all of that in a separate posting would be a waste of everyone's time, particularly when Laurel Lodged is aware of this discussion (since you notified him of it within four minutes of proposing that I be banned). I have therefore placed a subheading for my counter-proposal immediately below your heading, and have verified that links still work. Brocach (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now you only made a mess of my filing, making it appear that I filed the request. Do you mind the sub-header to below this edits and file your counter-request there? Although they are related, it would be confusing to have two requests in one thread as people will have difficulties responding to the right request. The Banner talk 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to cause any confusion and don't think I've done so. I think that the difference in heading level will make that clear. But for the benefit of anyone who has been interested enough to read down this far, can I make it 100% clear that The Banner wants to ban me, and I want to topic-ban Laurel Lodged? Brocach (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did file a request for a topic ban, but that will not say that I will pursue it for the full 100%. I believe in Good Faith, so I still hope that you are willing to change your behaviour regarding the GAA voluntarily. The Banner talk 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Really excellent news there. Of course I intend to continue, as I always have, operating in good faith. Can I ask you to review the points you made against me above, and my replies; delete any exchanges above that relate to points that have been answered to your satisfaction, and set out which (if any) grounds you still believe justify a topic ban? If there are none, I would ask you to withdraw this request, so that I can reframe my ban request for Laurel Lodge and pursue it without involving you. Brocach (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It means as much: show me (and prove of a reasonable time) that you really stop with this nonsense, revert all your actions yourself and start behaving like an adult. If not, sorry. Your combative behaviour has disrupted Wikipedia long enough. The Banner talk 10:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighter's souls, but made their bodies carrion feats for the dogs and birds and the will of Zeus was moving towards its end."

What is the cause of all the warring? Rage. The final straw for Brocach was when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the area of (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers.

I took the rather unusal step of saying in my block appeal that "Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland". Only a few hours of the unblock had expired that my hopes that the block would have a sobering effect on Brocach were in vain. Reluctantly, I must now request that my suggestion be actioned. I am prepared to go into voluntary exile if the same temporary sentance will be passed on Brocach (and his inept sidekick Finnegas) so that a holy peace may descend upon the GAA articles and categories.

He has gone around numerous article writing the same whiney thing on the talk page. This essentially bemoans the injustice of the decision that went against him at WP:CFD. By the time that I saw this entry Colm Bonnar whining, I was getting a mite tetchy in my responses. And so to Noel Lane where Brocach's rationale was "a player for GAA county of Tipperary". This is not in dispute, but it's beside the point. What is most definitely in dispute is that he is not "from County Tipperary", which no longer exists as a unit of local government, but from North Tipperary. The two entities are different. Brocach likes to pretend that the two are essentially identical. He refuses to listen to all arguments to the contrary. This explains why I peppered a lot of my reversions with the epitheth WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In Patrick Maher, the difference between the two entities was again explained in my reversion rationale: "As a county hurer he is listed with Tipp GAA. Geographically, he is from NT. A horse of a different colour". Further examples are Aidan Butler and Sportspeople from County Tipperary.

I will copy the text from my appeal for the second major point of contention. I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. See Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers, where the rationale provided was "Tony Reddin is from Galway. So not all members of Tipp GAA are automatically from County Tipp. A club is not a person". See also Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, where the rationale provided was "a CLUB IS NOT A PERSON". Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From everything that I have said above, you will understand that I profoundly disagree with Laurel Lodged about how people who play on Tipperary GAA teams should be listed (by the county that they play or played for, Tipperary, or by the current local government district that they were born in, or would have been born in had it existed when they were born). No point going into all the details of that issue again. This discussion is not about whether this or that category should be used; but the changes made by Laurel Lodged at Tipperary categories have put it out of sync with every other county in Ireland, and he has made scores if not hundreds of other changes, all undiscussed, that moved articles and categories (dealing with Gaelic games away from their former and proper locations.

What this is about, is (1) whether a user (Laurel Lodged) should be free to move dozens of long-settled articles and refuse to engage on the respective talk pages when that turns out to be controversial; (2) whether that user should be topic-banned for a while until he learns to respect the views of other editors; (3) whether an editor (me) who moves articles back to their original and long-established names, after controversial moves that weren't discussed, should be regarded as a vandal and banned.

Check out (if you have some hours to spare) every instance where a Gaelic Athletic Association sporting competition has been renamed. I believe that in every instance, you will find that any moves away from the original title that were made without discussion were made by one single obsessive editor, Laurel Lodged, for reasons that cannot easily be aligned to the interests of readers or the notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. In most instances, I moved the article back to its settled title, only to be reverted again without discussion. In most such cases, I opened a discussion topic on the talk page, and Laurel Lodged did not engage. Here are a few examples, and you will see the pattern: [123], [124], [125], [126]... I could go on and on. As noted above, I canvassed views on this wholesale moving and the most recent discussion is here, where you will see that my reverts had consensus on their side.

If you want Wikipedia to be the preserve of those who have a really strong point of view about what things should be called (but aren't, in real life), and for which they really need to control Wikipedia as a platform to impose their view on the stupid masses, please vote to ban me. If you want Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible, give people who care about accurate coverage of the GAA a break, and send Laurel Lodged off to annoy someone else for a few months. Whatever way you vote, the Leinster Senior Football Championship will continue, in real life, to be the Leinster Senior Football Championship, rather that whatever User:Laurel Lodged wants to call it today. Brocach (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would remind everyone in this thread of WP:TLDR. If you want to attract the attention of other editors, walls of text are unlikly to do it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• When I see the words "POV-pushing" and "topic ban" in a section heading I expect the proposer to have a particularly strong case. When I see something like "Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong" I think the proposer is most unlikely to have a strong case. And sure enough, that is the case here. I think the most intelligent sentence in the proposal is "What on earth are you fighting over?" This is a content dispute, essentially between three editors: the proposer agrees with Laurel Lodged and disagrees with Brocach. It should be dealt with on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. --Scolaire (talk) 08:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have been observing this dispute from a distance, and agree with the previous contributor (Scolaire). There is more heat than light being generated by these interminable arguments. However, there are two main protagonists putting their cases forward, and I don't think that Brocach should be the only person facing censure. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having read The Banner's response to my suggestion on his talk page, I have to wonder if WP:BOOMERANG doesn't come into play here? Scolaire (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have disappointed you by not being convinced that there is a solution possible by mediation. More drama, more words typed, but I see no evidence from Brocach and your side that a compromise is possible. Sorry. The Banner talk 14:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a side. I don't edit-war. Sorry. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a content dispute that has spiralled out of control over a long period of time. How long has this been going on? A year? More> It revolves around a tiny point - the definition and use of the term "county" in Ireland. I suggest that a ban is put on any more moves, renames, relinks and discussions, and that the matter is discussed at WikiProject Ireland until consensus is reached. That's actually the best and correct place for this. --HighKing (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A year? July 2011 was when we apparently resolved the problem of counties! At that point it had been going on non-stop since at least June 2010. --Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request For Assistance WRXP and WRXP (FM) articles

It looks like User:RobDe68 has completely blanked out the entire article for WRXP and directs WRXP (FM) back to the blanked out WRXP page, then they put a request for a Speedy deletion of both pages. WRXP is a legitimate radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to 94.7FM in Newark, New Jersey and it was from 1964 until a few days ago known as WFME a religious broadcaster. It was recently acquired by Cumulus Media and flipped to a country format. I don't know what the heck is going on here but either User:RobDe68 is a vandal or if that is not the case they clearly don't know how to properly edit on Wikipedia. I would like to request that the previous WRXP/WFME page be restored and a repremand of caution be issued to User:RobDe68 for blanking out a legitimate and properly referenced Wikipedia article. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the proper maintenance is done, both WRXP and WFME (FM) articles will be as they were. The only difference is that the edit history will remain with the original station per WP:WPRS#Modifying_article_titles_for_stations_that_change_their_call_signs. Once a station changes its call sign the station's article is supposed to be moved to the new calls instead of starting a new page or moving station info to another page, which is what was done when the calls changed. I'd move them myself but you need an administrator once there is an edit made. Hope that clears it up. RobDe68 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The explanations seem a bit confused -- what exactly need to be moved where? Salvidrim! ✉ 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It does appear there has been some unfortunate attempts at cut and paste moves. E.g. [127]. TheGoofyGolfer, please note that cut and paste moves is rarely the way to sort anything out in wikipedia due to our desire to preserve attribution history. If you need something moved and can't do so, ask an admin's help.

Having said that, while I understand RobDe68's desire to prevent cut and paste moves, I remain confused by some of their actions. I may be missing some stuff since the history is now rather confused, but what is the plan to do with WRXP itself? If it's supposed to be either a redirect to WRXP (FM) or if it's going to be a disambig page then I don't see any need to delete the current page at WRXP. (Unless there's an existing disambig page with sufficient history that you feel should be moved there.) If WRXP (FM) is going to go back to WRXP, I don't see why you moved WRXP to WRXP (FM) in the first place.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the edit history with the stations that changed call signs per the radio project link I provided. As to what moves where, I have the db-move template on WFME (FM) and WRXP pages saying what needs to be moved and why. I swear I've done this with a ton of call sign changes/swaps that weren't done properly before. RobDe68 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To further clear things up WDVY gets moved to WFME (FM) and WRXP-FM gets moved to WRXP, this will keep the edit history for each station somewhat intact. WRXP (FM) remains a redirect as that was the new page created when the call sign changed. Sorry this got so confusing. RobDe68 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, although as note below if you don't think there's any useful history at WRXP (FM) I wonder if just leaving it at WRXP and asking for it to deleted would have been simpler. And if there is useful history at WRXP (FM), perhaps a history merge would be. Either way as I said this isn't a big deal, simple a suggestion on a possible way to reduce further confusion in future. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC with both RobDe68 and TheGoodyGolfer) You're right I partially missed the templates and then got confused by the similarity in names, sorry. However I'm still somewhat confused. As I said, I understand the desire to preserve the attribution history at the right place and I think I understand your desire on what to do with the main pages (those with the important history). In particular, I believe your plan is to move what's currently at WRXP-FM to WRXP and I understand that.

But I'm still a bit confused in particularly by your move of WRXP to WRXP (FM). What exactly is going to happen with what's currently/now at WRXP (FM)? This page was basically created recently (was a redirect prior) and I'm lazy to work out where the content came from but I'm guessing it's somewhere else. If you plan to have what's currently at WRXP (FM) deleted because there's no useful history there, that's okay if you're correct but it seems it would have reduced confusion to keep the page at WRXP and ask for deletion in situ then have what's currently WRXP-FM moved to WRXP. If you think there's some useful history at WRXP (FM) and want to preserve it for that reason, I wonder if a history merge might be more suitable. If you're just going to keep WRXP (FM) around as a redirect to WRXP not because you think it needs to be preserved I guess that's okay although again it seems it would have reduced confusion to just keep WRXP (FM) as WRXP, ask for it to be deleted and for WRXP-FM to be moved to WRXP and then create a new redirect at WRXP (FM) if needed.

To be clear, this isn't a major issue but if the move was unnecessary it would have been better not to do it, to reduce confusion in what's an already confused situation, even considering you weren't at fault.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think a history merge was possible because of concurrent edits and such. In the past the administrator moved the newly created page to the "XXXX (FM)" name to make way for the page move and kept it as a redirect to preserve the history. We made note of it on the main article's talk page. It seemed like there were too many edits on the new page to just delete it but I wasn't sure. Again sorry for the confusion. RobDe68 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes and in the process you made a complete mess of an active article. IMHO before doing anything you should have opened up a discussion on the proper talkpage to gauge whether or not other Wikipedians feel that such action would be considered controversal or not. When a move or change of an article could be construde as controversal there are proceedures set in place. While I believe your actions were done in good faith you've caused IMHO a lot of headaches trying to straighten this out. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, reversing cut and paste moves is inherently non-controversial and does not need to be discussed first. As you say there are procedures in place for moves. But simply put, cut and paste moves is not one of them and needs to be reversed ASAP to avoid nasty article history problems, regardless of the good faith of the people carrying them out. It's possible RobDe68 has made things slightly more confusing, but the main confusion comes from those who attempted cut and paste moves in the first place, which even though were done in good faith, should never have been done and appears to include you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There is this thing called a "copied" template that is used for cut and paste moves to attribute the artcile history. It is also non-controversial and used all the time. Merging and splits are cut and paste so.....--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging and splitting may use cut and pasting, but they are not a cut and paste move. Notice I was clear to specify cut and paste move rather then simply cut and paste. The copied template should never be used for cut and paste moves, but only for cases when cut and pasting was done appropriately like merging and splitting, baring perhaps the odd occasion when the cut and paste move was done so long ago as to make fixing the problem impossible without causing excessive confusion (this actually isn't likely to arise except in cases where a split, perhaps an inappropriate one where we basically had two articles covering the same thing occured) and a few other IAR cases. You will note no where does the template suggest it should be used for cases when a cut and paste move was done, only for cases when text was copied or moved which may seem a subtle, but is an important distinction. When at all possible, the correct thing to do when you come across a cut and paste move is to reverse the move ASAP and ask people (or carry out yourself) the move properly if it's otherwise a good move. If the cut and paste move has been too long to be simply reverse, a history merge may be required. If you really feel it's not possible or not ideal to reverse the move, that may be okay, however this doesn't mean reversing a cut and paste move is controversial or needs discussion. (Although using the copied template rather then reversing a cut and paste move which can be simply reversed, e.g. if there have been no edits at all beyond the move and even the move did not change anything is likely to be controversial, since as I've said that is not the intended usage of the template.) Note that none of this is intended to prejudice against a move, as I've said the move may very well be a good idea, simply that cut and pasting is not the proper way to carry out a move. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are over complicating this. Many times cut and pastes are done as moves when the editor does not realise we can move the page using the "move" function. I see that there is no accusation that this was done in bad faith. I suggest fixing this and moving on unless there is evidence of something more happening here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes no one ever acted in bad faith. I've already made it clear that I believed the action was done in good faith. I'm fully aware that these sort of move mistakes are usually done by people who don't understand how to use the move function. However the fact that people are acting in good faith does not mean we should not explain when and why a mistake was made so it is hopefully not repeated, particularly when people show no sign they understand a mistake was made and are accusing others trying to fix their mistakes of being the ones who made the mistake. It's difficult for people to learn if no one tries to help them. So I did think it important to make clear that fixing such error is inherently non controversial and does not require discussion, particularly since the OP suggested otherwise (probably because they did not understand that copy and paste moves should not be carried out). The only really 'over complicating' I can see is the copied template and merging/splitting. These were irrelevant to the discussion hence why despite being fully aware of them I did not bring them up earlier. Once you did bring them up however, I saw no choice but to explain to the OP, and anyone else who may be following the discussion but unaware of norms that these were irrelevant to what we were actually discussing. Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yobot's edits causing concern again

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

---

I just spent 20 minutes (again) correcting errors injected by User:Yobot which is run by User:Magioladitis. The bot, in making edits to remove invisible unicode control characters (of minor value, in any event), also screws up the views of pages and moves around templates contrary to their documentation. Specifically {{longcomment}} which is to be placed at the bottom of the page is moved up the page so that there appears a huge blank space where none was before. See, for example, [[128]] (before) vs. [[129]] (after). There are hundreds of other examples. I first brought to Magioladitis' attention on November 2, 2012 (see User_talk:Magioladitis#Query). Other editors also complained on November 8 (User_talk:Magioladitis#removing_control_characters) and November 9 (User_talk:Magioladitis#Why_are_you_making_edits_like_this.3F_.28removing_invisible_characters.29 and User_talk:Magioladitis#LRM_and_RLM, in which Magioladitis appeared to agree to clean up his bot's mess after I and others had the first go). We were still correcting Yobot's errors in December (see User_talk:Magioladitis#). Now, it's done another whole slew of these edits with little to no purpose but creating work for other editors. Despite Magioladitis' assurances to clean up his bot's mess, we see more mess and no cleanup. Until Magioladitis can change his bot to not create work for real people, it should be shut down (voluntarily, or otherwise). Bots are supposed to make life simpler and easier for real editors not to create more work for us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't rerun this task for 30 days. I'll try to fix the AWB bug (or short of a bug) till then. Please try not to add invisible characters in the pages till then. The discussion should move to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard in fact. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved. I added a skip condition in case {{Short pages monitor}} is detected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

rev 8860 Updated the AWB logic to handle the convention for the placement of the template & comment. I have also posted to request that WP:ORDER be updated to include the placement convention. Rjwilmsi 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. Looks like it's resolved, but I'll let an independent so decide and mark it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Promo, POV pushing and sketchy sources at National Radical Camp (1993)

I'd appreciate it if someone took a look at the article National Radical Camp (1993), a Polish far-right group (essentially Neo-Nazi skinheads). User:Kaskusia, a single purpose account, has been adding to the article some pretty POV text, and sourcing it to the organization's website, as well as apparently their facebook page. For example [130], [131]. S/he also has been messing up a disambig link but that's small potatoes. I've reverted a few times (I figured neo-nazi facebook pages were not a reliable source) and left a message both on the user's page [132] and the talk page [133] but ... no response, just the same ol' same ol'.Volunteer Marek 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Matter dealt with, for now, by others. I've warned the editor and, ahem, well, of course you, Marek, for edit-warring (pro forma, I suppose, since I know you won't continue). Thanks for the notification, Drmies (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello,I am reporting from my other account as my first account is User talk:Zeeyanketu,my user talk page is vandalised by an ip here and his contributions are here too.He tried to troubled me from long and i believe these all are from same user may be from some sock with whom i have some previous encounters.He has been used different but similar range of ip's,might be from some company or organisations.Some examples are [134] and [135].Is there any way for range block.I report with this user because he might track my contributions.Thanx Truetracker (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some pretty broad IP hopping. 115.240.22.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 115.241.178.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 115.242.123.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are static IPs from the same provider, but there are also occasional edit by IPs from the 101.63.x range. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If the vandalism is disrupting regular use of your talk page, perhaps semi-protecting your main talk page and creating a sidepage usable by IP and new editors might be a solution. Salvidrim! ✉ 06:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah this page User talk:Zeeyanketu of mine faced disruption sometimes and if there is a solution.Please consider it.Thankx---zeeyanketu ^{talk to me} 10:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who deleted the "Translations of Frere Jacques" article?

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

---

I checked today to look at one of my favorite collection of articles, those associated with the song Frère Jacques. I was stunned to realize that the "Frere Jacques translations" article (which has had a number of titles over the years) that dozens of people had worked on for several years capturing and documenting many variants and lyrics for this tune, in many different languages, has now been deleted.

The "translations" article had been removed before December 7, 2012, because a red link to it was removed in this edit.

I realize that deletionists are frantic to "clean up" this project by getting rid of as much content as possible, but sometimes they step over the line. Is everyone required to spend endless hours here per week policing articles to make sure nonsense does not happen?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translations of Frère Jacques was closed on 7 December 2012. There was some suggestion that the content might be moved to Wikisource, but that apparently hasn't happened. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• How could he delete it while on 1st base?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've restored the article's last version to my userspace where I will keep it for the next week or so. You may look at it at User:Maunus/Frerejacques and/or copy it somewhere else.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• So Filll - if you're put out about this enough that you've come to ANI without even waiting for a response at the Frère Jacques Talk page, may I ask why you haven't gone through deletion review? I imagine that would be a more helpful forum, unless your concern is regarding editors who were involved in the deletion...if so, I'd like more information regarding your specific concerns. Doniago (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review typically only looks at procedural violations in the AFD process. Was there one at that AFD? It looks like consensus to me! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there was, but given Filll's apparent agitation over the matter, I suppose they might be interested in trying to make a case for it. Maybe WP:UNDELETE instead, if they're so inclined. Either way, coming to ANI without even waiting for a response at the Talk page I noted above seems rather hasty IMO. I think Filll might want to consider a more reasoned and less emotional approach to trying to resolve their concerns. Doniago (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my violation of whatever norms have developed over the last few years. But my past experience has been that there is almost never any response to a comment on an article talk page. By the way, this sort of response is why you are losing contributors. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to what talk pages you've contributed to where that's the case. In any event, if my suggesting options for how you could better handle the situation is going to cause you to stop contributing altogether, I don't think I have anything else to say on the matter. Do you really think that the tone you came in here with was one that would most incline editors toward assisting you? Doniago (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

'Note that requests for undeletion is not a replacement for deletion review. If you feel an administrator has erred in closing a deletion discussion or in applying a speedy deletion criterion, please contact them directly. If you discuss but are unable to resolve the issue on their talk page, it should be raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review, rather than here.' The preceding sentence is from Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"WP is not a bureaucracy" may sound like an self-contradiction. True enough, it is not an organized, competent, bureaucracy, with clear lines of procedure; what it more resembles is the parody of a bureaucracy, with multiple layers added at different times without considering their interactions, and sufficient contradictions that it is possible to justify almost any position or procedure. If we took the rules literally, we could not function. In practice, the people who usually comment at Deletion Review are prepared to discuss anything related brought there in good faith.

Even so, normally it is much better to discuss these questions on a talk page first, because sometimes they do get resolved easily enough--at least handled well enough that nobody is hopeless aggrieved by the situation, which is the true meaning of consensus. When that fails, it's the time to go further. It's a good idea, similarly, to use Requests for Undeletion when it applies--it's a routine procedure that can save a lot of trouble. But if it fails to give satisfaction, or if a discussion regarding deletion on a talk page also does not resolve it, deletion review is the place.

Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions (or the moves, merges, redirects or keeps done as alternatives) to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP:Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, because the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed at deletion review. If this needs further discussion, it should go there.

Of course, anything can be discussed here, and all manner of things are; The scope is incidents needing administrative action, but that can potentially involve anything that happens at WP. Even content questions, if the dispute is carried too far or improperly, can require admin intervention. But experience has shown --at least my experience has shown me--that this coming here is essentially best kept for when nothing else conceivable will serve. This tends to be a place where one of four things can happen: precipitous over-reaction; drastic escalation; endless dispute; lack of any meaningful response at all. What's above is absolutely typical: a request for action is escalated into complaints about procedure in general, and then complaints about the tone used in making the complaints. And now i seem to have gone one step further into a meta complaint about the overall nature of the AN/I page itself. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Placeholder images and User:Ahnoneemoos

In April, 2008 an RfC was held which at WP:IPH 2:1 favored "Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles". While elevation of this conclusion as 'consensus' was equivocal, the practical outcome of this decision was that more than 50,000 (*) articles had uses of placeholder images removed. The final stages of these removals were noted in this discussion. Best estimates now are there are less than 300 articles using placeholder images now. I.e., more than 99% of the uses have been removed from the project mainspace.

In December 2012, User:Ahnoneemoos modified the target of WP:IPH, concluding apparently without related discussion and four years after the last edit to the page that the proposal had failed [136]. Subsequently, he has added placeholder images (example 1, example 2).

I reverted the change and notified User:Ahnoneemoos of doing so and why I had done so. In so doing, I pointed to Wikipedia:Image placeholders which, at the time [137] said "Use of these placeholders is deprecated". This wording had been extant for more than a year. User:Ahnoneemoos then reverted my removal of his failed tag on WP:IPH, and then immediately changed the wording at Wikipedia:Image_placeholders to remove the stance that their use had been deprecated [138]. Discussion continued at User_talk:Ahnoneemoos#WP:IPH.

The defacto standard for the last four years has been to not use these images. As I noted, more than 50,000 of their uses have been eliminated from the project. Changing these indicators confuses the situation and leaves readers potentially believing that placeholder images are in fact acceptable when in practice they are not. In looking about the project, I see things like Category:Wikipedia image placeholders which say "The use of these placeholders is deprecated". Either they are or they are not. Ahnoneemoos making unilateral changes I believe is unacceptable, muddies the situation, and leaves the project in a status where the use of placeholder images is now acceptable, despite 50,000+ of them being removed.

I am not looking for any admin action against Ahnoneemoos. Rather, I'm looking for some other sets of eyes on this. I've stopped removing placeholder images. I would notify Ahnoneemoos of this discussion, but he has banned me from his talk page. If someone else would do so, I would be appreciative. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) * - I expect the 50,000+ number to be challenged. See File_talk:Replace_this_image_female.svg#Query_results. From there, you can check uses of the biggest two of those files yourself if you like; here and here.

User notified - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Much appreciated! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Comment:: as I have explained to you several times already on my talk page, the use of placeholder images Wikipedia is acceptable as no consensus has ever been reached on wether or not these images should or should not be used. The community as a whole has never been able to decisively come to a definitive agreement. Proof of this, as told to you several times, is available at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3.

As I have also repeated to you several times already, there is no single policy or rule in Wikipedia banning the use of image placeholders nor declaring it as deprecated.

If you look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered you will notice that the community's stance on image placeholders was still divided and no consensus could be reached from that discussion.

Furthermore, and this is to everyone reading this including yourself, if you inspect Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Work being done anyway closely you will notice that the person that stated equivocally that the use of placeholders was "deprecated" was you, and only you, unilaterally. Just because a bunch of editors go on a rampant massive edit to remove placeholders it does not mean that WP:IPH suddenly became a policy nor that their use was deprecated. It just means that: that some people systematically removed most of them. This does not establish policy nor deprecation.

Now, the addiiton of {{failed}} to WP:IPH is not only justified but necessary as people must understand that, as a whole, the community never established WP:IPH as a policy and, therefore, can not be used to claim the removal of placeholders as justified.

I have asked you several times to produce evidence that such use has been formally deprecated but you have failed to do so. So, wether you like it or not, their use is acceptable. If you, however, wish to change that, it must be you the one starting a new discussion on it, rather than reverting the placing of {{failed}} on WP:IPH.

Regarding other pages claiming this supposed deprecation, I challenge you, and every editor that put such "notices" to produce evidence that such use was formally deprecated. You won't find any.

This is a case in which the use has been shoved away by a group of editors that used WP:IPH as justification to remove place holders making people beleive that it was a formal policy when it is not. I can assure you, that if you, and everybody else, as an editor, put the {{failed}} tag on WP:IPH and don't revert people, the use of placeholder images will rise once again. It took me a while to realize this and this is why I added the tag to it because WP:IPH never reached consensus to be established as a formal policy and you have no authorization to establish it as one or prohibit their use simply because you believe it to be deprecated because a couple of editors decided to remove them.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to bring into this several discussions that have been held at File talk:Replace this image male.svg which have concluded the same that I stated above. I include some excerpts here for your convenience:

From reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, the status of this image as deprecated is not clear at all. Which discussion was the image actually deprecated in?

There wasn't really any consensus to change anything. The RfC established there was general displeasure with their appearance with no agreement on what should change. If a new idea emerges or does gain consensus we can look to updating things again.

Actually there was no consensus as is evident on the discussion itself and that the placeholders are still here. If there was consensus they would be removed. Even the summery notes some feel the 66% is erroneously high as they wouldn't have !voted for a complete ban but felt that proposal was the closest or similar rationale. Also of note is that 66% represents less than 40 editors. Indeed this is a tangled issue with no leading consensus to do ... anything. Over the past two years discussion has failed to gain consensus to either replace or remove them. This page should be updated with a clear statement that reflects the communities divided opinion.

The issue remains that there is no consensus to remove them and no consensus to change anything.

It was a contentious discussion and the summary stated outright that even though there was a majority it shouldn't be considered a consensus in this case.

Hope this helps.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the discussion you linked here, it does look like there was a consensus reached in 2008 that these images don't belong on Wikipedia, and that consensus was noted and reinforced by editors in that 2012 AN/I discussion. Furthermore, there was only a lack of consensus on whether thousands of images should be mass-removed through automatic edits, but I don't see any lack of consensus concerning the appropriateness of the images themselves. It certainly appears that a consensus of some sort was reached, and reaffirmed, and I think it's reasonable to conclude from those discussions that at the very least editors should certainly not be adding them to more articles, barring some change in consensus that I'm not seeing anywhere. I also don't think it's effective to quote excerpts from an indefinitely blocked editor that had what looks like ~50 confirmed sockpuppets. Except for that very first thing you quoted, all of those quotes were from that same blocked editor. - SudoGhost 04:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There's absolutely a consensus against placeholder images. Individuals or small groups of editors who start using them need to be reminded of the consensus, and they need to be treated as disruptive if they persist in using them. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No, consensus was never reached. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 2 notes, very clearly, that although a majority of those involved in the discussion did not like image placeholders, consensus was not reached because (1) only 35 agreed with such thing and (2) only 14 editors in overall agreed with any particular recommendation. If you look closely and read the discussion in its ENTIRETY you will notice that they even state so:

We have not been able, so far, to conclude this centralized discussion.

Furthermore, when you look at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders/Archive 3 you will also notice that the whole discussion as about how to move forward and did not reach consensus either:

It’s true that we haven’t reached a consensus yet, but it ain’t over yet.

Finally, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive757#Undiscussed mass image removals by Alan Liefting; block considered starts by stating very clearly that such behavior was not discussed previously and the whole discussion is about wether administrators should stop User:Alan Liefting from using automation on this task but the discussion is not about establishing a policy about image placeholders.

Sorry, but so far no one has been able to shown unequivocal proof that there is a formal policy against the use of placeholder images except people saying there is one or that such a thing "has been" deprecated.

Once again, I challenge you and anybody else to show proof of such a policy. You won't find any. We never reached consensus.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Can you show unequivocal proof that there is a formal policy for the use of placeholder images? Barring that presentation, we're left with what is common practice on the project. The common practice is highlighted by the fact that over the last four years 50,000+ articles using them have had the uses removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• We're looking at that ANI discussion and seeing two different things then, because when several administrators state that there was a consensus and that it has not changed and not a single person says otherwise, I don't know what else to call that other than a consensus. The AN/I discussion was about the use of automated edits, yet when you first mentioned it you said "you will notice that the community's stance on image placeholders was still divided and no consensus could be reached from that discussion" now that someone actually looked at the discussion it's "the discussion is not about establishing a policy about image placeholders"? You're right, it wasn't, but yet there was still an agreement that consensus has previously been reached. A consensus need not be written in policy to exist, and what you've linked shows that the use of such images has been depreciated. Short of getting the consensus to change, those images appear to be depreciated, and that's what we're looking at here. - SudoGhost 18:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus

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

---

Admin reverted my closure, my closure diff was to reduce disruption but since User:Maunus's revert of my closure he has done nothing but raise disruption - it has been reclosed quite rapidly with a similar rationale - diff, edit summary, undo closing by involved editor YRC - this when clearly his following comments show he is overly involved in regards to me - then he contained the discussion which was not about me, and focused on me, diff he then left this post on my userpage, Your double standards are extreme. You style yourself as the BLP knight in shining armor, defending BLP articles with editwarring and personal attacks... except when the living persons are Muslims. You speculate that other people are just defending the Pakistani's right not to be painted as a nation of rapists because they are themselves pakistanis. And when you're called out you complain that people are attacking you. That is despicable behavior that frankly you should be punished for. I am sorry that I ended up not recommending a community ban in your rfc/u. I hope a new one is coming up soon so we can finally get wikipedia rid of your bigoted disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)diff, which I regarded as a personal attack, I warned him as such on his userpage, he immediately deleted it - and has continued with the personal attacking with the latest comment, "I know thats how you work. You attack others and when they give you back you whimper like a baby and say please dont post to my page. If you ever make a bigoted attack on me again I will have you community banned" - these are not the actions of a user of WP:Admin standards - Can he be told to back off and leave me alone and stop with the personal attacks please. - Youreallycan 22:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Youreallycan was involved because he closed a thread about possible racism against Pakistani muslims in which I was participating after an exchange we had yesterday in which he made a personal attack against me arguing that my opinion could be discounted because I was probably a Pakistani muslim. He should not have closed a thread about Pakistani muslims in which I was participating on that background. [139][140]
• WP:NPA Defines a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack."

What I posted at YRC's talkpage was not a personal attack under the definition of WP:NPA it was a commentary about his editing based on publicly available evidence from his editing history. I did call him a bigot and a hypocrite and I stand by that characterization of his editing, but admit I should probably refrain from that in general, I do believe that his conduct which is clear baiting justifies it and that he has no right to demand civilty from anyone untill he begins acting civilly himself. I don't need to back off and leave you alone. You initiated the engagement, and the two last comments were in response to your illegitimate posts to my talkpage. If you stay off my talkpage and don't driveby close discussions in which I participate I am fully prepared never to talk to you again. It would indeed be a pleasure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• • you missed to mention your comment - [And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?User:Maunus - And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?·ʍaunus - diff you missed to mention this one - Youreallycan 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I selfreverted that personal attack immediately - whereas yuo not only repeated but actively defended yours while being under a strict civilty probation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus - you've been here for a while, you know the rules. Edits like this, and comments like this, are unnaceptable. I mean, you purposely edited that first page an additional time just to insert your jab. I understand that things can get heated in a dispute, but things like this do nothing to improve the situation. Please make sure you don't let your judgement lapse next time, and keep a cool head.

YouReallyCan - I can't say you've done much better. Hounding users over their ethnicity is nothing short of rude. You can hold whatever worldly notions you have - there are no rules about having bias - but do not let your bias influence how you interact with the project.

I think the safest option here is to have you both avoid interaction with each other. Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself.

I hope this is a fair resolution for both of you. If not, let me know and we'll work on something else. m.o.p 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would also like to direct the community's attention to the fact that Youreallycan is currently under sanctions including aone revert restriction and a strict civility parole. I do believe that his personal attacks against me in which he speculates about my ethnicity and argues that I am ethnically motivated for my opinion and therefore can be discounted are in violation of those sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This kind of disruption is becoming a little too frequent with Youreallycan. He already disrupted WP:AE a while back and received a warning that his rollback privileges could be revoked if he played any more WP:GAMES like that in future.[141] Now here, having been WP:TROUTED by Kim Dent-Brown above, he proceeds to misuse this noticeboard by continuing his bickering in a new section. If he persists in disrupting wikipedia in this attention-seeking manner, he might well experience the WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC

• Happy to agree to and abide by Master of Puppets resolution, Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself. - Youreallycan 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is not enough. Youreallycan has not a single time suggested that he understands that speculating about other editors ethnicity or suggesting that it motivated their opinions is a personal attack. He is under a strict civilty probation and needs to be able to show that he understands this basic policy. I request that either he make an explicit apology showing that he realizes that his behavior was unacceptable or he is permanently blocked as per his standing sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• - the thread is here - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derby_sex_gang I don't see anything worthy of an apology, nothing at all compared to User:Maunus's comments today - and nothing worthy of a permanent block under my self agreed civility conditions - Youreallycan 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your restruictions were selfagreed because the alternative was an instantaneous community ban. Since you refuse to apologize or even to recognize that your comments werre against WP:NPA the csommunity will have to decide whether this constitutes a breach of your sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure about you Admin status, the alternative was not an instantaneous community ban at all - nonsense statement from you Youreallycan 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Youreally can is subject to a civility parole until April 16, 2013 as detailed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan. The comment, "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," [The conduct here] is incompatible with the promise Youreallycan made there. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I said that out of rage in response to his repeated attacks and immediately selfreverted it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Lulz, that's a quote from Maunus, not YRC. Arkon (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

LOL Mathsci as you said to me the other day, - go away and stop trolling Mathci - that comment was made by the other guy - "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," User:Maunus - haha - Youreallycan 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: (ec) How can reasonable administrators sit back and allow their fellows to display such arrogance, outright incivility and a blatantly sycophantic defence, irrespective of the provocation? All this and similar kinds of administrative behaviour must stop --Senra (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The formatting problem was corrected here.[142] Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have resigned my tools with a note that the resignation should be considered "under a cloud". My conduct was unbecoming of an administrators, who should be expected to respond better even to blatant incivility and person attacks. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Did Youreallycan breach his "strict civilty probation?

At his Rfc/U User;Yuoreallycan agreed that he be put on a strict civility probation untill april 16th 2013, and that the sanction in case of a breach would be a full site ban. WP:NPA Defines a personal attack as: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack." Holding this in mind I ask the community whether these edits [143][144] whic Youreallycan does not consider a personal attack nor worthy of an apology constitute a breach of that civilty restriction that would merit the sanctions being enacted?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• "You are simply being defensive because you are a Pakistani Muslim " (Youreallycan)
• "Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK " (Youreallycan)

Are these comments that a person on a strict civility probation should be saying?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Holding your conduct in this in mind, no. Arkon (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I recognize that I am not blameless, but I have recognized and selfreverted when I've crossed the line and my incivilty was in frustration over these comments by Youreallycan. To my recollection when I became an admin I did not sign a contract that said I should quietly tolerate being subjected to racist personal attacks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A racist personal attack? Please post the diff - Youreallycan 00:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting that opinions are caused by cultural, racial or religous background and that opinions of certain groups are apriori invalid is the very definition of a racism. Diffs and quotes above. Just as it would be racist to say "you are just being defensive because you are black/jewish/redhaired/indigenous".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• - you define you bias of rasicism as you want - however it always needs to be taken in context — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs)

YRC very much has "history" in declaring that the views of specific groups of people are inhrenetly invalid in relation to certain subjects - see Talk:Melanie Phillips#Hatchet job. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Whether it is a racist personal attack or not, it is not civil, and violated the civility parole. GregJackP Boomer! 00:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• sooner or later, arbcom is gonna have to deal with the YRC issues. — Ched :  ?  04:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(I have undone NE Ent's closure of this thread. YRC is under a strict civility parole, and only admins can decide if he's broken it in this instance. Ent's opinion (or anyone else's) can certainly be posted here to influence an admin's decision, but he's in no position to decide that the issue is moot and should be closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC))

• Yes, YRC's conduct here [145] is clearly offensive and unacceptable, and a typical example of the pattern of aggressively jumping into accusations against other editors that has been the issue with YRC for so long. I clearly see this as a relapse into the type of behaviour he was told to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, of course it was uncivil. Only a committed YRC ally could see it as not uncivil. Maunus's post was unwise, but he/she is not on a restriction (and he retracted it), and in any event I hope we don't see people arguing that the one excuses the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• YRC's comments were uncivil and provocative. After being trouted by Kim Dent-Brown in the clousre of the previous thread, YRC proceeded to post warnings on Maunus' talk page. He then opened this new thread, essentially challenging the closure of the previous thread. Not good. Mathsci (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Yes and YRC is obviously in breach of his civility probation. This has been a long-term pattern with YRC/Off2RioRob and his long block record and assorted drama-fests, including the aforementioned lengthy Rfc/U, document that undisputable fact. Now this latest mess, a waste of yet more editor hours. YRC needs to be indeffed and formally banned by the community for good. Let enough be enough, finally. Jusdafax 09:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh - I agree that that was incredibly uncivil, a breach of his probation, and this needs sorting once and for all. I see no other alternative but an indef. GiantSnowman 09:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per User_talk:Rschen7754#Working_for_blocked_contributors and per a repeated pattern of incivility - this needs to be put to an end. --Rschen7754 09:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support YRC's comments clearly violated WP:CIVIL, and the RFCU clearly mandated a site ban if the civility parole was breached. Regrettably, there's only one obvious course of action. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with a wish that YRC had not thrown this boomerang. And a reluctance to be seen as in any way defending an admin (Maunus) while castigating YRC. But as has been pointed out, Maunus has self-reverted the entirely unacceptable edits s/he made, is not under any kind of probation, did not use any admin tools in this spat and does not have YRC's record of disruption. Had YRC not impulsively opened this thread minutes after the last one was closed, I certainly wouldn't be opening one myself and asking for his banning. But he did open this thread and now must live with the consequences. For the record, Maunus please don't ever again respond to baiting like you did there. If I see a similar response in future I'm likely to block in the same way as I would for any editor. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

*Support I really like YRC but they have been hoist by their own petard here, twice. The civility parole was their own idea, and nobody forced them to raise this matter here. I am troubled by this especially because there was considerable other incivility in the thread besides YRC's, but I suppose two wrongs do not make a right. Sigh. --John (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I have struck my previous comment. The mistake was a serious one but the user as said he will not do it again. I am minded to give a last chance here. --John (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Does it really exceed the latest, apparently acceptable benchmark for a PA, namely "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" unapologetically defended on the basis of the editor concerned being easily provoked and "not reacting well to bullies" [146]. That was an Admin. Maybe different considerations apply to different editors. Leaky Caldron 10:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support That was the last straw, he's had enough rope, etc. Leaky, it doesn't really matter if it exceeds or doesn't exceed something else. YRC broke his restriction. Different considerations to apply in practice to other editors, we know that and it isn't a good thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

off-topic discussion Mathsci (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That wasn't a personal attack, silly! It was an "Oopsie!" Doc talk 10:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) LC, Beeblebrox's comment was completely unacceptable and personally I would have supported a short civility block; however that is a different matter. We are currently discussing the conduct of YRC; feel free to raise Beeblebrox's conduct as a new section if you believe it warrants it. GiantSnowman 10:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Beeblebrox wasn't under a civility parole, which makes a big difference. Honestly, if there is another solution other than a site ban for YRC I am keen to hear it. --John (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) @GS. You are an Admin., you could issue a civility block. As it stands he has run rings around a bunch of Admins. by insisting the discussion is over and not even received a warning. He can now abuse editors with impunity whenever he is annoyed by someone on his talk page, which he seems to think is exempt from NPA policy. Leaky Caldron 12:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Blocking a fellow admin will - unfortunately - always lead to drama; even more so with civility blocks. There needs to be strong consensus for that kind of action. As I've said, if you wish to discuss Beeblebrox's behaviour/attitude then feel free to do so - personally I think it will achieve little and merely increase drama. GiantSnowman 12:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's on the edge of civility, however there is much worse things going on here then this. I would suggest a short wiki break for YRC but not a full blown site ban. I think we would lose way more then we would gain in banning him, he is very diligent in applying BLP policies and we all make mistakes such as mentioned above about the admin who called someone a petty facist idiot. Lets not let the lynch everyone atmosphere get ahold of us and instead ask for a disengagement. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps YRC's 20th (or is it 21st?) short block will really teach him the community means business this time. Let's forget about his strict self-proposed probation conditions, the latest "last chance," while we are at it. Jusdafax 14:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Baiting from a sysop is ill-advised, and the "incivility" was of a level that was clearly deliberately provoked in this instance. Any block or ban should apply precisely equally to both parties or to neither. Your pick. Collect (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus was not under strict sanctions. GiantSnowman 14:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note ArbCom positions thereon given below - there is no Wikipedia baiting licence for any administrator or for any editor for that matter. Collect (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• No While we aren't a court, entrapment isn't kosher under the (US) law, and it shouldn't be acceptable here.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What entrapment? At what point did I bait YRC into discounting my opinion because I am probably a Pakistani Muslim? If anyone baited it was YRC.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

AS far as I can see, it began with this comment from you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see how that may look like baiting, but it is adressed to the fact that YRC was vociferously touting BLP policy in the thread immediately above this one arguing but in this thread he thinks it is ok to label unconvicted named individuals and their entire ethnic community as rapists. I am pointing out that clear double standard of argumentation. It did serve to personalize the diaspute I acknowledge. But in this case it is clear that certain inviduals enforce policy selectively and it needed to be pointed out that his argument was based in bias. In anycase I don't think it excuses his subsequent behavior anymore than his behavior excuses mine.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

However you chose a poor way to point out this double standard. I wouldn't have responded to the baiting the way YRC did, but no one should be shocked (including you) at his response.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken responsibility for my actions, now YRC needs to take responsibility for his.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

So then, you're actually negating Leaky's argument above - because someone was baited it's ok? No - we as human beings are fully responsible for our own behaviour. We don't simply fight or flight ... we have the power of thought that allows us to choose our reaction based on the situation and self-set criteria (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Seriously. It was a clearly racist remark without any redeeming qualities. And I really have a hard time finding "baiting" or "entrapment" there - the remarks were unacceptable under any circumstances. If this necessarily needs to lead to a site ban, or only to a noticeable block (say 4 weeks) may be open to debate. But that it needs to be sanctioned is clear to me. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Not only did Maunus start out with very clear incivilty, the comment from YRC was not uncivil in context. Asking if someone has some personal connection to a subject when that person is reacting as Maunus did is not uncivil. If Maunus were a Pakistani Muslim it would provide an understandable reason for such an emotional reaction on the subject. That isn't uncivil to suggest as a possible explanation, and it is definitely not racist.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

That suggestion takes all meaning and content out of the terms racism and ciivility. Under that understanding it would for example not be uncivil to discount someone's opinion about the holocaust because its "Just because they're Jewish"()as has happened in the past in a case such as this:[147].·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bias, of any kind, should be taken into consideration when weighing someone's opinion. A person's ethnic and cultural identity does come into play when discussing subjects that concern bigotry and perceptions of bigotry. When a white person says to an African-American tax man that "you people are all just taking my money" the tax man may take that as racist, when the white person is just angry about taxes. Context matters and in this case YRC was suggesting that your emotional reaction to his comments on the subject were a result of a personal bias. You took it the wrong way and started getting combative. Had you just started out by addressing the subject, rather than commenting on YRC's "ethics" then we wouldn't be here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree very strongly that it is ever civil to base one's argumentation on knowledge about ethnic, national, cultural or religious background. Editors should be judged on their actions and arguments on their merits. The "you people are all taking my money" is racist not because the person who says it is white, but because the statement generalizes about a group of "you people". That is what YRC did and what makes his comment unacceptable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support If this isn't incivility, I'm not sure what is. Both users are at fault, but this kind of thing is utterly unacceptable. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sadly Support that this was a violation. I honestly believe that YRC has been working his butt off to keep on the right side of the line since his RfC, but sometimes it seems like the gears just slip without him being able to stop them, and this is one of those times. He's on a strict civility parole, and he's gone WAY over the line with the behavior we're discussing now. Manus screwed up too, but the other party screwing up doesn't give leave for YRC to go off the rails, especially because he knows - he is so, so aware - that this behavior isn't kosher. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC) ETA, since the heading on this section makes things fuzzy: given that this was a blatant violation of the conditions YRC agreed to, I (grumpily) agree that an indef ban is really the only option open to us. YRC tries incredibly hard to do as he's promised, for which I compliment and respect him, but it seems like it's just not enough, and we're going to keep getting cases like this unless he's made to step away. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Jusdafax. Youreallycan is disruptive editor and should be banned. Enough is enough.--В и к и T 15:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I don't find the "he was baited/provoked" argument persuasive, as my opinion is that YRC often behaves in the same way. Someone who likes to be provocative may have been provoked, but I do consider casting aspersions of racial bias to be a violation of the restriction YRC himself agreed to. Manus has evidently resigned the tools as a result of his actions. There is no reason why we should excuse YRC's. Resolute 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The baited argument isn't at all convincing. YRC has quite clearly violated his restriction. -DJSasso (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - ban both or none under these circumstances, quite simple in the end. --Nouniquenames 17:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

  Change to weak support. --Nouniquenames 17:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Banning a non-sockmaster is unpleasant, but these probations are meaningless if not enforced. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Xe violated civility parole, but no ban or other sanctions. Being baited isn't good, Manus had equally bad behavior here and is basically getting off scot-free after using his "I'm an admin get out of jail free card". -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Except for the fact that he handed in the admin bit. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Being de-sysoped and is roughly equivalent to being indef banned. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Reluctant support per FLuffernutter and Observation #3. KillerChihuahua 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Fluffernutter. That the user is in violation appears undisputed; if anyone wants to make proposals about others with diffs and relevant arguments, fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - he did. Oppose any action. If Admins can leave messages telling editors to "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" with no warning given and evidence is redacted by an Arbcom member I see no reason why YRC should be singled out for banning, regardless what sanction he has breached. Leaky Caldron 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The admin gave up his position as an admin. Right now, YRC is the one getting away with it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Tough. The Admin I'm talking about didn't. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. The other admin was blocked temporarily though. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't research too well do you? He was blocked because his outburst was thought to indicate his account had been compromised. To date no action relating to the "FUCK OFF YOU PETTY FASCIST IDIOT" comment has been taken, with Admins tripping over themselves to avoid taking action. Leaky Caldron 18:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was very well aware of what the block was for. If you think Beeblebrox should face discipline, no one is stopping you from opening a thread for that purpose. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. If you insist that one mistake (in your view, but granted for the sake of argument) means that we cannot take any actions anymore, you really want to have no system of enforcement in place. Humans are not perfect. Neither are human-designed systems. If you claim that we cannot tolerate any errors, I have a hard time taking that position serious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Sanctions are intended to prevent disruption, not to punish editors who have offended someone with a less-than-tactful question in the face of personal attacks. Wikipedia is not the place for lynch mobs and hit squads. Right now the only source of disruption I see are editors relentlessly clinging to a desire to get their pound of flesh, or uphold DA RULZ (as they interpret them), rather than letting the matter die peacefully.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, regrettably. YRC has been around the AN/I route often enough to know how things are supposed to work; and regardless of what it may or may not has been in response to, and regardless of other stuff, a violation of a sanction that relates not just the violation of policy, but one of the Five Pillars to boot, isn't something that can be shrugged at. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support I generally don't involve myself in these highly charged ANI's, but decided to throw my hat in the ring. Having read through the talk page referenced there can be no other way to read YRC's comments as anything but a violation of the restrictions placed on him at his RFC/U which I also followed closely. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - per observations made in the "‎Baiting discussions from ArbCom", which I ask remain unhatted as there is noting particularly disruptive or inflammatory which would necessitate curtailing such a discussion. Tarc (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The comment was uncivil, without doubt, and YRC has had plenty enough final warnings before now that another would sadly just be delaying the inevitable. Yes, he was baited, but that does not excuse the incivility. If this was a first offence, then something on the order of an admonishment would be be a suitable response to an editor who was baited into incivility, but this is sadly not a first offence. It is made more troublesome by his being under self-agreed civility parole, the penalty for breaching he knew to be a site ban. A permanent ban is too harsh, rather an indefinite ban that allows for a return after YRC has demonstrated a significant period of trouble-free collaborative editing in another environment is I think the only realistic option available to us that will have a positive outcome for en.wp. This is not excusing Maunus' baiting, which is equally unacceptable, and his resignation of the admin bit is the minimum repercussion warranted - should there be another incidence (and I fervently hope there isn't) then Maunus too should, in the absence of extenuating circumstances, be subject to a block. In other words, Maunus should treat this as an absolute final warning. Thryduulf (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. That edit was beyond the pale, and it's not as if this is his first problem in this field. He'd agreed to his sanctions - now he must live with them. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Thats the wrong question. Including the previous cases it should be called: "When did he not breach any strict civilty probation?" Sad, but true. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The probation-in-question, should be repealed. Honestly, indef an editor for what? GoodDay (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support some people just don't learn... --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Facepalm - so a dedicated contributor (perhaps overly so) gets baited by another dedicated contributor who has since implied that he was not putting his best face forward, and bites at the bait. Perhaps just leave it at "time served" after the tarring and feathering he's gotten on this page in the past 24h or so (though the indef block might be more humane in the end). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nobody held a laser-goose to his head and forced him to bite. If it wasn't a long-standing issue it wouldn't be such a big deal, but the camel's back finally broke. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, YPC was on civility parole. GregJackP Boomer! 01:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: sorry, but that comment was incredibly racist and if a new user said it, he'd be banned, let alone a user on his final final chance. Any baiting does not mitigate it enough to not be a bannable offence. Seriously, I'd expect that sort of conduct from a card-carrying loyal member of the English Defence League, not a veteran editor. And in response to "it's not racist because it's true": one could easily argue that there is a pattern of child rape in the British entertainment industry, would that warrant adding Gary Glitter and Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal to Ian Watkins (Lostprophets)? Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt: British-descended atheist, was on the "remove links" side of the ANI debate below. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support (non-administrator) - YRC was on civility parol and that edit has unfortunately and undoubtedly crossed the line. This was a violation of a sanction that relates to violation of the civility policy , but also one of the five pillars and the RFC stated that there would be a site ban should YRC violate this parole. YRC's edit proves that the community cannot exhaust anymore patience here and this amount of incivility is really the last straw. Enough is enough. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. YRC raised a concern about bias with an editor on that editor's talk page. Opinions differ as to whether that's uncivil. Either way, YRC has apologised below for upsetting Maunus, and agreed to comment on contributions not contributers going forward. This does not justify a site ban for a generally very valuable Wikipedian. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
  • and agreed to comment on contributions not contributers going forward - for the umpteenth time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support YRC and editors like him are the primary reason I don't edit here as much as I used to. Whether you want to make a case for baiting or not, this instance should show that YRC is incapable of not participating in conflicts. He's well aware of what he's agreed to do as far as civility (several times), but he can't resist making the comments. He's been blocked 20+ times, been nearly blocked many more, and has taken sanctions and wikibreaks to avoid other blocks. Every time he's blocked (or nearly blocked), there's at least one other editor on the other side of the discussion trying to help Wikipedia while YRC revels in the conflict. Giving him so many chances isn't helping the encyclopedia at all, and it's only serving to keep wasting time at ANI, and keep a disruptive force on the site driving away other editors who don't come here to fight. Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support racist comments such as this has no place here, and a clear breach of the probation he is currently under. Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Baiting discussions from ArbCom

No more flame bait. De728631 (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
ArbCom has specifically had discussions regarding baiting. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Proposed_decision#Baiting Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment. Makes it fairly clear that "baiting" is a gross violation of the civility pillar. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision Tactics organized on the list include baiting, harassment and vexatious complaints against specific users in order to have them sanctioned or driven away from participating Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed_decision/Motion Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A_Man_In_Black/Proposed_decision#Baiting Editing in a manner so as to provoke other editors goes against established Wikipedia policies, as well as the spirit of Wikipedia and the will of its editors. Editing in such a manner may be perceived as trolling and harassment Which rather points out that "baiting" is not a "protected conduct" but may, per se, reach the state of a blockable offense. Collect (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Noone has claimed that it is. But it also doesn't excuse violations of civilty restrictions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC) GS certainly implied you were under no obligation to be civil or to avoid baiting another editor - that you were under no "sanctions." Baiting is not something "above sanctions" last I checked. I guess you missed his comment to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I think it was somewhat baiting..I'm not prepared to say it was intentional but I think it's an issue here...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Collect - I certainly did not imply that Maunus was "under no obligation to be civil or to avoid baiting another editor", where did I state that? What I did say was that YRC is under sanctions, whereas Maunus is not, and your call for "both-or-neither" to be punished completely ignores that very important fact. GiantSnowman 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Good attempt to derail the discussion, Collect, but it should be hatted as just that. Fellow concerned editors, the operative irony, as I see it: YRC could have let it go, but stirred the pot by bringing it here to ANI, and now is justly looking at a WP:BOOMERANG. Let's stop allowing YRC's little fan group, who have enabled years of this endless drama, to set the agenda. Hat this, and block and ban YRC per his own probation agreement. Jusdafax 16:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I am part of no "little fan group" which I happen to regard as incivility on your part here. IIRC, you have opined before on YRC, and your opinions have been highly consistent regarding him, as is true of a large number of those others holding your opinion. That you regard mention of ArbCom decisions as "derail"ing anything is more telling of your possible particular wished-for result than it is of my position here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) It should be noted that none of the above ArbCom discussions states that a user which has been "baited" is exempt from themselves having to follow Wikipedia civility rules, or from having to follow any restrictions placed on them by the community. That is, everything that Collect has to say may be both simultaneously true and irrelevent. Being baited is not, itself, a free pass to do whatever one chooses. --Jayron32 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC) That looks like a pretty good reason to hat this sub-discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC) But the gist of the Malleus Defense(tm) is essentially "if Person X wasn't so stupid/wrong to begin with, then MF wouldn't have insulted him". So in this case, if YRC wasn't baited, then there would have been no cause for him to pose the allegedly incivil nationality/ethnicity question. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC) No one else pressed the particular combination of letters on his keyboard for him, nor did anyone else press "save page". --Jayron32 20:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) That is quite besides the point, really; no one forced Malleus to call someone a "cunt" either. Absent the initial provocation, would we be here? No. Tarc (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Absent the Big Bang, we wouldn't either. We're still to be held responsible for the actions we take. --Jayron32 21:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) And I don't feel YRC is responsible in this situation if someone was being the proverbial WP:DICK to him to begin with. If someone is an ass towards me, I will punch them in the mouth. Rhetorically and literally speaking. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, but you are not required nor mandated to have that response. Other responses are possible, and may be more beneficial in resolving a dispute. YRC was not forced into a particular course of action by the actions of others. He had a range of options (including doing nothing), and he made his choice. Making a choice has consequences, both positive and negative. --Jayron32 21:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I don't think you've actually grasped the point once in this tangent. We're not talking about what is proper, we're talking about simply being right. The community has given its consent in the past that either being right or being a vested contributor excuses possibly incivil acts. For good or for ill, that's where the Wikipedia is at at this point in time. In my opinion, YRC meets one, arguably both, of the criteria. Tarc (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC) When did the community make that decision? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC) This would be as good a starting point as any. Tarc (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Well, since that's your perspective and rationale, I don't believe we have anything useful to say to each other on this (or likely any other) matter. Have fun making your WP:POINT. --Jayron32 04:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Well, I guess that's one less Christmas card to write out next year... Tarc (talk) 04:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Context matters people

We would not consider this uncivil or offensive if it was a discussion of an article about a company and he asked "Are you an employee of the company?" A discussion about hate-mongering towards a specific ethnicity does make one's ethnicity germane to the discussion, especially when that person's only contributions to the discussion are personal attacks against another person in the discussion. That it was taken as an offense is a consequence of YRC's communication style and the bluntness of his question, not because of any intent to offend. He was simply inquiring as to whether Maunus had a personal reason for being so upset over the subject. It came off in a way that offended Maunus and he reacted. Had Maunus let the matter go after that we wouldn't be here. Instead, Maunus pursued YRC and harangued him over it several days later.

The nature of civility is unclear and the nature of "strict civility enforcement" is even more vague. Some people above appear to think "strict civility enforcement" means that any comment that is seen as uncivil should be a cause for strict enforcement, regardless of context. I think this is an absurdly disruptive interpretation as it basically means an editor in a privileged position, such as an admin, can insult that editor severely and then use any less-than-perfect reaction from that editor as cause for invoking the strict civility enforcement. Even if the other party has to give up something, he or she still gets a much heftier pound of flesh. YRC did not attack Maunus out of the blue, Maunus did that to YRC. YRC did not re-ignite the conflict with Maunus several days later, Maunus did that with YRC.

There are many severe and unambiguous acts of unprovoked incivility that we would ignore from an editor without strict civility enforcement. Does "strict civility enforcement" mean that we go from that to taking every less-than-tactful comment as cause for severe sanctions even when it is directly preceded by a personal attack from the other party? I say that is an emphatic no.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What you say about context is true, but the context that you are overlooking in this case is the numerous final warnings already given to YRC. What Maunus did is inexcusable and he should face significant repercussions too, but that does not excuse YRC's inexcusable behaviour either. A civility parole is a tightrope that we do not put people on lightly, it is there for a reason. Users on that tightrope are abundantly aware that if they make one step out of line then they will face the consequences; it matters not whether they were provoked or baited - nobody is forced to respond to baiting. The only difference made by baiting is that the baiter faces equal consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Except think about what he said for a minute: "Are you a Muslim Pakistani? - I know users are and I understand how its upsetting but it is a repeat pattern - and widely reported in te UK." He was saying "I know there are people on Wikipedia who are Muslim Pakistanis and would be reasonably offended, are you one? The fact is that, even if it is offensive to you, this content should be included as it is supported by numerous reliable sources." Had he said it that way, I don't think anyone would be calling for his head on a pike so Maunus can display it at the top of his talk page. Hell, maybe Maunus would have actually been more calm in his response and this dramafest could have been avoided. YRC's style of communication means that a lot gets lost in translation. This is why understanding context is important. You aren't really pushing for sanctions on YRC for attacking Maunus, but pushing for sanctions because YRC is not good at saying what he means. Maunus aggravated this situation by keeping their personal dispute alive several days after, where otherwise it would have likely faded into a mere folk tale of the Wikilegendarium. That, in itself, tells me that no sanctions against YRC are warranted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have always assumed that "maunus" is a way of helping Anglo-Saxons to pronounce "Magnus", but I could be wrong. It never entered my head that it could be a Pakistani name or that, if it was, it was also a Muslim name. But, without conjecturing on this particular choice of pseudonym, is it not entirely outside policies on wikipedia to ask people directly whether they are Pakistani Muslims? I happen to know that there is an editor on en.wikipedia, editing from Norway, who is probably of Pakistani extraction, just on the basis of a former username, the articles he's edited and his interactions with some problematic IP editors. That information has been useful in ruling him out as a sockpuppet in SPI requests tabled by others. It is out of the question, however, unless he happens to have volunteered that information himself, to ask him details about himself (nationality, religion, etc). The preceding text seems to be a complete misreading of wikipedia policy. Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a proposal in user talk. I hope that YRC can accede to my request there. I would hate to see a valuable long term user with good intentions banned. --John (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• John, this is not just about one diff, but other prior incidents and the process of escalation. Kim Dent-Broen calmed things down by closing the previous thread and, when YRC attempted to escalate matters here, I tried to archive his request here immediately just as an extension of Kim's closure. He evidently wanted to continue his dispute with Maunus. It is that persistence, and not the single diff or two, which has created this problem. The same applied with his WP:POINTY edit warring on WP:AE to include a personal attack on me and FPaS. That matter did not concern him, yet he persisted and subsequently received a warning from Seraphimblade. I agree with you about the value of his contributions and actually would prefer a solution that does not prevent him editing articles. If you can find a means of preventing these unprovoked attacks on ordinary wikipedians, that would be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

excessive indeed - to ban a user for this diff?

I have 94 thousand contributions to this project over around four years - the vast majority of them defending living people - as per WP:BLP . I agreed to some conditions at my rfc user - a one month ban - I fully complied with this - a one revert restriction for six months after the volunteer one month ban , I am three months into that without breaking it, and a six month civility restriction , I am three months into that and when I agreed to it I never ever thought that this diff would be a reason to implement a community ban - as part of the agreement I said, a rude post is a rude post, I had a small history of attacking users, in this case I was attacked a lot by another user and kept my cool and was polite under pressure - this is not a reason to community ban a user - I have for four months been complying completely with my self agreed conditions - Youreallycan 22:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

comment

I can see now how this diff , my comment upset User:Maunus and I am sorry for his upset and I apologize to him now. I also make a declaration to move forward editing only to comment on contributions and not contributors - Youreallycan 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And this one? nableezy - 22:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Part of the discussion, a reply to a comment that needs to be taken in context in regards to the whole discussion - the whole discussion is here Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derby_sex_gang - Youreallycan 23:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the context. The context was your dismissal of any view opposed to your own as a. something that could only come from a Pakistani Muslim and b. something that should be dismissed because it came from a Pakistani Muslim. nableezy - 02:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Nableezy, but you are just plain wrong about YRC. In fact, the great thing is that I can illustrate exactly how wrong you really are about him, as well as anyone else trying to tag him with the bogus claim of being prejudiced against Pakistani Muslims. When an editor started adding a bunch of negative cats to redirect of some Pakistani Muslims who were involved in the murder of a teenage boy, YRC was there keeping out the crap. You can see the relevant revision histories here and here. Do you think someone who was prejudiced against Pakistani Muslims would bat an eye at the "child murderer" cat being added to those pages? This "racism" claim is completely bogus nonsense and anyone asserting that sort of nonsense claim about him should have their vote discounted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, let me get this straight. You're confronted with people going 'you were uncivil, having previously promised not to be uncivil in order to avoid a ban'. You categorically deny any incivility. When it becomes clear that people are voting to siteban you, you suddenly realise what you did wrong and swear blind that you'll never ever be uncivil again...in order to avoid a ban. Are you familiar with the concept 'once bitten, twice shy'? Ironholds (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That is not the case for me at all - I am simply saying how I feel about the ongoing discussion and attempting to portray my good faith position as well as I can and making an apology to User:Maunus - If I have made a digression from my conditions it is not a major one worthy of a site ban - Youreallycan 22:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time. You have broken your self agreed conditions many times, see for example: Repeated violation of RfC restrictions - site ban proposed for Youreallycan. Your promises are worthless because you are unable to keep them. --В и к и T 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No action was the outcome of that report - I have kept my self agreed conditions for four months now and want to continue keeping them - Youreallycan 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When faced with indefinite ban, you always give sweat promises. That's way previous report ended with "no action". Similarly, you avoided block/ban at least 5 times by making those last minute promises.--В и к и T 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, I always attempt to work with the community - in a good faith way to progress and benefit the project. - Youreallycan 00:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

comment from Youreallycan

Please be aware - there a lot of long term opponents of mine here with lots of previous conflict with me - such as User:Jusdafax , User:Dougweller, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, User:Mathsci, User:Nomoskedasticity , User:Wikiwind , User:Tom Morris are all conflicted users or users that I have other long term disputes with - I have had content disputes with a few other others, but , primarily these are those worthy of highlighting at this time - Youreallycan 00:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are insinuating that I am a WP: SPA, you are mistaken friend. I have no relation to any the editors you mentioned, and I highly doubt those prolific users would resort to sockpuppetry to battle you. Can we please stay on topic and lay off the accusations of sockpuppetry? 72.208.18.59 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)#

LOL - your contributions are unworthy of even the title SPA - Youreallycan 00:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Easy there, tiger! We both know that waving your burdening contributions around like magic wand is not going to prove a WP: POINT. And that is coming from a guy who was "baited" as well! Hypocrisy: it's best to avoid it, laddie. 72.208.18.59 (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any such insinuations by YRC as mentioned in your second to last post. Maybe you should log back in to your regular account. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, please list all of your long term supporters who have chimed in this thread as well, thanks. Resolute 02:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

An extremely cogent point. YRC, since you are now pointing fingers, lets see your list of your consistent backers. I imagine it won't be too difficult for you. Jusdafax 09:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• The above exchange is why I have nothing but utter contempt for IP editors, as the above is clearly and "old hand", "experienced user", or whatever euphemism one chooses. Either unable (blocked) or unwilling (cowardice) to post via their own account. Tarc (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• YRC, I don't understand why you'd play this card--the long-term opponent card. I'm not going to vote "support", above, to blocking/banning/enforcing, but sheesh, this is really a poor remark. Every time I reach into my bag of good faith (it's shrunk considerably in the last few months) someone has to say something like that. "It's not my fault and those kids hate me anyway. No fair." Drmies (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• YRC, you are correct. I've expressed dissatisfaction with your behavior in the past. I think I was right each time I did that. Instead of a blanket suggestion that my dissatisfaction with your behavior is some sort of conflict, how about some diffs? You seem to be saying "These people complained about my behavior in the past, they shouldn't be participating now." Dougweller (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I really think it would be a good idea to ask yourself how you have managed to acquire such a longish list of opponents. And if your answer is (as mine would be, no doubt ;-) "well, I'm right and they are always wrong, and they just can't stand it if I persist in telling them", think again (if that suggestion gets you stuck in an infinite loop, remember to set a timer to get back to essential functions like food and water). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threat?

Note: This discussion is still going on below the archived content. gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

---

Does this comment amount to a legal threat against WP? --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely it is. The IP must either retract it or face a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Indisputably. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. NLT does not affect the ability of editors to report crimes (or supposed crimes, don't think he'd actually get that far). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"I will get this site shut down in the US"... Seems like a threat to me, and it seems like he's thinking about legal things.. gwickwire^talk_edits 23:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you looked on the actual ORIGINAL post I NEVER said that said what you said in quotes. I NEVER said that "I will get this site shut down in the US," so you're not acting in good faith. Also, I removed that part of the post so your argument is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the link above "this comment". You most certainly did saythat. And you admitted that you 'removed' it, which wouldn't be possible if you never put it up to begin with. Don't lie, you'll dig your hole deeper (if you are digging one) gwickwire^talk_edits 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote, cut-and-pasted:

Unless there is proof showing that the pictures there are of people over the age of 18, I will making a visit to my local law enforcement office and the local FBI building to inquire about an investigation that will get this site shut down in the US.

Gwickwire's paraphrase was correct and, sorry Elen, that is indeed a direct legal threat intended to creating a chilling effect on other editors' work. An NLT block is needed here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They weren't paraphrasing, they were quoting and I never typed what he quoted therefor it is they are attributing something to me that was NEVER typed by me. They should have indicated that they were paraphrasing. Besides, I deleted that part of the comment as was asked of me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, you either said it or you didn't but the diff never lies and in this case you said it. Bidgee (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will making a visit to my local law enforcement office and the local FBI building to inquire about an investigation that will get this site shut down in the US certainly is a legal threat. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, it's doesn't worth that way. They quoted me as saying something I didn't. Look at the quote, I never said what he quoted me as saying. I never said, "I will get this site shut down in the US." What is up there is what I said and I freely admit to saying that. On top of that, I took it down as was asked by me (and I apologize for reacting that way) if you look at the talk page and I admit that I should have never taken it to this level, but this is a legitimate concern and one that needs to be addressed in order to keep people from getting in trouble for looking at pictures of people who might very possibly be minors pleasuring themselves on an open website.

• It is not a legal threat, which is according to WP:NLT is a threat to employ litigation. Reporting what one believes to be a criminal offense is not a legal threat. Do you really believe that it is appropriate to try and discourage a person from reporting a crime? Or to take action against him because he reports an offense? That's not the moral thing to do, nor the ethical thing to do. If he believes it is an offense, let him report it. The appropriate law enforcement agency will investigate it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Sorry, but you've got it wrong. NLT is not about specific wording, it's about an attempt to intimidate via quasi-legalistic language, which is exactly what the IP was doing. He's now redacted the legal threat, so that's that (for now). But you need to understand what NLT is actually about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bugs. There is really no difference in chilling effect between "I am going to sue you" and "I am going to get criminal action brought against you." Nor is this a question about someone's ability to report a crime. If the IP really thinks that there's criminality on that article, then he or she can certainly go to the authorities to report it. What they cannot do is threaten to go to the authorities in order to get something done here. There is a neutral, non-threatening way to point out potential criminal liability, and a threatening, NLT way to do it, and this was decidedly the latter. In my opinion, the closing of this thread and dismissal of the complaint was a mistake in judgment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. There is a clear threat here to take a legal action. People are, of course, allowed to contact the cops if they see a crime. What they may not do is to us the threat of contacting the cops to intimidate others. This is a clear letter-and-spirit violation of NLT if I ever saw one. --Jayron32 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I gave the user a pseudo final warning, saying I'd re-report him here if he continued what he was doing. He's still at it by the way, except now he's using ad-hominems of sorts and other methods to produce a chilling effect to get us to do what he wants. I also directed him to Commons (sorry all there), as that's where the images are hosted, where he may have more luck. If an administrator can please take some sort of action to prevent this chilling effect from going further, it'd be appreciated. Thanks, gwickwire^talk_edits 22:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I have been discussing the issue WITHOUT using a legal threat at all. I have not been using ad-hominems at all. I would like to see some sort of proof of that considering that I can't see it. This is nothing but a complete lie. I have also been responding to a personal and ad hominem attack that Baseball Bugs has put upon me which he refuses to retract although he, as his history has shown, is not slow to report any and everyone who he thinks violates Wikipedia policy in order silence them.

proof. Which has been provided multiple times before and always gets a "I didn't say that" response from you, when the diff shows that you said it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though the IP claims to not have said it, they did partially redact the threat themselves shortly after it was brought up at ANI. If they had been more upfront and admitted to the threat, this issue could have been resolved without the escalation drama. Although, due to their cleanup of the threat wording, I question the block reason. Granted, they were approaching a block for trolling (if not already exceeded it), but I suspect a NLT block may not be supportable given the attempt at redaction. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly a legal threat; I've blocked (only for a week, given the nature of IPs, but poke me if he reappears after that and acts in a recidivistic manner) Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: a head's up that in this reply to the block, the user's statement "Thank God for dynamic IP addresses" suggests the page needs to be monitored for block evasion now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From WP:NLT: "Rather than threatening to employ litigation, you should always first attempt to resolve disputes using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures."

Based on the definition of "litigation", the user did not breach the letter of NLT, but he certainly violated its spirit. Perhaps NLT should be amended to include criminal prosecution. As far as I know, there isn't any policy regarding criminal lawsuits, and I believe that WP policies are set up in such a way so as to prohibit actions by users that would violate United States or Florida law (though I'm not sure about that), but these things do come up every so often. Would anybody be interested in an RFC on NLT to include criminal lawsuits in the definition of legal threats and explain how concerns of criminal violations should be reported and addressed? —Rutebega (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think that our point is getting through. I posted the following in a discussion with an admin who dropped by to comment on NLT at my page, and it holds true here.

"I have to disagree from several standpoints. First, it is not morally or ethically correct to discourage someone from reporting what he believes to be a criminal offense to law enforcement authorities. Second, it may very well be a criminal violation in and of itself to discourage someone from reporting an offense. Third, it would be terrible press for the project to have that splattered over the news that Wikipedia wanted to prevent the reporting of a possible crime, especially in this case, where the crime allegedly involves minors and sexual matters. Finally, taking it in context, nowhere in the policy does it speak about criminal actions, it speaks of litigation. It is a question of balance. Which is more important, the editing of articles, or crime? That is not to say that I agreed with the way he went about it, but I don't think that we should, nor do I think the WP:NLT policy requires, us to take action to prevent someone from reporting what they believe to be a crime to authorities. As a hypothetical, what if a female editor is raped by a male editor at Wikimania or another WP sponsored event. Are we saying that she can't pursue criminal charges because it inhibits editing? That's not morally nor ethically sound."

As a further note, it speaks of litigation and civil lawsuits, but not once mentions criminal actions. Like I noted above, I don't think that the individual went about this the right way, but speaking from twenty years of personal experience in the field, in any of my cases, anything that could be construed as obstruction got a very close look. I just don't think that it is good for the project to use that policy in criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, the difference is not in reporting Wikipedia to criminal authorities, it is in using the threat of doing so as a means to get his way. No one has said he can't walk into his local FBI office and ask to have someone investigated. What people have said here is that he can't threaten to do so on Wikipedia as a means to force others to his will. --Jayron32 04:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what we are trying to do, as far as getting his conduct back to civility. All I'm saying is if I were contacted on a criminal investigation and presented with the facts that we have here, one of the things that I would have done when I was an officer is look at whether any obstruction occurred, or tampering with either a complaining witness or evidence. Second, this type of thing tends to attract press coverage if the cops are incensed about it. Either one of those things is not good for the project.

I could have missed it, but I didn't see anyone tell him that if he thought there was a crime, to report it to the authorities, but don't discuss it here. What I saw was what appeared to be an attempt to shut him down and get a retraction from him by threatening to block him. There are better ways to do this on criminal matters. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have wanted to write up an essay over Chilling Effects (like this kindof was) at Wikipedia, or a proposal to add it, but haven't had time. I'll see what I can write up. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious edits by hopping IP

We have an IP editor, manifesting as 87.67.18.206 (talk · contribs) and 87.67.21.139 (talk · contribs), who has been making a series of wildly tendentious edits at several articles including lobotomy, persistent vegetative state, and physical punishment, and edit-warring when they were reverted. This seems to be at least in part a grudge against EEng (talk · contribs). Since this is a bit complicated for the routine noticeboards, I bring the problem here. I will notify the latest incarnation, for what it's worth. Looie496 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(I do not have an account yet.) My edits are justified and I provide strong sources from mainstream newspapers which I quoted verbatim or almost (in the case of physical punishment, I mentioned a source as edit message, from another article). It should be added that you Looie496 (talk · contribs) reverted my edits despite me providing and quoting those sources. I hold no grudge against EEng (talk · contribs). I only revert his reverts when I think that he's tendentious, and I think that he reverts too much. Deleted reverts and deleting text with a source is highly different. I believe in his good faith, but think that sometimes he is a bit biaised and takes matters personally (refer to his talk page). I don't think that I've deleted any text from him bigger than 20 letters. I should add that EEng (talk · contribs) has never edited the pages physical punishment and persistent vegetative state, and probably never lobotomy, at least not in the last month. So I'm not quite sure why you mention those. Although I agree we are having an edit war on other pages and would like to see those issues settled in a civilized manner. 87.67.18.206 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(Sorry for writing twice here). I don't think that I'm tendentious. I write text mostly relating to lobotomy, a practice that has been abolished and is considered a dark moment of humanity's history. (This is obviously the mainstream opinion, nobody can argue with it, and this view is supported by the newspaper articles that I quote.) As it's been said in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ant%C3%B3nio_Egas_Moniz (talk page of article Egas Moniz) by 65.96.175.245 in 2007, some articles about lobotomy are only treated positively, and this is a huge mistake which makes Wikipedia look bad. I make an effort to show its negative sides. In fact, I was shocked by the articles, and this is how I got into editing Wikipedia. 87.67.18.206 (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As one specific example, this editor has twice added lobotomy as a "See Also" link to physical punishment. Looie496 (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is a valid edit. Lobotomy is mentioned as physical punishment in the Rosemary Kennedy article. The terms "lobotomy" and "punishment" yield almost 2 million Google results (http://www.google.be/#hl=fr&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=lobotomy+punishment). The book "Halfhead" by Mc Bride talks about lobotomy as a criminal punishment (see: http://www.librarything.com/tag/lobotomy%252Fdisfigurement+as+criminal+punishment). It is thus fair to consider that it can be a punishment, even if it's not always a punishment. Push-ups are also listed as physical punishment, even though they can also be a physical exercice. This doesn't make me biased. I can't believe we are even arguing about this. The issue is easily solved. I ask the Wikipedia admins: would you consider lobotomy as a physical punishment if it was performed on you, against your will? If the answer is yes, it means that it can be a physical punishment, and proves that 1) my edit was valid 2) I'm not "tendencious".87.67.18.206 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in the Rosemary Kennedy article is her lobotomy mentioned as a physical punishment? Doc talk 06:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only implied as a punishment for a misbehaving teenager, I quote "her parents had difficulty dealing with the often-stormy Rosemary, who had begun to sneak out at night from the convent". However the book "Halfhead" that I mention is explicit about it (it's even tagged as lobotomy and disfigurement punishment on the website), and so are the infinite Google results which represent the opinions of countless individuals. I should add that lobotomy is also mentioned on Medical torture, fiction paragraph. Any torture can be used as punishment, torture itself is a punishment. If anything, torture and punishment articles need merged, but this conversation doesn't belong here. I'm just trying to prove that I'm not a vandal and my edits are not random. 87.67.18.206 (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe you are being accused of being a vandal, but more likely of WP:SYNTH (not observing WP:NOR) and not considering WP:NPOV carefully enough. Rosemary wasn't punished by her family or her doctors with a lobotomy: they tried to treat her in an era before the significant advancements made in medicating mental illness occurred. It wasn't for "punishment" at all. Doc talk 07:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

To 87.*: your edits come across as tendentious. Please listen to what other editors are telling you, and don't resort to edit-warring to push your views through. Also, if you wish to pursue this matter further, please register an account. While editing without an account is legitimate and welcome in principle, one thing you should not do is pursue a protracted editorial dispute from dynamic IPs, because when your contribution history gets cut up into multiple IPs it's much more difficult for other editors to keep track of what you're doing. Finally, stop following EEng around to revert him; what you're doing is clearly "hounding" and needs to stop immediately, or you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine. However I believe you are biased since you only make this comment to me, and not EEng (talk · contribs) and Looie496 (talk · contribs). Considering that EEng asked Looie496 to help "edit-battle" me on Looie496's talk page (they are friends, and also talk about a friend in common), and that Looie496 followed my edits and reversed them, this is not very fair, and they should have been targetted by your comment too.87.67.18.206 (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No. You started this, and EEng legitimately asked for help after you targeted him. This whole situation is your fault alone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It takes two nations to make war. Does this mean they can keep following me and editing out everything that I write? That's ridiculous.87.67.18.206 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

'It takes two nations to make war.' - Yes, but sometimes all one of them has to do is be attacked by the other. This is a fatuous line of argument. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverts should only occur with problematic edits. If you're editing lobotomy and similar articles, I'd advise you to try and not do so from a moralising perspective. There's lots to criticise, but most psychiatrists who favoured the procedure believed that it could provide real benefits to some patients at least. That doesn't discount the fact that, in an institutional context especially, it was used for behavioural management of difficult patients ("chronic" and "troublesome" patients were particular targets). Managerial and clinical goals were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Also, if from the perspective of the present it seems an unremittingly barbaric surgical procedure at the time it was seen as a modern and scientific technique holding out the possibility of cure (or at least significant improvement). FiachraByrne (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks needed

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

---

I'm sure this was a oversight but per this SPI [[148]] User:DesiredUsernameYES and User:SeemsNeedAnAccountForAFD should be blocked as checkuser confirmed socks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! m.o.p 06:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Possible sockpuppetry by User:Curtaintoad

Dealt with. Further inquiries about this matter should be directed to the arbitration committee by email. T. Canens (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A couple of weeks ago, User:Curtaintoad signed the guestbook on my userpage. This morning, I received this comment on my talk page. Also, Curtaintoad currently has an indef block on their account. Does anyone know the rationale for the block? Also, is User:124.149.96.116 a possible sockpuppet of Curtaintoad? See also Special:Contributions/124.149.96.116. Cheers, Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 14:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Edit: The rationale for this user's block is not important to this discussion. Rather, I would like to focus on the subject of possible sockpuppetry by the blocked user. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I would disagree. I'd be very interested to know the rationale for the block. I still haven't ready anything helpful in that regard. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) There's something at User talk:Roger Davies. Apparently he thought that Curtaintoad was too young to have an account. De728631 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Hmm. That's interesting. Though I thought WP:CHILD only applied if the individual was doing little to contribute to the project.I'll take a look at his contributions. As for the sockpuppet, I just thought it was unusual for an IP user to ask specifically for something as trivial as a guestbook signature. Freebirdthemonk Howdy! 17:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Curtaintoad's mum is active on Wikipedia, and I think she just wants him to channel his enthusiasm into productive areas. Therefore I'd say there is a reasonable amount of parental supervision going on here. From reading his talk page, Roger's comment implies the block is only temporary while some personal issues are addressed, so I don't see a need for socking. You might want to notify his mum of his discussion (can't remember the account now). FWIW my friend's (now) 14 year old kid signed up to Facebook under-age, but you'd never know as she's mature and sensible for her age. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Curtaintoad's mum is WendyS1971 (talk · contribs). As you can tell from her contributions, she has made no apparent on-Wiki comment on the situation. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I don't know anything about this case in particular, but I will note that it's unfortutately not terribly uncommon for Arbs or oversighters to have to place what might be termed "child competence" blocks - that is, as far as child protection, it's not a matter of only age, but a matter of how age interacts with ability to operate safely in an environment like Wikipedia, and when that equation comes out negative, a block may be placed. As for the IP edit, it certainly appears to me to be block evasion, but this matter might be better referred to Arbcom rather than ANI, since they apparently handled the original block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

New account pretending to be an admin

Vao Tv1‎ (talk · contribs) is a new account created today that has made six edits. The very first edit made by this account consisted of the user adding the "this user is an admin" userbox to their user page. Based on that edit and the others, I have to question if this user is new. They certainly bear investigating. I made an inquiry on their talk page, but have yet to get a response. At the very least, they are guilty of impersonating an admin. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, the pretending to be an admin bit reminds me of Dannyboy1209. He's socked with a number of IP's but never another account. I'm not sure yet from the other edits that there's a similarity. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it could be anyone. To me, this seems to pass the duck test. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough that any action should be taken at this moment. We can see if any future edits show disruptive behavior, or behavior similar to a blocked user. For right now, I think we should AGF and hope he's not a sockpuppet. Ryan Vesey 17:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I will also say that new users sometimes quite often try to become admins, they're too eager (recent example not given... but some will know). I think we need to AGF a lot here, and wait for anything disruptive before blocking/other action. gwickwire^talk_edits 18:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I get where you are coming from but when a brand-new account's first edit is to add the admin userbox, something is very suspicious about that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Would their 4th edit being to a RFA raise some eyebrows? Blackmane (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was on an RfA-related RfC, which might be even more eyebrow raising. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In this edit the user has also put his or her user page into Category:Wikipedia, which seems an odd thing to do too. EdChem (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(Reply to AutomaticStrikeout) Oops, missed the Talk part, but like you say, the point stands. Blackmane (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to explain. Though the username is new, I am indeed experianced but I've been editing anonymously until I deciced to make a new account since you can't retain an IP's editing history. After I received a message from AutomaticStrikeout, I lost my internet connection and couldn't not respond immediately. I do appreciate the good faith, since many people get suspicious and end up blocking people involved in these discussions. Vao Tv1 (talk) 13:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Constant article vandalism by User:NotHelpingMatters in Futanari

I reverted the edits from User:NotHelpingMatters and his corresponding IPs 70.112.2.185, 67.168.249.185 multiple times already and asked him to discuss matters at the discussion page, because his changes introduced many errors (see discussion page, a lonely conversation with myself), leading to a more and more destroyed article. I hoped that he would seek out the discussion page, but i can only guess that his goal is to get attention and to purge the articles illustration, starting with his first edit, along with personal attacks like: Grow the hell up, you simpering creep. Nobody wants to look at your shitty porn art. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 17:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not engaging in vandalism. I am attempting to restore the article in order to make it have a more professional tone, to remove bias by previous editors, to allow for it to be safely browsed by those who do not wish to see porn images at the top of articles that do not need them. Niabot's contributions have been consistently biased, with attempts to inflate the cultural importance of the subject, attempts to define needless sub-categories of the topic, attempts to inject personal bias such as calling certain terms for the phenomenon vulgar and offensive, which is both not true and quite honestly shows an emotional over-investment in the topic's perception by others. He has repeatedly referred to my attempts to remove the needless and graphic illustration as vandalism. Additionally, I am not the first person to attempt to reclaim the article from Niabot's harmful and over-enthusiastic edits, as the logs for the article clearly show. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Futanari&offset=&limit=500&action=history . The image at the top of the article, which he insists on including, is one that he drew himself. It is graphic, unneeded, poorly made, and damages the article by its presence. I implore the moderators to remove Niabot's ability to edit this article, as his edits have been consistently unprofessional, biased, and harmful to the intended purpose of the page as an entry in a neutral online encyclopedia. - NotHelpingMatters (Talk)

If "restoring" would mean to change sentences to a different meaning, that is not supported by the sources and to destroy the references, while ignoring to discuss the issues, then i could agree with your edits. But your edits introduce many false facts and the smooth, but vague wording doesn't help the reader if the facts get wrong. I never defined any subcategories and i only called terms vulgar or offensive that source [Katrien 2007] stated to be seen as vulgar and offensive in the eyes of the fan community. I see your wording and accusations as another personal attack. I wrote the German futanari article which was assessed to be an quality article. Your edits only show that you never tried to read any of the sources and that you are not familiar with the terms at all. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

NHM, please include links to your user page and talk page in your signature. In addition, there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia, only admins. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz incivility, personal attacks, disruption, harassment

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

---

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has been disrupting a VPP discussion with tendentious repetition of comments, general incivility, personal attacks, and harassing attacks on unrelated articles created by certain of the commenters. At a minimum, the VPP thread (linked below) should be archived with a clear statement of the very clear consensus, but KW's conduct is really appalling and I think calls for some kind of remedy.

A thread was started at VPP at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Prohibited (sic) links regarding KW's insistence that we should comply with a certain website's TOS by not giving the full URLs for pages, instead only giving the domain name and an ID# of some kind for the particular page. The discussion attracted many other editors, all of whom disagreed with KW that we had any kind of obligation (whether moral or legal) to refrain from giving full URLs or that it was at all useful to just give the website's domain name. So the question that prompted the thread is resolved by a clear consensus.

KW, however, continued both to tendentiously repeat that you can still find the right page without the full URL,[149] and, even worse, to snipe and nitpick at others' comments, often paired with insults,[150] attacking everything from their choice of particular pronouns[151] to my use of scare quotes around "citations" in reference to the mere use of domain names rather than the full URL,[152], to whether a commenter's recommendation that he read WP:OWN was an appropriate response to his repeated use of the phrase "my articles".[153] None of this was a constructive contribution to the discussion at this point, all of it was a completely disproportionate response to what was actually said by others (if not a willful misreading of grievous insults that just weren't there), and it just served to make the discussion more hostile in tone (KW was apparently already feuding with the editor who started the thread from what I could tell).

Even worse, he has been personalizing the disagreement, both in the VPP thread and in unrelated content outside of it. He listed an article at AFD that he had no prior edits to, but which was started by another commenter at the VPP thread; it was speedy kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamelan gong gede. This comment makes it pretty clear that KW targeted it because he thought that the quality of an editor's contributions somehow undermined their disagreement with or criticism of him. He went out of his way to downgrade the assessment of an article, Terry v. Ohio, just because he saw it on my userpage list of articles I had started, and to also offer its purported low quality as somehow undermining my comments at VPP just as he did with the other commenter.[154] (I don't care about the assessment itself, as I didn't grade it and I don't think I've touched the article since I gave it a rough start in 2004 except to revert vandalism; I just question the motive and objectivity behind KW's change of it). He also tried to start a pissing match on my talk page about who had contributed a better article, which I removed without comment.

All of this needs to stop. This apparently is symptomatic of a recurring civility problem with KW, though I don't recall being subject to it in the past. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What disruption? Pigsonthewing (if my memory is correct) added a full url, I reverted and asked for a discussion on the talk page, following the consensus on copyright-infringement's discussion. Postdlf reverted me. You can see what he calls (with dismisive quotes) "'citations'" and "mere use of domain names" by examining that diff.

I thanked editors for repairing the gamelan article, after it had references added, finally. Let us hope somebody cares about the Ohio versus somebody article to fix it (and check for copy vios, as should be done whenever we have one-source articles)...,

Why he and the others got so excited that they started to irrelevantly lecture me on Wikipedia policies---except curiously for WP: Verifiability---is beyond me. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I went looking to see if KW had had a previous RFC/U filed for his behavior, and he has at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Albeit a year and a half old, it also indicates these issues. --Izno (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

At the VP discussion, I have been subjected to "childish", sneering "citation" used on articles I wrote, false accusations of violating WP:ownership made without evidence, and left standing, etc.

Would that Postdlf were concerned with NPA and Civility, when he and his buddies violate those policies.

Please see his reaction to a discussion of WP:Verifiability.

I don't have time to play games with diffs. Editors should look around in the page histories. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about this incident - but if I recall correctly Kiefer was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing not to long ago (like 3 weeks ago)? I must have missed something or its not the guy I was thinking of. Does this problem keep arising?Moxy (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

He was blocked indef by BWilkins back in late December and unblocked an hour later. I would say no block should be issued for this without consensus, as we all know that Kiefer, as is the case with most prominent editors, will otherwise be unblocked fairly quickly. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Could any of you address any of the insults directed towards me in the last week in these threads, e.g., "daft", "childish", accusations of violating WP:Ownership, AGF violations, etc.

Or is this civility and NPA enforcment going to continue to be a one-way street?

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

After looking through the VP section in question, my suggestion is that you all just let the matter rest. Imo, there is slight evidence of tendentiousness on the part of kiefer.w though I don't think it has wandered out of bounds as yet. But there is also some evidence of baiting, just within the margins of propriety and possibly because of a longer history on this issue, which might account for keifer's tenacity. Thumperward seems to have summarized the discussion adequately and, since there appear to be faults all around, let it go. --regentspark (comment) 19:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Really not sure what the point in this report is... Unnecessary time wasting. Time is precious...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I sure am glad that the shutting down of Wikiquette Assistance didn't result in a rise in incivlity and annoyance complaints here on AN/I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Review of an AfD requested

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

---

Could an admin take a look here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jingle Cats. If I understand his "rationale" the user nominated the article for AfD because the smaller, fully sourced version is not worthy of an encyclopedia, but the larger, unsourced and promotional version was? I suspect a speedy close may be in order.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:OKBot is malfunctioning inactive

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

---

Just checked the article Wikiquote, and it looks like the last update for the Alexa rank by User:OKBot was on 2 August 2012. This bot is listed as active; however, the last updates for any articles were on 9 September 2012. Other editors have tried to contact the bot owner on 11 December 2012, but the request was archived without a response from the owner. This bot would be very good, if it was working. Maybe someone else can take over the bot? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the header to inactive rather malfunctioning (as it isn't malfunctioning). Very possible, probably worth heading to Wikipedia:Bot_requests ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll post a request there, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit-warring and disruptive editing by User:BigBabyChips

This has gone one long enough. I am normally careful not to cross venues, but this is one of those times it needs to be crossed. A related discussion about NPOV exists here[155], but this isn't about the NPOV issue, it's about User:BigBabyChips conduct and multi-article edit-warring.

1) His edit-warring over several articles. Examples are [156], [157], [158], [159], [160]. He has been warned about the 3RR by me here: [161],[162], [163], [164]. He was also warned by another editor here [165], another one here [166], [167] and an editor at NPOVN also told him [168]. Yet he continues to remove the same info over and over.

2) BigBaby was told not to post on my talk page unless required by policy (like mandatory notification of this thread) [169]. He posted there twice after warning: [170], [171].

3) Big Baby has disrupted several articles, all over the same info and has refused to engage in meaningful DR attempts. He simply yells a lot, misapplies policies (namely BLP and NPOV) and has a lot of WP:IDHT going on.

In short, the editor isn't willing to engage in the process and is being very disruptive to several articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editor was notified of this discussion [172]. And before this gets thrown out as a red herring, I did say "Many Juggalos are simply young people with horrible taste in music and ridiculous tastes in fashion [173] on a talk page." This has been used as "evidence" of my "bigotry". Niteshift36 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
• Since this report was posted, the editor has reverted the same material again on at least 3 articles: [174], [175] and [176]. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Look at the definition of bigotry. It applies here. I don't know if you've noticed, but there is a warning when you edit this page saying to report serious threats of violence, etc. I think that may apply to repeatedly adding a music fanbase as an alliance of a criminal gang. You should be very lucky that I have not used that email to report you for categorizing a music fanbase as a criminal gang, which places Juggalos, which you are clearly prejeduiced against, in danger from actual gangs. The fact that directly stating that Juggalos are a "gang" violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV has been told to you REPEATEDLY, but you do not listen. You have attacked me because you want to continue pushing your views. I have not edit warred or edited disruptively, I have corrected very obviously wrong information which violates Wikipedia's rules. For you to continue insisting that the music fanbase of Insane Clown Posse is a gang because you don't care for their music is disruptive. For you to repeatedly add a music fanbase as a "gang alliance" violates BLP and NPOV rules. This is very clearly a NPOV issue, and you are clearly acting out of bigotry against Juggalos rather than any sense of neutrality. You are clearly NOT acting in WP:Good faith here by repeatedly categorizing a music fanbase as a gang because you do not like their music. Please stop wasting administrators' time with your bigotry. BigBabyChips (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is probably worth pointing out here that, as I made clear at WP:NPOVN, [177] the sources supposedly being cited for 'the Juggalos being a gang' appear not to do so - instead they say that individuals/agencies have described some Juggalos as being in a gang, or behaving in a gang-like manner. Regardless of the behavioural issues concerning BigBabyChips, it seems that there may be a wider problem concerning an apparent misrepresentation of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is no "regardless of his behavior" here. This is solely abut his behavior, not the sources. That discussio n is happening elsewhere. Your diversion doesn't excuse his edit warri ng. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You cited reversion of material as one of the problems - I am merely pointing out that the material shouldn't have been there in the first place - and it takes two to edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• That is a content issue Andy, one you've started addressing at NPOVN. At least 5 other editors have restored the info. You have rendered a singular opinion that it doesn't belong because it's a primary source (a position in dispute) and now act like it's a fact. Regardless of how right he thinks he is, 3RR still applies. This thread is about his behavior. As for "it takes two....", actually, it takes more than that here. No less than different 6 editors have reverted him. I'm not sure why you feel the need to defend him or why you feel the need to go render the same opinion in 3 different threads (yet never at the actual article talk pages), but please don't divert this one. ANI isn't intended for content disputes and you know that. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

A gross breach of WP:BLP at the 'Derby sex gang' article.

Amongst all the other problems with the recently-created Derby sex gang article, it had remained unnoticed util an hour or so ago that amongst those described as 'convicted' was an individual entirely unconnected with the case. This individual had been included right form the start, which has made a redaction of almost the entire edit history necessary. The person responsible, user:AnkhMorpork, has attempted to post an apology of sorts to ANI while asking for a revdel [178] (this has been deleted as 'wrong venue' for the revdel) but given the severity of the error, I consider a mere apology inadequate. Not only was this a gross breach of WP:BLP policy, it could possibly even have legal repercussions, given the source that AnkhMorpork seems to have got it from. This user seems to have a habit of writing sensationalist material, often based on a poor reading of often-questionable sources, frequently apparently aimed at placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light. Given this latest fiasco, and its potential ramifications, I have to ask whether it is in Wikipedia's interests to let this editor contribute to such articles at all? I think not...

(A reminder: DO NOT under any circumstances name the individual concerned, and DO NOT provide links to sources which would allow the name to be inferred - we must not compound the problem by drawing more attention to the individual) AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've popped it onto pending changes given that it's history has been one gigantic BLP violation. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I erroneously included a name when creating the table of perpetrators in the Derby sex gang. As soon as I became aware of my unfortunate error, I removed the name and requested revision deletion. I must have gotten confused with a recent case of child grooming that I was reading about and was simultaneously working on, in which this individual's name was mentioned.

I obviously understand the BLP ramifications of such a mistake and will certainly be more careful in the future.

• "often-questionable sources" - I ensured that I only used reliable sources when creating the Derby sex gang. The sources used in the article are: the BBC, the Telegraph, the Independent, and the Times. This accusation is unfounded.
• "placing certain ethnoreligious minorities in a bad light." - I am mindful of the sensitive nature of this article and before I created it, I asked an experienced editor, Malik Shabazz for advice on whether I had described the analysis section in a "balanced and accurate manner". He replied that "the section represents fairly what the sources say" upon which I created the article.

I have tried my best to represent what the sources have stated in a fair and neutral manner. Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to.

• Upon discovering my erroneous inclusion, Andy opened a new section on the talk page emblazoning the name of the individual in big font, which subsequently had to be redacted; this despite him being aware of the BLP implications. Another editor commented on this inconsistent approach. If an editor more experienced than myself of BLP considerations, and who is aware of an imminent problem, can similarly cock-up, perhaps you might appreciate that my error could similarly have been unintentional.Ankh.Morpork 19:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that there have been no convictions regarding this other case of alleged child grooming either... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Where I have strayed from this fine line, it has been the result of inadvertent error and not because of the ulterior motivations that you impute to. For some reason I doubt that. I cant see another reason for edits like this. nableezy - 20:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• The fact that AnkhMorpork, in his very first edit to this shambles of an article, thought it prudent to specify the group as "Asian men" (my italics) tells you everything you need to know about this editor, and what he wanted to achieve with the article. Not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. GiantSnowman 20:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And it tells you exactly the same about The Telegraph who reported: Asian gang prowled streets searching for rape victims, upon which I based my edit. Two other editors on the talk page agreed with this inclusion. Ankh.Morpork 20:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep - on the right-side of the political spectrum. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And we're not supposed to mention the ethnicity at all, even when it's mentioned in reliable sources? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'the ethnicity'. Not all the offenders were from the same background - though It took a comment from me on the talk page to point out that a 'non-Asian' offender had been omitted (and even then, the individual's name seems to have been spelled wrongly, thogh by whom it is hard to tell, given that the article history has been redacted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger - we shouldn't give the ethnicity WP:UNDUE weight, as AnkhMorpork loves to do. GiantSnowman 09:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing this side show which has nothing to do with matter above Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry AndyTheGrump - I have been watching matters unfold and I now feel obliged to ask "you" to account for the following. On 20 Jan you raised the issue of three named persons being included in a table - you felt that they should not be included as the history and sources did not warrant inclusion. Given that you had to asses the content of the table and the people included - how is it possible that you missed the inclusion of a name not connected to the case in anyway? Which sources were you using to recognise three people correctly and yet fail to see a person who should not be included at all? Please explain the error(s)! I was shocked when I discovered it - as I was working though all page content and history and was aware of your participation and focus on the very place where the BLP violation was found Three days later. You had been making so much pointed comment about BLP I was Stunned that a Violation of such magnitude was there. How did you miss it? I am concerned about the amount of smoke that is suddenly being blown. Also access to history and diffs is not an issue as the matter, time references are clear and recorded on the talk page! 3 Gross violation of WP:BLP policy Under the circumstances I find this language by you "a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence." to be inappropriate and disingenuous. Kindly stop smoking up the Joint! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC) What the fuck! This thread is getting complex enough without having to put up with such nonsense. No I didn't check and copy-edit the entire article (though I wish I had). Neither did you. Neither apparently did anyone else. Are you trying to purposely derail this thread, or just waffling on for your own personal satisfaction? Anyway, if you accuse me of drug-taking again I reserve my right to whatever recourse I see fit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Andy- It's not derailing it's simple - How did you miss the BLP Violation on the 20th whilst citing three BLP violations in the same table? I did spot the issue whilst reading Auditing and verifying every cited source - I'm like that I check everything and look at the BIG Picture. Again you seem to be blowing smoke to divert away from multiple fails .... especially you own. I note you have not answered the Direct Questions but made inferences about me, that I take as Ad Hominum so stop it. It's a well known but very poor Blocking & Derailing tactic . It does not make you look good. Again I advise you to moderate your language and tone as well as stopping the Smoke. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) How did I miss it? I (wrongly) assumed the content was correct, except in that it was including individuals in an article on sex crimes who had been convicted of other things - as the talk page shoyuld make clear. And as for blowing smoke, given that you have already accused me of drug taking, I'll make as many ad hominem attacks on you as I feel like, as long as you continue to try to derail this thread with your deranged ramblings and accusations of drug-taking. I suggest you cease spamming this thread with nonsense before an admin steps in and makes you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC) I see that you have yet again stated I have accused you of taking Drugs. can I have a reference to show me and any other readers when and how this has been done? I'm fascinated by your claims and wonder why you are making them? Do you have a valid reason for making such false claims? You evidently ave no problem in making yourself look bad, so there is no point in advising to stop blowing any more smoke or moderate your tone. You evidently have no interest in reality or how you look to others. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC) You wrote "Kindly stop smoking up the Joint!" above. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that is how I read it. Now, will an admin kindly advise this troll to stop disrupting ANI with vacuous bollocks, so we can get back on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Right here, don't be disingenous. You put that capital J there for a reason. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Regarding Ankh's last point in his first reply above (added after I had replied, contrary to talk page guidelines), When I started the new section on the name, I was of course entirely unaware of where it came from, and of the possible repercussions. Initially I wondered if another source had named the man as one of those convicted, and the source had merely been omitted. It would clearly have been impossible to ask where it came from at that point without actually naming the individual. As soon as I was aware of the precise situation, I of course moved to have it redacted. It seems that AnkhMorpork is trying to distract us from the significant event here - a gross WP:BLP violation due at least to crass negligence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC) The editor has a long history of writing lurid, sensationalist tabloid articles on crimes that happen to have been committed by Arab or Muslims. The editor's MO in these articles is always to highlight the most lurid, sensational aspects and too keep ethnicity and religion front and centre. While I have no reason to doubt that this particular incident was an honest mistake, it was a mistake that occurred in the process of activity, that in my view, is fundamentally at odds with the purposes of the encyclopedia. Dlv999 (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC) As the person who spotted the BLP issue, raised it with AndyTheGrump I have been looking at all factors in and around the "fail", rechecking and re-auditing matters. I would like to add the following points for consideration by all parties. : I became aware of the page and content issues due to an Rfc. It was clear from the outset that personal views and dogma were being allowed to over-ride Wiki content policies and requirements. It has evidently been a long standing issue. It was because of that lack of clarity - and the sense of "Own" that was being shown by a group and a that an uneasy obscurity was being maintained ..... I started to audit all page content. As I audited It became harder and harder to accept that the sources cited supported the assertions made, and there was a growing indication of WP:SYNTH. I was even becoming concerned as to how basic layout, sectioning and positioning of links appeared to promote a certain set of perceptions rather than neutrality. Then much to my amazement and shock, the BLP Violation jumped up and ended all progress. I can't understand the claims of orogin for the Violation - especially as it's being indicated that the name came form a different case, in a different city in a different year. The linkage of name to specific criminal activity makes the explanation highly implausible. Wrong name from wrong case linked to right criminal activity? However - I am also disappointed that the error was found in a table that has been subject to hot debate and alteration of content - especially names that should not be included. How was it possible to claim that two names should not be included without checking all the included names for accuracy? That also requires explanation and needs to be factored in to the bigger picture. The question of table content was raised and acted upon on 20 Jan See here, and yet the error was missed even then. It had to wait another 3 days for me to have to audit everything to spot a Glaring Issue that should have been recognised days ago before if basic goof editorial practice had been followed by anyone. I'm disappointed in ""all"" concerned as there had been multiple opportunities for multiple editors to spot the issue and act - so it's a multi-person, multi-factor fail on multiple sides .... and not just one person. I do feel that needs to be made clear so that all parties can learn. I fear that passions have exceeded reason for all concerned and that has not been good for anyone or wiki! --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I am quite sure it would have come to light sooner without the diversionary tactics, off-topic waffle, and general obstructionism evident on the article talk page - including what appears to quite possibly be an attempt to hold an RfC on whether to ignore WP:BLP policy, and cite sources for something they don't say - see Talk:Derby sex gang#RFC on WP:BLP policy. However, I think we need to stay on topic here - and the topic is that AnkhMorpork, through what at best can only be described as gross negligence, falsely described a person entirely unconnected with the case as a convicted sex criminal. I can think of no legitimate reason to allow someone so utterly incompetent to continue to edit such articles - and so far, none has been given. Contributors have to be held accountable for their contributions - otherwise, the entire concept of a user-generated encyclopaedia breaks down. If this was a genuine mistake, it was a mistake made by someone clearly lacking the elementary skills needed to edit. This error (if it can be described as such) was present in the first draft. AnkhMorpork had plenty of time to check it, but failed to do so. It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Again More Smoke being blown - so Direct Question - why is it that on 20th Jan you are berating people over BLP Violations which could only be assessed by you referencing on sources - and yet at the same time you missed that a person with no link to the whole Derby Sex Abuse case was listed as convicted of offences they had no connection to? It's pretty basic in Good editorial practice when dealing with contested content and sources - You Check - everything! Why Didn't you? Say you were busy - the dog needed to be walked - but don't try and cover it up by pointing fingers at others. You do see how it starts to look bad that you are saying of others It is simply untenable to allow an editor who shows such negligence to continue to contribute and yet you are not willing to account for your own equally significant failures. At least the other person said My Fault I'm Sorry what do we do to fix it. You are acting in a way that appears exploitative. You represent yourself as an authority in BLP, but you are not setting an example to be followed. Again I advise that you stop blowing smoke and moderate your tone and language about others. It's making you look bad. --TTFN-- Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) See my response above. Then fuck off and troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) And the both of you take a trout and chillaxe before blocks for policy violations (you know, WP:CIVIL) start getting tossed around. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Oh yeah - WP:CIVIL, which says you mustn't be rude to each other - keep the self-evidently libellous material back for non-contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Which applies to everyone as a policy (and, as it happens, one of the Five Pillars), same as WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC) What? "Libel anyone else if you like but don't be rude to each other" is one of the five pillars? I never knew that ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the bold move to collapse the above argument. It's an oft said thing about ANI's that all it takes is one comment from another editor and a whole new can of worms is unleashed without the original issue being dealt with first. If anyone thinks that this action was inappropriate, I have no issue with being reverted. If anyone wants to revert and open up a new thread, also please feel free. It is my hope that one thing at a time gets dealt with rather than one ANI descending into a chaotic mishmash of X number of threads causing all manner of headaches. Blackmane (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of 'Cyber harassment' etc

Sadly, I am going to have to refer to User:Media-hound-_thethird's behaviour once more. I have just discovered that this contributor has posted at AnkhMorpork's talk page, accusing me of "failing to honestly report matters", of "exploitation of Wiki Systems and protocols to pursue agendas in mendacious ways", of "Cyber harassment" - specifically mentioning the UK " Protection from harassment act 1997", of "Using ANI as a cover to carry about patterns that are harrasment" and of "Lynchings to cover up other people's fails".[179][180] Frankly, I am bewildered by this. A few hours ago Media-hound was posting on my talk page to bring the improper name problem to my attention, to ask about issues with Wikipedia search etc. It seems that it was only after I made it clear that I wasn't interested in what looked to be a speculative conspiracy theory [181] [182][183][184] that Media-hound suddenly decided that it was me, rather than AnkhMorpork, who was supposedly responsible for this mess, and that it was me that had to answer for it all. I really can't see any rational reason for this whatsoever, and am genuinely baffled at Media-hound's sudden change of tack. In any case, regardless of what brought it about, I have to ask that at minimum, Media-hound be told in no uncertain terms that such postings are unacceptable, and that false and malicious accusations of breaches of UK law (Media-hound is aware that I am a UK resident, incidentally) are in particular likely to result in sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound is obviously running an obstructionist line to derail this report, and it is disheartening to see The Bushranger falling for it—naughty words get a threat of a block, while there is zero comment on the substance per not my department. I'm not sure what can be done about "good faith" incompetence because the community is gaining too many editors who fail to understand or care about WP:NOTNEWS, and who believe it is productive to insert gossip into articles that rank #1 in Google. Media-hound's accusations of dishonesty and "Cyber Harrasment" against Andy at User talk:AnkhMorpork#ANI notification are beyond absurd, and I have no idea if it is incompetence or another attempt to derail the report by provoking an outburst. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Media-hound's comments there look to add up to a legal threat, far as I can see. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:RogueSchoolar (disruptive WP:SPA creating WP:POVFORK and redirects to it - ARBMAC article)

G'day all, On 22 Jan, this account was created and its first edit was to create an article Puppet State of Serbia [185]. It then changed about 30 redirects and wikilinks to Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia to point to the new article without discussion, and without edit summaries [186]. This was done in the context of Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia having been move-blocked for a year under ARBMAC [187] by User:EdJohnston following a series of unsuccessful RM's, largely around the strong view of some editors that the title should be moved to one that indicates that this territory was some sort of puppet state. I reverted these changes and AfD'ed the new article as a POVFORK [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puppet State of Serbia] refers. I also left a message on User:RogueSchoolar's talk explaining my actions User talk:RogueSchoolar. User:RogueSchoolar has reverted my changes, again with no discussion, but this time using edit summaries such as "This is better redirect. If that article is not deleted you should not change redirect" [188]. This is highly disruptive POV behaviour by an WP:SPA. As observed by User:Joy on the AfD page, "this is basically a violation of the WP:ARBMAC temporary injunction on moving the Territory... article. Speedy delete and block the bad-faith single-purpose account?"

Could I please get admin attention on this? An ARBMAC warning and rollback of the redirects? Any help appreciated. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Who has now been joined by WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT = User:AŽDAHABEZDAHA at AfD...[189] Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Puppet State article has been speedily deleted by Future Perfect, who has also issued a formal ARBMAC warning to RogueSchoolar. Further disruption of Balkan-related articles broadly construed will likely result in an indef block. De728631 (talk) 10:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much FPaS and De728631. bobrayner did most of the 2nd lot of reverts, and hopefully that settles things for a bit. I'm a happy camper now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reverts by IP

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

---

A user 177.192.37.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of unexplained edits and reverts in the GULAG page: [190], [191], [192], [193]. An advice to self revert has been ignored by him. May I ask admins to temporarily semiprotect the article?
Regards,--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Left a note here asking the editor to avoid changing the article further, and pointing them to the talk page. I don't believe there's any reason to protect/block yet. m.o.p 00:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Larry

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

---

Registered in 2007 or earlier and no edits. I'd like it blocked so it can be a redirect to User:Larry Sanger per prescient of User:Jimbo. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If LS wants to doppleganger the name, he can WP:USURP. NE Ent 03:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't block accounts due to disuse. However, you could create the page User:Larry and put {{distinguish|User:Larry Sanger}} on it if you really wanted to. 28bytes (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously we don't, but this seems like a case of WP:IAR and WP:UCS to me. This account has never edited, I seriously doubt whoever this "Larry" is is going to miss the account. A redirect would be far more useful. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I seriously doubt Larry Sanger needs it, and short of a request from him there's no valid reason to do this. Blocking shouldn't be taken so lightly. —Rutebega (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would this be important or worthwhile? Should I demand that User:Ten be handed over to me, because it's too much trouble for people to type out my full handle? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User: Fideliosr

This user has a history of personal attacks against me. He basically started abusing me on Twitter and moved to Wikipedia after he discovered my profile. The user was warned many times not to engage in personal attacks, he was even issued a warning by an admin here which clearly started he would be blocked the next time he abused me. Upon receiving this warning, Fideliosr left Twitter for a few days and now has returned and is at it again. This is what he wrote on a talk page where I requested the validity of a source to be talked about. Instead of contributing to the discussion, he engaged in a personal attack. This is what he wrote: "...why do you have to spend all your life adding negative awards to films of certain actors and positive one to some others?...Sincerely, Fideliosr (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)". He has called me a trolled and biased editor many times before and this is the last straw. He does not contribute to Wikipedia but only targets me. This is getting out of hand and now he should be blocked. Ashermadan (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Jokestress at Talk:Hebephilia

Jokestress/Andrea James has repeatedly acted inappropriately at the talk page of the Hebephilia article. Often, she's either attacking User:James Cantor/James Cantor or making demands. James Cantor is someone that she should generally have no contact with while on Wikipedia, by the way. Check their user pages, Wikipedia biography articles, and the Hebephilia talk page for why that is. In this section, not only did she demand that editors start doing what she wants done with the article, but also suggested that we are doing a disservice to Wikipedia by not revealing our true (real life) identities while editing this topic. When editors understandably did not take kindly to her comments, naming some offenses she has committed off Wikipedia, she decided to respond with more venom and tamper with others' talk page comments. Jokestress claims that she is validated in tampering with the talk page comments like this,[194][195][196][197][198][199] disregarding what WP:TALK states about tampering with others' comments, because they are what she considers to be WP:BLP violations. As seen in those diff-links, I reverted her three times; she reverted me three times as well. We only have her word that they are WP:BLP violations. And if they are WP:BLP violations, I do not believe that she is allowed to tamper with the comments in that way. There are other methods that can be taken.

I will be alerting her to this discussion on my talk page, where she has already commented about the perceived WP:BLP issue. And I'll alert the others (those involved) at their talk pages. Flyer22 (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring of the comments is the most disturbing thing I see here. Why does she need to avoid James Cantor? Is there an interaction ban? Other then that I see two editors on the opposite end of the spectrum. WP:TROUT for refactoring the comments and a grow up to all partied involved. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There are also WP:CIVIL issues to worry about, even though, these days, I have seen people (administrators and non-administrators) not take WP:CIVILITY seriously. She constantly creates a bad environment on the talk page (the Hebephilia talk page and other talk pages) because, with the exception of messing with others' comments, she is consistently doing what I noted above. She takes any chance she can to make a disparaging remark about Cantor, such as stating that he is a WP:Single purpose account (even though others disagree that he is and there's nothing necessarily bad about being a single-purpose account) or what Cantor has mentioned are WP:BLP violations. This is one of the things that makes the talk page environment toxic because, for example, Cantor is sometimes left having to defend himself in ways that sometimes result in bitter banter between the two or because others decide to defend him and/or tell her to stick to focusing on improving the article and not on Cantor. I don't know if these two have an official interaction ban, but like I stated to her on the Hebephilia talk page: "As some of us here know, you were a part of a well-publicized campaign against J. Michael Bailey, who Cantor has supported. And you hate Cantor almost as much. Now you are at an article repeatedly attacking a diagnosis proposal made by Ray Blanchard, Cantor et al.; when these individuals are involved, it's never simply about being neutral with you; it's rather about you having, as Legitimus has stated, an axe to grind against these people. You do this at almost all such articles involving views expressed by Bailey, Cantor or other researchers you don't like. You constantly hound Cantor around Wikipedia, and that is not at all about 'fair and accurate' matters. You act like Cantor is always pushing his POV and that you are never pushing yours, which is the opposite of what many others at this site have seen. For years on Wikipedia, you and Cantor have been repeatedly asked to stay away from each other, and to not edit articles that have to do with the other; it's not like you have been repeatedly asked this for nothing." Flyer22 (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The "offences committed off wikipedia" are documented in this 60 page article. Probably a good place to get an idea starts with the words "In May 2006, knowing of my increasing curiosity in the matter". For me they are more than a little concerning. I would be quite concerned if Jokestress/James knew my real-life identity; comments like this, suggesting (though perhaps I'm being paranoid) that she is trying to ferret out my real-life identity, do not help the matter, nor do comments like this, where anonymous user names are used as an accusation of an undisclosed COI. Again, perhaps I'm being paranoid, but there seems to be genuine reason for concern that the noticeboard could benefit from knowing about.

The disputes between Jokestress and James Cantor do spill across a lot of pages and Cantor has voluntarily agreed not to edit many of them, but the two will often get pulled into unproductive baiting of each other which is disruptive to the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So what are you exactly asking for in this situation? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

For administrative action regarding her repeated WP:CIVIL violations and WP:TALK violations in general, and for her tampering with others' comments. Your initial statement above shows that you don't see any validity in her messing with others' comments like that simply because of her perception that they are WP:BLP violations. I'm not sure if an interaction ban between her and Cantor should be proposed at this noticeboard, but I see such proposals often here and there needs to be one between them. Flyer22 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary i find that refactoring others comment is very much an issue, is it a tarring and feathering worthy offense not unless they have a history of ignoring warnings regarding it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the contrary": I didn't state or imply that you don't find refactoring others' comments very much an issue. In fact, I stated the opposite. And giving the user a warning about it, which I am obviously asking of someone with Wikipedia administrative powers to do if what she did is not permitted by WP:BLP, is not "tarring and feathering." And tampering with others' comments is not something that takes "hav[ing] a history of ignoring warnings regarding it" before being given a warning about it. If you are not an administrator, which it doesn't appear that you are, I'd rather an administrator weigh in on that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Trout and close. Jokes tress gets a trout for the refactoring (it's not a BLP issue). FWIW Jokestress did not demand others identify their public personas, but suggested they might want too. Nothing wrong with that. Her other comments are mostly about how the minority scientific view is being given undue weight in the article. She might want to ask for more eyes from WP:MEDRS if that's a concern.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban

Proposed that due to incessant infighting due to COI on both sides which has lead to civility issues for both an interaction ban is enacted to both user Jokestress and Cantor for a period of six months. First break in ban is a day block and each time it is extended a week, month year, indef. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls are a useful tool for judging consensus following a detailed discussion. Starting one three hours after coming across a situation on a random walk across ANI is less so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And you meaning is? There's a suggestion that was proposed by a member above other then myself as a belief it would be a solution. I merely made a separate section for it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While an interaction ban would doubtless be a good thing, it doesn't address some of the other issues. Jokestress in her non-wiki life as Andrea James has done things that make people feel threatened (per my initial comment). Her edits to others' talk page comments are removals of statements by people pointing this out, and pointing out why they might have valid concerns about real-life consequences. I don't know if ANI is equipped to deal with something like this, which requires much patience and reading, and consideration of the overlapping roles and actions on-wiki and off. I don't know if arbitration could handle it. Jokestress has, in my opinion, a significant non-financial COI - but there is no clear-cut way to deal with it in a manner that will seem fair. I don't necessarily think "fairness" should be the over-riding ideal in this case, I think a topic ban based on human sexuality articles might be a way forward, but I doubt it would be endorsed by a critical mass of the community. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Annaauc -- persistent copyvios and spam

Google Analytics ID: UA-17651468 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

• budapestauction.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• hung-art.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Annaauc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I was made aware of this user in this spam report. Despite receiving multiple warnings over the last two weeks, copyvios continue today: Gyula Tornai is partially copied from [200]. Furthermore, all of this user's contributions add links to budapestauction.com and hung-art.com. I was going to open a WP:CCI, but I'm hoping to avoid that with a Special:Nuke. MER-C 11:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

After this notice, he pulled the copied parts of the article, but that doesn't change the fact that there was an issue. It seems likely that the contributor can be coached to avoid copying, but I am concerned that the main issue here may be spam. Budapestauction.com and hung-art.com are is not likely to be reliable sources. If these links are removed, along with content copied from them (even if now licensed under CC-By-SA, it still doesn't meet verifiability), we give the contributor an opportunity to prove that he is interested in expanding our coverage of European artists and not simply driving up traffic to those websites. That said, I'm not at all sure how many of these artists are notable. :/ I'll take a quick pass through his articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started, and I'm not sure that hung-art.com is a problem. While the auction site is clearly commercial, it doesn't seem to be. I'm still not sure it's a reliable source, but I'm not removing it (although I will remove content copied from it.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hung-art is also a commercial site, selling paintings. I'd go for the nuke option. KillerChihuahua 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Bizarre. After further looking, I'd have to agree with you on hung-art, at least in part. This page (at least right now) looks fine. This one does not, and the images link to the Budapestauction site. Is the latter domain piggy-backing on a respectable source? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both sites are owned by the same person. They share the same Google Analytics ID (see [201] for a description of what this means) and site layout. Plus, if you look in the bottom left corner of budapestauction.com, clicking where says "BudapestAuction Online Group", you will find a link to hung-art.com. Conversely, if you do the same at hung-art.com, you will find a link to budapestaukcio.hu (probably Hungarian for Budapest Auction). If you click on the UK flag in budapestaukcio.hu, you will end up back at budapestauction.com. MER-C 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So are we nuking? KillerChihuahua 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. I've gone through and cleaned out all significant textual contributions in the 62 articles he created for copyright concerns and deleted those articles that rely only on these unreliable sites. I spot-checked the ones that referenced books in Google books and found that the artists do seem to be notable. I'd hate to lose articles in an underserved area if they can be salvaged and built upon. (ETA: I am about to check those articles he added to, but did not create.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. KillerChihuahua 14:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And done. :) Off to speak to the contributor about sourcing, links & copyvios. Do we need to blacklist these sites, or is that premature? And I discovered one complication whilst cleaning - not all of the Budapestauction site pages are at either of those domain. Some of them are simply under the artist name. I would not have known the affiliation if I had not checked external sites linked by this contributor routinely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated Violation of Wiki Link to Be Avoided Guideline

122.160.135.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 It appears as if the editor only has a few luxury trains website's external links to contribute to WIKI. It is undoubtedly in clear violation of Wiki External Links policy as the guideline clearly mentions that this is exactly the kind of Links normally to be avoided

Comments in a FA discussion

I would like to ask about a short discussion that took place on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Réunion Ibis/archive1. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• User:J Milburn made the comment; "*Support as per my good article review. A very strong article on a very interesting topic." at 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I replied; "I do not understand why a Good Article review can be compatible with a Featured Article review, so I do not understand your rationale of referring back to your Good Article review." at 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• User:J Milburn replied; "As I said in my good article review, I felt the article was pretty much ready for FA status then. I find that the best good article reviews point towards FAC, and I try to do that in many of my own reviews; in this case, there was nothing else I could say. I read through the article again, and was happy that it was ready. I was also declaring a possible conflict of interest so that delegates could take that into account, if they felt it important. Do you now understand why I referred back to my good article review? (As an aside, why are you feeling the need to pester those who supported? It isn't like major issues have been dug up in subsequent reviews; a few small pointers have been brought up, along with some suggestions that aren't so great. Certainly nothing that suggests that the article is incomplete.)" at 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• I replied; "Please withdraw the suggestion that I have pestered those supporting this article." at 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
• User:J Milburn replied; "Please stop pestering me..." at 10:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC) - see this edit. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why exactly are you bringing this here? What administrative action do you expect to be taken? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's been brought here because with the closing of Wikiquette Assistance there's no immediately obvious other place to go (assuming the editor has discussed it with J Milburn directly)? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The original suggestion of "pestering" was very mildly caustic. That's all. No administrative action is needed here. In general, ANI is not the place to demand apologies of people. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looking back, I realise my original response looks a bit snappy, sorry about that. What I mean is: how can administrators help with this issue? All I'm seeing is a minor disagreement over the relationship of GA to FA, unless you consider the suggestion of "pestering" to be a personal attack (if it is, we'd better all start walking on eggshells, because we've got level 1 warning templates that are more strongly worded than that). What I can't see is anything requiring the intervention of an administrator (nor, for that matter, any discussion of this incident beyond that outlined above). Thus, I'm asking for clarification - what's the desired outcome of this report? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Snowman was taken aback at the use of the word "pester" and would like verification about whether others feel the use of the word is justified or not. Snowman is this correct? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It is the use of the word "pester" by User:J Milburn that I would like opinions about here. I opted not to raise this on the users talk page. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that Snowman was seemingly pestering article supporters; see also his comment to Jim, a very experienced writer and reviewer, which is seemingly there only to cast doubt on the legitimacy of his support (much, it seems, as was Snowman's comment to me). As well as a pester, I think it's fair to add that Snowman is a timewaster, as illustrated by this thread, and just a touch oversensitive... I'm not watching this thread- if anyone wants to say anything to me, please leave me a note on my talk page. (As an aside, in case it isn't clear, my comment dated 10:56, 24 January 2013 is a sarcastic imitation of Snowman's spurious demands, not actually a demand that he leave me alone.) J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to advance the discussion by commenting on the use of warning templates, which were raised above by User:Yunshui. Carefully worded warning templates are usually used in a sequence with the more strongly worded templates being used with justification as the motivations of a suspected vandal become clearer. As far as I am aware some of the most mildly worded warning templates welcome potential new users and give some friendly advice. Nevertheless, I am sure that warning templates can be misused. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

User 75.84.95.229 deleting article talk page comments

User:75.84.95.229 deleted my comments twice at Talk:Deep Space Industries[202][203]. The first time I figured it was just an ordinary IP vandal but it looks like he is removing comments because he doesn't like them.[204]

There are also lesser annoyances such as changing "died of natural causes" to "died of unknown causes" when the source says "natural",[205][206] editing old comments and re-reverting rather than discussing when reverted[207][208][209], using article talk pages as a forum[210][211][212], and of course refusing to sign his posts, ignoring repeated user warnings about it, and even removing signatures added with Template:Unsigned.[213][214] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've given them a final warning, after reverting similar odd edits at Rosemary Kennedy. If this happens again, a block is in order. Thank you Guy, Drmies (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)