Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Request for intervention in the Nair article

A discussion has been going on for many days in the Nair article about the varna status, triggered by a caste fanatic called CarTick. But one of the users, MatthewVanitas has been indulging in one sided and completely biased edits even as the discussion was going on, ignoring other editors like this and this. Even after evidence was presented to show the non-reliability of his changes here, rather than acknowledging it, he resorted to attack the editor based on his surname. On top of this edit history of MatthewVanitas shows that he is incapable of being neutral in such situations, as he is constantly adding the offensive term Sudra (peasant varna) to non-peasant castes like Nairs and Kayasths, while protecting a particular well known peasant community (Maratha) from that term. I request some one more neutral to oversee the article and take in to account the views of all the users. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I second that opinion. Neutral changes were made to the first paragraph. But MV and Cartick continuously changed it to steer the language to their point of view. Opinion of the majority of the people in the talk page are ignored (then what is the need for a Talk page?). Some one please stop these caste fanatics from insulting the communities they are less tolerant with. Robbie.Smit (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User Flying Fische vandalizing templates despite three warnings and two previous blocks

Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates [1] [2] [3], and despite two previous blocks for this offense, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today [4]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "vandalize a template", he removed it. No way that deserves an indef block. Seems like you're both accusing each other erroneously of vandalism. Calling him "old boy" and "old chap" is condescending. How about you try discussing this with him reasonably and not stalking his article creations? Fences&Windows 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, he seems to be editing in good faith, but has run up against overzealous speedy deleters who don't have the ability or patience to improve articles or talk to new editors, so instead he's faced a series of rather robotic speedy deletion nominations and harsh template messages. Fences&Windows 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. His frustration seems warrented. -Atmoz (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Both sides seem overly zealous, particularly given the insults and vindictive defence of various biographies. Meph^talk 19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This is neither a content dispute nor a personal one, but strictly a policy issue. He has been warned several times about removing templates he disagrees with and he has been blocked twice, with increasing duration, for those offenses [5] [6]. If his behavior was sufficient to merit two blocks from two different admins, and since his behavior is continuing despite every warning and every block, then he certainly merits a more serious block at this time. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Qworty seems to be forum shopping/canvassing just a little - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• As one of the canvassed admins, I note that the edit at issue is not vandalism, and the cleanup tag Flying Fische removed had little merit to begin with. I see nothing patently objectionable in Flying Fische's recent edits and suggest that this request be dismissed. Fences and windows has given Flying Fische useful advice about notability and such.  Sandstein  20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Further note. He's deleted another template since I opened this AN/I [13] and is contentiously bragging about it [14]. I wish somebody would help with this problem. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding! George Taylor (botanist) is massively notable (FRS, knighted, director of Kew Gardens, lots of coverage), to suggest that his removal of that notability tag is wrong is bizarre. Tags are not holy objects. There's nothing contentious about that removal, and if you insist there is perhaps it is you who is being disruptive. Qworty, please try to help improve articles rather than tag bombing them and trying to get them deleted regardless of their potential. Fences&Windows 01:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But from someone who doesn't know anything about the Royal Society or Kew Gardens, the article says he's a botanist who seems to have held a job at some gardens. The refs (at the time, before the obit) where to a paywall protected Who's Who article and a single line citation on a related organisation's website. I understand about stubs (but tagging stubs with how to improve them is surely to be encouraged, not punished or be abused for doing so), I understand that maybe if you don't know about the area, then don't question the experts, but surely the answer is to STATE IN MORE DETAIL WHY HE'S NOTABLE - ie what he did, awards he won etc etc, not just remove the tag with an abusive edit summary. Fix the problems, stop attacking those who think that the articles are still lacking. It was a notability tag, not a CSD A7 tag - there is a big difference. The-Pope (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Still canvassing - [15], [16] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do Something to him. Yet again a problematic editor might get away with it because those who try to clean up the initial mess don't do it absolutely by the book. User:Flying Fische is best described as the boy playing soccer who picks up the ball or the basketballer who decides that he doesn't have to dribble. When a foul is called, he abuses the refs, pointing to the goals he's scored doing it his way. He has to learn that being mentioned in Who's Who, Debretts or being related to someone famous does not automatically equal notability here, and it isn't some Thatcheritic attack on the elites.(That's what he said!) By all means warn those who are "forum shopping", but it isn't worth a block and don't think that two wrongs mean that the first wrong can be ignored.

F&W's offer of mentoring is a good idea, but I've already tried a couple of times[17], [18] to discuss it with him, outside of templated warnings, with no acknowledgement or change in behaviour. If FF didn't swamp us with multiple articles on largely unreferenced barely notable people he wouldn't have been swamped with deletion or cleanup tags. If FF didn't respond with insults and borderline abuse everytime he saw one of those tags, most of us would have moved on to editing other articles by now. Which is what I know intend to do. The-Pope (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Qworty's complaint regarding Flying Fische was made with respect to his recent edits, not actions taken a week ago. Is there any evidence that he's still creating bad articles or removing legitimate maintenance templates? Chester Markel (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of Flying Fische's recent comments at AFD and in edit summaries have certainly been less than civil. He could certainly be blocked, for a limited period of time, for that, but Qworty would have to be blocked as well for the same reason. Chester Markel (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Qworty canvassed The-Pope's response to this thread[19]. Chester Markel (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Experienced editors who were previously involved in the issue can be notified of discussions without it being canvassing as we will make up our own mind as to how to respond. If I had seen an improvement in FF's editing behaviour, then I would have said that here. Continued bleating about canvassing appears to be yet another tactic of deflecting blame away from the originator of the problems. The-Pope (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose 72 hour block

Canvassing administrators, and grossly misusing BLP unsourced and notability templates on an article with several reliable sources while accusing the editor removing them of vandalism [20] is ridiculous. I gather from the discussion above that this isn't the only case of Qworty's maintenance template misuse, or frivolous vandalism accusations. A short time out will hopefully promote better behavior. Chester Markel (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. Simple, courteous warnings would be sufficient and probably produce the desired effect. Meph^talk 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Qworty canvassed your response to this thread, did he not[21]? Chester Markel (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but this doesn't invalidate my response or indicate that I wouldn't have commented here otherwise. Pointing this out isn't helpful or meaningful. I've been watching Flying Fische's behaviour for some time regardless. It seems that as more people become involved in this dispute, the more bans are requested.

On WP:CANVAS, the guideline states: 'The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing.'

Qworty's campaigning has been noted here, and appears inappropriate, but no request or warning placed on his talk page. Meph^talk 04:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While it's literally true that Qworty hasn't been warned on his talk page, he's been warned in the thread he started in this noticeboard [22] [23] [24] [25]. Unfortunately, the simple, courteous warnings didn't work [26] [27] [28]. In my opinion, it's now time for a sterner approach. Comments by people Qworty canvassed certainly do not indicate a lack of consensus to block him for canvassing (or incivility, and misuse of maintenance templates.) Chester Markel (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll let the individual sysops speak for themselves. However, blocking users to try to 'cool them down' is discouraged and counter-productive. Meph^talk 04:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Any block of less than indefinite length is premised upon the belief that it will promote better behavior upon its expiration. It does not therefore follow that any time-limited block is a "cool-down block", or that an angry user cannot be blocked. The policy you link actually states that

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

In summary, time-limited blocks in response to persistently inappropriate behavior are acceptable. The community does not need to wait until an editor either tires of disruption, or misbehaves so badly that he is blocked indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Meph is correct - it was remiss of me to fail to post an informative message about canvassing on Qworty's Talk page, and I'm happy to accept it as having been in good faith but misguided -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A block would prevent disruptive tagging &c of new articles and prevent Qworty scaring off the better kind of new user in future. Yes, there are barbarians at the gate trying to add all kinds of crap to the encyclopædia; but when somebody starts making decent good-faith contributions, we don't want them beaten down with tags and accusations too. The canvassing and forum-shopping suggest somebody who wants to get their way at all costs, rather than someone willing to compromise and go along with consensus if the community doesn't agree with them. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The canvassing/admin-shopping was totally unacceptable. However, since it was done quite openly I can only assume that the editor did not realise it was unacceptable. That being so, to block without previously having warned would not be reasonable. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Back to the actual topic

In the 36 (?) hours since this ANI was openned, FF has made over 200 edits. In amongst those generally acceptable edits, however, have been about 5 or 6 article creations, with only one having more than offline/who's who/paywall protected refs, a warning for a contentious page move and a few abusing/insulting edit summaries and talk page comments ie [29] so he still doesn't fully accept WP:NPA or WP:V and still believes that we should just trust him and trust in inherited notability and that wikipedia should be a genealogy tracking site. However this edit is the most concerning and shows he has little regard for WP:BLP either. So, do we continue worrying about canvassing or try to fix the real problem? I note that his only response to the F&W mentoring offer was to attempt to use it to stop those trying to fix the problem, not any acknowledgement that he's done anything wrong. The-Pope (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have also had some issues with Flying Fische's edits and have just been informed of this ongoing discussion. He has been adding what I consider to be genealogical information to articles, and re-adding it when challenged. I put it on the talk page and had advised him of the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_T._Barlow . But rather annoyingly, he is listing any edits he does not like as vandalism. I have not removed the contentious information as that would run foul of the 3RR. However I feel my stance is justified by consensus and would like other input.--Dmol (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is poor behaviour all round. Flying Fische is creating far too many articles, which are clearly selected because the subjects are descended from Charles Darwin (have we all heard of him - just checking) or Mervyn Peake etc. They are sloppy & often do not express well the notability of their subjects to the uninformed editor - and unfortunately he has now attracted a posse of pretty uninformed and AFD/tag-happy editors who follow him around, which must certainly be very irritating. Also unfortunately, the articles he develops the most are on the least notable subjects, & a couple have gone at AFD. I suspect that when he knows the subject is indeed "massively notable" he only does 20 words & stops. And he has a ratty attitude, mostly expressed in edit summaries. But I suppose he still counts as a newbie, and he is being bitten. Johnbod (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Newbie?? He's been here for 5 months, made over 800 edits and created over 50 articles. Have a look at the first few messages on his talk page, back in January [30]. A welcome, a "please supply references", a "abide by the MOS" and a general question, then his first "dispute/edit war", about not following the Dab page MOS. He completely missed the point of the request, completely arrogantly dismissed the other editor's concerns because he simply believed that he was correct. If this discussion was being held back then, then sure, we're biting the newbie. But now, it is a simply case of the fact that he doesn't believe any of the wikipedia rules, policies or guidelines apply to him. His bizarre comments on many AFDs concerning "liberal idealism", "social conservatives" and Thatcher's policies, coupled with his reliance and wish to duplicate Who's Who and use of genealogy tend to indicate that he sees his edits as holding up part of a class war. Or is this just my convict/colonial/republican background talking? The-Pope (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the situation is exacerbated by inappropriate SD tagging of biographies that do assert a credible claim of notability, e.g. a significant award. Granted, the sources may need improvement. However, the moment I tagged a non-notable organisation for deletion, a wave unfortunately followed. Flying Fische reacted with an attack: [31]. Meph^talk 18:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Even if, hypothetically, every article Flying Fische creates is clearly notable, do we really want a huge amount of poorly written stubs for others to clean up? Meanwhile, the crap is out there for the world to see. Perhaps, in addition to ameliorating his "ratty attitude" (which I don't think he can do), he should be prevented from new article creation until he finishes working on those he's already created. Of course, I'm not an admin and have clue as to whether such an action is (a) possible based on policy or (b) warranted in these circumstances. Just my view on the mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User Terra Novus - topic ban may need revision to include other controversial areas

After [32] and then [33] Terra Novus (talk · contribs) was topic banned "from all articles and discussions relation to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed". During the discussion at the first link he was asked by an editor "can you stick around and limit yourself to non-controversial articles (nothing remotely related to politics, religion, climate change and environment, etc.) and adhere to the suggestions others have made above re use of talk pages, etc.?". His reply was " I totally agree to editing non-controversial subjects, and will do my best to stick to that area.".

Now that editor has posted to my talk page saying that this promise has been breeched. See [34] for his discussion with Terra Novus. It's clear although he may not have broken his topic ban he is still editing problematically: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical liberalism (political parties) which is an article he created which is related to politics (obviously) and he is also editing articles on religion, eg Sabellianism. Ohiostandard, the editor who asked him to stick around but avoid certain subjects, has brought this up on my talk page - he is also concerned with the sources used, saying he "looked at the Sabellianism edits in some detail, and saw some problematic cites. One was to this guy's blog for this post/blog-article. Another was to this "article" on its author's own site. The site-owner has evidently started his own church. I see that the user extensively edited the Trinity article a while back also. I haven't investigated that one but I'd guess that the tendency would be to move it in a direction friendlier to Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, and that it might be a worthwhile project for someone to check the cites used to support the changes." I've reviewed Ohiostandard's comments and agree that there is a continuing problem. I'd like to see the topic ban formally revised to include those subjects he was asked to stay away from (including Economics, see his contribution list). Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is an actual violation of Wikipedia policy that you can cite for me I don't see how my editing these subjects falls under my current topic ban. I will support extending my current ban if I get more of an indication that this is not just related to Wikipedia:Activist clashes on the articles involved. I am happy to cooperatively edit with others on these articles, (I haven't disputed the consensus delete decision on Classical liberalism (political parties)). I remain committed to editing non-controversial subjects, and would be interested in knowing how my current editing behaviour is failing to be in compliance with that agreement--  Novus  Orator  01:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support an enlarged list of topics. But again the continuing problem is that all edits of Terra Novus have to be checked for a variety of issues; that problem does not seem to have been solved by his repeated promises to adhere to a topic ban. I looked at the content and sourcing of Trinity#Judaism. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Terra Novus has not so far understood the purpose of wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support formally extending topic ban. This user has repeatedly (barely) escaped a community ban by making very clear and explicit promises that he has completely disregarded subsequently, both in this account and in his previous one. He has been one of our most problematic editors, cumulatively costing other editors literally hundreds of hours of time dealing with his violations. Now he's claiming here that his most recent broken agreement is subject to proof that requiring him to keep it isn't some "activist" conspiracy. ( I love it how that essay is most often quoted by the very type of editor it identifies, without their apparent awareness that it identifies them. )

This very civil but extremely contentious editor has simply defied the community over and over and over, making false promises each time to reform and avoid a community ban. Failure to formally extend and record the topic ban that he already informally agreed to here would just make a mockery of our community enforcement process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to disclose that I've posted notification of this present thread to the talk pages of the three other admins who commented in the previous AN/I thread where these promises were made. Because I consider this thread as essentially just a continuation of that one, I believe doing so constitutes an allowed notification in this instance.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: We currently have comments from three people who are very familiar with this user's past and present behavior, and who are in favor of formally recording the topic ban he informally agreed to in an attempt to avoid a block or community ban. Besides those having commented here so far, multiple editors previously, including Mann jess, Ncmvocalist, Hans Adler, Mackan79, ResidentAnthropologist, Torchiest, Beyond My Ken, and many others have said things like this editor's last chance came and went some time ago, that a community ban should be enacted, that any additional violations should trigger a community ban or at least a topic ban from all controversial subjects, etc, etc. I'm not aware of even a single editor who has ever disputed or opposed such statements. Apart from the editor himself, is there anyone who thinks that formally recording the topic ban against participation in controversial subjects that was previously agreed to would be unwarranted or unfair?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Terra Novus' behavior has improved for the most part since the topic ban and I was hoping we might even lift it in few months. This last AFD clearly indicates that Terra novus has not learned. Either Terra Novus' behavior needs to change quick or the way we treat his behavior needs to change. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 17:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Sarah777 Unblock request on her talk page

• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since it has been discussed here over the last few week I thought this page should be notified.

For the record I support her proposed unblocking, with one caveat, that the topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain should be included to avoid any doubt and her mentor should be allowed to add any more at his/hers discretion. Mtking (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Accept mentorship and support unblock per above conditions. Could Sarah possibly clarify whether she is seeking an immediate unblock (ie time served), or the month block she also mentions, which would be June 9 or thereabouts? --John (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved in this dispute entirely up until this point, but I am highly concerned about the statement in her unblock request which states "Given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists." Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the "English" as a monolithic, anti-Irish people is exactly what got her into trouble in the first place, and the fact that her unblock request contains a dig at the inability of anyone English to edit neutrally regarding Irish nationalism seems to me to show that she has no desire to change her ways. Indeed, if she can't avoid commenting on the English in negative ways even long enough to make a simple unblock request, I don't hold out hope for the change in her demeanor necessary for reintegration to the Wikipedia community. I'm not going to place a bold !vote here, but I am very concerned that she has not learned her lesson. --Jayron32 02:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I must comment here before this gets any further hyperbole added. I read the statement differently Jayron; to say it is difficult for an English person to be neutral about Irish nationalists in light of the implied reference to the Troubles and earlier conflicts is not prima facie as you wrote "treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" at all. It simply acknowledges that neutrality, one way or the other, is difficult to maintain in discussions regarding the two countries together among persons on either side. Your characterization of her calm observation of the situation as overly prejudiced and judgemental is exaggeration. Sswonk (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is difficult to maintain in articles about nationalist conflicts, on all sides. The fact that she singles out the English as being the problem is the issue here, and it is an issue because of her prior background. Every person does not get to start every day of their lives as a tabula rasa. She has a history that must be considered when trying to understand her statements. I'm an American of French Canadian and Blackfoot ancestry, I have no horse in this race, and I have never commented on nor been involved in any meaningful editing or discussion on the topic at hand. But she is not any random person making a random statement on the difficulty of editing in nationalist debates. She a specific person with a specific history of making specifically inflamatory statements about a specific group of people (the English) and that her unblock request itself makes another statement about "The English" specifically is a specific cause for specific concern in this specific case. The fact that she has a history of being unable to avoid making derogatory comments about the English means that statements she makes about the English needs to be understood in the history of her prior behavior here at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 03:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In nearly all contexts past and current her beef has been with the acts of the British Empire, not with the current population of English people. That is why I mentioned that your reaction seems exaggerated, what you are writing is not what she meant. The statement that garnered the most attention before was about the application of the concept of being a "British Isle" in light of the history of famine, plantations and so on that is widely remembered in Ireland. She spoke specifically about the word "British" in that context, not about people. That situation is kind of like the fight against flying the Confederate battle flag over the SC state house that was fought by the NAACP and others, but not really comparable just reminiscent of the types of long held resentments that were evident in the US South where rebel symbols were used. The Anglo-Irish situation can and will be resolved, the visit by Queen Elizabeth certainly has been an encouraging sign of the prospects for reconciliation. At any rate, I still submit that you are misconstruing her words, I do not see anything like "she singles out the English as being the problem"; rather she acknowledges that as many others have here her block, described as "infinite" by the admin, has some issues when it is made by someone who prominently displays the English flag on his page. I don't see that as an indictment of or a "singling out of" all people English, but a statement in appeal to others to not judge her as she felt she was at the time the "infinite" block was made. I and others successfully argued that she was not to be characterized as a "racist" in the block log summary. Surely John has advised properly that she might consider NOTTHEM, I just hope to explain to you that again, she is being misunderstood and is not a one-dimesnsional bigotted, hateful person as that blocking statement seemed to say. Nothing like it, in fact. Sswonk (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, yeah. You'll find that I already pre-agreed with you there; which is why I was the one who changed the blocking statement to remove the word "racism" from it. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#Sarah777_log_entry_reason for some background and check the block logs (Floquenbeam later changed my change accidentally, not because he disagreed with me but because he essentially edit conflicted with me). So don't tell me that I am treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person as noted in the first blocking statment since I was the one who changed it to remove the word. Before you tell me that I hold an opinion, could you let me know so I can actually hold it before you give it to me? That would be great. In the future, please become informed with the details before you accuse someone of the exact opposite of what they have actually done. --Jayron32 04:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is another example of what I am still concerned about, which is that you seem to make negative assumptions about people fairly quickly. Not only, Jayron, did I know that you had been the first to alter the statement, I also know the rest of what you are trying to lecture me about. Nevertheless, I am somehow ignorant and accusing? I need you to shout in bold letters at me that I don't know the history of this sorry case? Your change was from "racism" to "nationalism", please point out to me exactly how simply being nationalist is blockable. I am repeating, there is a distinct and important difference between "she singles out the English as being the problem" and what she wrote. "The English are the problem" is not what she wrote. To me, it was more like, "I don't think a block against me which used such hyperbolic terms as "racism" and "infinite" came from someone with a neutral stance, and given the history between the countries it is understandable this person is not demonstrating complete neutrality with those exaggerant words." Several other people have noticed the same disconcerting and obvious facts, and some implied that a block by a non-English person who wrote calmly would have held much more water. How you or anyone can write things like "Painting the entire citizenry of a country as large as England with such broad strokes and treating the 'English' as a monolithic, anti-Irish people" equals what Sarah777 wrote in her unblock request, and then in the same thread claim you are under attack by me when all I did was point out your characterization is a fairly substantial exaggeration of what she wrote, escapes me. I am not interested in making people lose their temper. If that is what the truth does to you, there is nothing more that can be said which would make me interested in discussing this with you Jayron. It is as kneejerk as the original block summary to paint me as accusing you of anything, I did not "tell (you) that (you are) treating her as a one-dimensional, bigotted, hateful person", but that I don't want anyone else to do that based on what you already misrepresented above. Please for your sake read and read and re-read what I wrote so you can see that I do not want exaggeration and misunderstanding of words to be accelerated here. Period. I will leave it to some of your colleagues to get you straight on that, I am done. Sswonk (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider myself highly sympathetic to Sarah's position, but I read her response exactly as Jayron32 and I agree with his assessment and share his concerns. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• • I take the point. I would argue that HJM's block gave an appearance of possible bias, but per NOTTHEM Sarah's unblock request should mainly concern her own behavior, something she has clearly made efforts to do. I think I would favor her serving the month's block then returning under mentorship and editing restrictions. I've made a request at her talk that she refactor the block request. --John (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • (ec) I agree as a non-involved user. If she's unblocked, the topic ban should be "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Let her write about African heads of state or cheese or automobiles; she's a very good writer and there are many topics that could use her talents. --NellieBly (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The scope of the topic ban would need to be more precisely delineated than "in any way whatsoever, broadly construed". Otherwise, there will be arguments over whether particularly expansive interpretations are appropriate, such as the claim that the ban extends to the United States as a former British colony, or China because of the Opium Wars, or the Hong Kong situation. Chester Markel (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What of the proposed editing of automobile articles? I assume that fully British brands such as Jaguar or Rolls Royce would be covered by the ban. What of an article about an American or Japanese manufacturer that discusses its sales in the UK? Is the entire article off limits, or just the portion about that particular market? Chester Markel (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the article on Omega SA? While the company is Swiss, it mentions that Omega watches were worn by James Bond, a fictional British agent. Chester Markel (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that a limit on "Anything relating to the United Kingdom and its constituent countries, the Republic of Ireland, or the British Isles in any way whatsoever, broadly construed" would probably be to broad and over restrictive. Sarah777 should be free to edit on areas where any feelings she may have towards Britain will not be tested. Areas that should be off-limits imo should be "Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed" with the added restriction on the named pages (inc talk and project pages) above and any others that her mentor feels appropriate to add. Mtking (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would also recommend that any unblock includes an undertaking to not comment (good, bad or indifferent) on the nationality of any editor or group of editors; nor to characterise any edit as being motivated or otherwise influenced by race. While she has come out with some undeniably racist statements in the past, I think her main problem in this area is that she doesn't seem to understand which statements will cause offence. Thryduulf (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Sarah777 so I can't rule out that she has made "undeniably racist statements in the past". However, in the present situation there have been no such statements, and the accusation is a pretty damning one. Per WP:NPA#WHATIS ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.") I must ask you to provide diffs. Hans Adler 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

For evidence of previous racist statements please see the large number of diffs discussed at length in the several previous discussions about Sarah777. Those comments are in the past and have all been dealt with at the time. I am explicitly not making any new allegations against her, because she has not made any recent racist comments that I have seen. This was the point I was making. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vague pointing to past discussions will not do in this case. I searched the AN archives for "Sarah777" and "racist", and could not find anything relevant. Given that in this case she has been accused of racism for the flimsiest of reasons, it appears necessary to be very careful. You may have noticed that I have not !voted below. It is important to me whether Sarah777 is actually a racist, or whether this is yet another case of British or Irish editors being unable to distinguish between nationalism in the Anglo-Irish conflict and racism. A racist is historically someone who believes there are distinct human "races"; in the modern sense the term also implies the belief that some such races are in some sense superior to others. Which "races" has Sarah777 distinguished, and which does she consider superior or inferior? Hans Adler 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While what you describe is definitely racism, as has was discussed recently (although not necessarily on this page), "racism" is also in modern usage applied to nationalities as well as just "races" and splitting the two was last time described as "wikilawyering" (although not by me, I agree with the sentiment). When one person engages in behaviour or speech that is excessively nationalist and denigrating to the Irish that is rightly described as racism, and so is the same when the target is any other nationality or race, including the British. If there is a term in common usage in contemporary British English that describes the same behaviours as racism against race as applied to nationality then I am not aware of it. It is this latter in which Sarah has previously engaged in. Relevant diffs are in previous discussions, where they were relevant. They are not relevant now as this discussion is regarding whether, and if so under what conditions, Sarah should be allowed to return to editing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am seriously furious about this response. While I strongly disapprove of both nationalism and racism, there is still a huge fucking difference between them, and referring to over-the-top anti British rhetorics by an Irish editor as "undeniably racist statements" is not much better than the nationalist rhetorics itself. Yes, you are right about what this discussion should be about. Into this discussion you have introduced a serious accusation to which you declined to provide concrete evidence, and now you have admitted that you can't provide evidence because it's not actually true. The word undeniable was a lie, apparently, because most people would deny, and for good reasons, that anti-British sentiments by Irish people are a form of racism. It was seriously misleading: Up to this response I seriously considered the possibility that Sarah777 is actually a racist and I just missed it. I guess I could now call you a racist for considering British and Irish people to be different races (as Sarah777 denies that they are different races the idea must be yours)? And I guess it would be wikilawyering to insist that I stop? Hans Adler 23:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin. They all come under the heading of incitement to racial hatred or race discrimination, both of which can be translated from the legal to layman terms as "racism". The lack of distinction of the two is for many reasons, one of them being that the term "race" has no agreed meaning, and is often considered a discredited concept in itself. To disparage an entire nationality is racism in this sense. I suspect the U.S. has a different concept, and seems more concerned with defining "race". To describe Sarah's comments as racist is therefore reasonable, although I accept it is also reasonable to say they are not racist by other definitions. DeCausa (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This response is so stupid that it almost left me speechless. For discrimination laws in the UK, see List of anti-discrimination acts#United Kingdom. For hate speech laws in the UK, see Hate speech laws in the United Kingdom. If you actually follow the links, you will see that the latter are a subset of the former. Even if you meant "race discrimination" it's still two different though related things. And both of them are different from, though related to, nationalism and racism, so it's not even clear why you felt the need to bring them up. Here is a very simple exercise. Associate the example sentences with the correct characterisation:

(A) "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." (B) "According to your resume you grew up bilingually in English and Spanish. Unfortunately this does not fit into our company philosophy, which is to use the English language exclusively." (C) "I hate Canadians because they are all liberal atheist bastards with no respect for our flag." (D) "In terms of intelligence, the Jew is comparable to the Ukrainian, which makes him more dangerous than the nigger."

(1) Nationalism. (2) Racism. (3) Hate speech. (4) Discrimination.

Only a moron could get any of these associations wrong. This is as elementary as distinguishing between houses, tents and camping vans. Hans Adler 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be annoyed by you calling me a moron but your post is so idiotic it's more funny than anything. The issue is not the consequence of the categorisation (discrimination, "hate speeach" etc) it's the lack of distinction between "race" and national identity prior considering the complained of act. I don't need to look up the WP articles you cite - it's my day job. Before touching the key board you need to get a better understanding of the subject. DeCausa (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you really claiming you can't do this simple exercise? Presumably I must believe you now that the UK legal system is conflating these four different terms because you say you are an expert. But how far does this go? Suppose you got William Wolfe as a client because someone persistently called him a racist. Would you tell him he doesn't have much of a chance in court because everybody knows he is a member of a nationalist party? Here we are not in a British court of law, arguing highly technical legal points. (The Race Relations Act specifically defines the term "racial group" as "colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins". This is a legal definition and far broader than the natural language meaning of the term. It does not define "racist" and "racism", but instead uses less common word combinations such as "racial discrimination", to which it also gives unnaturally broad – from a natural language POV – definitions.) Here if someone writes that someone else is a racist, the majority of readers will understand it as saying that the person distinguishes between human "races" and discriminates or hates on that basis. I would not want to work in a project in which it is considered OK to label Irish nationalists individually as racists without making it clear that one is using hyperbole, in the same way that nobody should be allowed to label a specific editor as a Nazi for parading the English flag on his or her user page. And in the context of a ban discussion about a user who cannot defend herself because she is currently blocked this is particularly egregious. Hans Adler 15:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My God, I think you've only now just got my original point: "This is splitting hairs. In many European jurisdictions (including the UK) no distinction is made between discrimation and "hate speech" (to use an American term) on the grounds of "race" and on the grounds of national origin." You don't like it; you think that's not what "people" think racism is. I don't agree and the evidence I gave is how this is treated in law in UK (and most of Europe). I'm done here. And next time you think to call another editor a moron make sure you've understood the point first. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Care to support your contention by quoting a dictionary? None of those I consulted, and I consulted a lot of dictionaries and encyclopedias, even mentions a generally accepted use of "racism" for prejudice, hatred or discrimination of any kind other than that related to race. The term has come under attack as being hard to demarcate (from the Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology: "In recent international discussions, for example at the World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerances in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, it has become increasingly clear that 'racism' often includes extra-racial factors. In sociology, where the distinction between race and ethnicity is uncertain, it is best to limit “racism” to structures in which race is explicitly used to effect social domination."), but that doesn't mean it's suddenly OK to apply it to situations where it clearly doesn't fit. Hans Adler 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to argue over semantics on your own Talk pages. This bickering isn't helping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose her request. Her apology is limited to "the Nazi flag/union flag comparison" and "the pointy edits made on the contentious BI naming dispute". She doesn't apologize for her other crude anti-British remarks made at the time, which is what really got her into trouble in the first place. It seems to me this is either half-hearted or she's missed the point. She then adds "given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists", which confirms she's not going to change IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Rules for Sarah - WP:TL;DR on the rest of the commentary above (sorry; I've read other threads before) - but if the editor is unblocked, I stipulate that she must submit to ban on anything to do with The Troubles. The comments made by her were flatly unacceptable. She was entirely manic concerning the subject (I have Irish blood in me, but seriously, can we chill out a bit? The whole thing is bad enough to make Polandball cringe). Additionally, Sarah must not ever mention the citizenship/nationality of another editor if it is either British, Irish, or somehow related. She must not speak derisively of the citizenship of any subject whatsoever, broadly construed. She must not bring her battleground to Wikipedia, broadly construed, enforceable as a block by any non-involved admin (and not to be overturned without significant community consensus). Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock Sarah has given assurances and has apologised for her transgression also the mentorship by John who is an admin in good standing can only be a plus to the project as Sarah has made thousands of good edits on articles not related to The Troubles. Mo ainm~Talk 09:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock, with the restrictions already described, and a great mentor. I think Sarah is a productive editor with positive intentions, but is (justifiably) angry about the way her people were treated by Britain in the past, and sometimes that anger has spilled over in some places and some ways in which into Wikipedia editing, where it is not justified. Regarding the comment about it being difficult for the English to understand the way Irish nationalists feel be properly neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists, I did not read that as an attack on HJ himself. And though extending it to all English was too much of a generalization, I think it is at least in large part correct - most English, at least, most I've discussed the issue with, don't seem to me to really understand Irish nationalist feeling (and that's not any denigration of them - it's something that can't really be grokked unless you're close to it, and we did get decades of one-sided media coverage about "The Troubles" in England). As a disclaimer, I'm part English and part Irish, with family in N Ireland, and I have both unionists and republicans amongst my friends (though none is strongly in either camp - most just seem to want some kind of peaceful life) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (edited to correct my representation of Sarah's statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC))(editied again, for clarity -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC))

The pages and disputes that have got her into trouble recently are not about history, but about naming issues, that essentially revolve round COMMONNAME etc, and trying to balance worldwide naming in English with the particular concerns of some Irish Nationalsts. Encouraging her to bring her "anger" into these matters is not helpful at all, not that she needs any encouragement. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything remotely like that, I'm saying exactly the opposite - that bringing real-life anger to Wikipedia editing is *not* justified -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified, above -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• What if any are the conditions of her unblock? they need to be clearly laid out here before users can comment - personally imo her presence in any English, Northern Ireland, Great Britain or United kingdom associated article only adds to the battlefield mentality and she should be edit restricted from any of those articles. note' - Irrespective of this discussion and any additional conditions imposed here. Sarah is already indefinitely banned from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland, including all its sub pages and talk pages, for this [35] (and surrounding sequence of edits), and from British Isles and its talk page for this [36][37], which was pure POV trolling and baiting. Additionally, for the persistent pattern of battleground rhetorics and hate speech displayed in edits like this - and blocked for one month[ from Template:British English for one month. diff. Off2riorob (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Although the unblock request contains exactly the sort of attitude (albeit toned down) that got her blocked... topic ban & John as a mentor get the thumbs up from me. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock with the conditions - topic ban should be Anything relating to Anglo-Irish relations and the naming dispute of the British Isles broadly constructed, and specificity the articles (and one template) British Isles naming dispute, British Isles, Template:British Isles, United Kingdom, Ireland, Republic of Ireland and Great Britain and John as a mentor. Off2riorob (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support unblock but also agree that the conditions must specifically include the current indefinite bans as well as the specific areas mentioned by off2riorob (even if they overlap). Without that I don't agree to the unblock —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Not opposed to unblock as long as the topic bans are strictly enforced. (I'm not saying "support" because I'm unwilling to go that far, but this may be taken as a non-objecting opinion.) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• As far as the fist unblock request goes, the backhanded attack on HJM shows she still doesn't get it. The broad brush attack on the 'the English' shows she still doesn't get it. Her personal/political prejudices are irrelevant, nobody here is interested in them and nobody has to be subjected to them. It's not her playground frankly. She needs to state clearly and without ambiguity that she accepts as a truism that on Wikipedia, having a particular nationality does not mean you are incapable of making neutral admin actions, or of writing neutrally about any topic. This has been her problem forever frankly - a complete misunderstanding of the whole concept of 'writing from the NPOV'. Her beliefs would disqualify even Jimbo from contributing to an Irish article (he once said that if he hadn't been born American he would have liked to have been British). Also, on the whole issue of a topic ban - check, and double check, the proposed wording. Her suggestion of "anything that comes under the Troubles" is completely insufficient - she is the person who once even turned the issue of how we disambiguate Irish and British road articles into an alleged part of the anti-Irish Wikipedia conspiracy, flinging out all the usual attacks and smears. I suggest any restrictions be focused on simply the issues of undesirable behaviour, not just banning her from certain topic areas (although that also will clearly be necessary for several basic article sets). As she notes though, she doesn't tend to edit much outside of Irish geography, so a 'broadly contrued' topic ban on Irish topics would simply be a complete ban from Wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would have supported an unblock under strict conditions (topic banned from everything to do with Britain, Ireland, British Isles, British Empire widely construed) but I cannot support unblocking a user whose own unblock request should've resulted in her talk page access being revoked. User:Sarah777 was blocked and topic banned from anti-British remarks. Her block was extended indefinitely because she made further personalized anti-British remarks. And now her original unblock request[38] repeats the same behaviour. Sarah777 has had years to learn how to communicate civilly and appropriately, and I see no benefit to community in unblocking Sarah777 until she recognizes that behaviour as unacceptable herself--Cailil ^talk 21:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think she has done, or else I would not have supported the conditional unblock (ie a return to the status quo before HJMitchell's inflammatory block). I also think it's a little disingenuous of you (or did you genuinely not notice?) to talk about Sarah's original unblock request with the adjective "now" when it was made at 01:38, 21 May 2011, your post was made at 21:02, 21 May 2011, and yet at 15:59 Sarah had responded to my request to refactor her unblock request. So, let me get it straight. You are opposing unblock because you didn't like a post that she has already refactored, thus implicitly recognizing that it was inappropriate, right? I would disagree with this, as blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If you feel that she deserves punishment nonetheless, perhaps this will be assuaged by her submitting to a month block, indefinite topic ban and mentorship? --John (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • We are beyond the stage of implicit acknowledgement of her past failings and future obligations. She needs to be explicit on both. Even refactored, her current request leaves a lot to be desired in that regard, aswell as in the specifics like the boundaries of this topic ban which she seems to think would only be "anything that comes under the Troubles". As I said above, this leaves questions like for example does this prevent a recurrance of her past misbehaviour in completely tangential areas such as road article naming? The last thing we need is a situation where she starts making some edits in an area she sees as completely uncontroversial and nothing to do with her definition of the Troubles (and thus, not pausing to clear it with you as the proposed mentor), and someone else reports her. The ensuing 50 pages of wikilawyering and accusation/counter-accusation is the exact kind of Sarah777 centric nationalist drama we do not need frankly, and which is what HJM was trying to put a full stop on due to her past record showing that no, she's not going to change. He's not daft, he knows he cannot impose 'infinite' blocks, but he also deserves the basic respect of having his concerns properly, and crucially explicitly, addressed, before anyone else unblocks her. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
    • John don't mis-understand me, I am not outright 'opposing' but I cannot support an unblock request from Sarah777 that she needed to be told should be refactored. She has had 4 years to get the point about incivility in general and anti-British remarks specifically. Maybe I'm being a bit of a wonk here but in my view under the Fameine RfAr ruling on Sarah777's conduct her talk page access should have been revoked and the request declined because of that. But I'm not going to labour the point - I'm certain she will be been unblocked conditionally here, but I wont support requests from Sarah777 that are anything less than explicit (from their very first posting) in evidencing that she's 'got it'--Cailil ^talk 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Unblock I have been reading Wikipedia a lot longer than I have editing it. In the early days one source of constant amusement were the low level hoaxes and "in-jokes" weaved into many articles on towns & villages in Ireland. I noted that it was User:Sarah777 dilligently clearing these up time after time. It would take a lot of convincing that this editor is not an asset to the project, although by the same token I'm sure she wont be missed on the handful of articles mentioned above (...sorry Sarah). Since User:Sarah777 made her comments, the Queen has laid a wreath and bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance, a memorial garden in Dublin dedicated to the memory of "all those who gave their lives in the cause of Irish Freedom". I am sure everyone will lighten up in the future. MacStep (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions:

• Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
• Sarah is topic-banned from the following areas:
  • The Troubles
  • Ireland
  • United Kindgom
  • England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland
  • The history and politics of the aforementioned countries
  • All topics occurring in, on, or around the group of islands off the coast of Northwest Europe

    Note: Common sense applies; a violation of this particular restriction will be handled via a warning first, as it is somewhat open to interpretation.

  • The dispute regarding the geographic name of said islands
• Sarah makes changes to her own behavior to reduce the battleground environment
• Sarah ensures all her editing is conducted in line with WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

Comments

• Proposed N419BH 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Needs tweaking in several areas. Topic banning her from "Ireland" broadly construed is, as has been pointed out above, effectively equal to banning her, and history isn't really where she's had the issues. See my alternative proposal below. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for Sarah777

Sarah777 (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to the following conditions

1. Sarah agrees to work with a mentor
   • Sarah is free to change mentors subject to the agreement of both mentors. Any change in mentor should be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page and on WP:AN/I.
2. Sarah is indefinitely topic banned the following articles pages: ["articles" changed to "pages" 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • British Isles
   • British Isles naming dispute
   • England
   • Great Britain
   • Ireland
   • Northern Ireland
   • Republic of Ireland [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
   • Scotland
   • The Troubles
   • Wales
   • United Kingdom
   • Template:British Isles [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
3. Sarah's mentor may add such pages to this list as they deem required. All such additions must be clearly announced on Sarah's user or user talk page [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]
4. Sarah is also indefinitely banned from the following topics, broadly construed:
   • Anglo-Irish relations
   • The naming of the group of islands comprising the islands of Britain, Ireland and geographically and politically associated smaller islands.
   • The political status of the islands in the group collectively or individually
   • Irish nationalism
5. Sarah ensures all her editing is in accordance with WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and explicitly agrees not to engage in battleground behaviour
6. Sarah agrees not to comment on the nationality or race of any other editor
7. Sarah agrees not to comment on any perceived national or nationalist motive for any edit.

Sarah is reminded that she will be under intense scrutiny by the community, and her behavior now will determine when and if she is allowed to return to editing the aforementioned topics. Sarah may be blocked by any administrator should she violate these restrictions, with the length of said block left to their discretion. Sarah will note her agreement to these terms prior to the removal of the block, and her mentor will note his/her agreement to mentor Sarah prior to the unblock being initiated.

All editors are reminded that the pages and topic areas listed above may become contentious and are cautioned that standards of civility and policies regarding assumptions of good faith and no personal attacks will be strongly enforced. All editors are further reminded that civility is a two-way street and any and all behaviours that are seen as "baiting" another user to break rules will be dealt with firmly, up to and including by long-term blocks in cases of repeat or egregious cases. [added 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)]

Comments (alternative proposal for Sarah777)

• Proposed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'd be more in favor of a broader restriction and then slowly chip away at it as she shows a willingness to edit in accordance with policy, but this one might work, as civility is the primary issue, and she seems to get into civility issues on the topics listed here. My concern with allowing her to edit such things as Irish roads is she'll use them as a platform to get in digs against the topic-banned areas, and additionally other editors might bait her into violating her restrictions, either intentionally or unintentionally. Hence I would prefer to remove her from the entire topic area. If she can focus on her own behavior she has a chance, if not I suspect she is close to exhausting community patience. N419BH 18:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I debated including something about the naming of articles where there were similarly or identically named articles in the UK and Ireland (which was the issue I saw with regards roads) but couldn't come up with any decent wording. I wouldn't object to adding that in if you can come up with something suitable. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to see two changes before I could support :

• Republic of Ireland and Template:British Isles to be added to the band list of articles.
• The mentor could add any other articles they see fit to the list of band articles at any time.

Mtking (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with them and have added them above, making a couple of other minor consequential changes, all clearly marked. I've also added a paragraph at the bottom that is intended to incorporate the sentiments of the #Community context section below. It might be of benefit to develop a template (a specific version of the contentious topic template perhaps?) with a similar note and place it on the talk pages of the relevant articles? Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - Support Mtking (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Second alternative proposal for Sarah 777

I propose that Sarah 777 be allowed to edit on Wikipedia again as long as she meets the following requirements:

• 1. The user will be required to work with a mentor,
• 2. During the term of her mentorship, the user will be required to perform 550 edits to fix minor typos and other minor useful edits,
• 3. The user will be topic banned from any topics chosen by her mentor,
• 4. The user will be required to immediately comply with any command from her mentor, no matter what. Failure to do so, or engaging in any "anti-community behavior" will result in immediate lifetime banning from Wikipedia,
• 5. The user will write a 300 word essay apologizing for her behavior, and post it in a public place where other users can comment upon it,
• 6. The user will personally apologize to Jimmy Wales for the behavior that got her banned in the first place, and
• 7. The user will be required to pay an indemnity of $750 before being unblocked, and
• 8. During the term of her mentorship, the user will be required to post a monetary bond of $5,000 with the Wikimedia trust fund. Upon successful completion of her mentorship, she will get the bond returned. If the user violates any of the above terms in any way, the bond will be forfeited to the Wikimedia foundation, or to Jimmy Wales personally.
• 9. The user is forever banned from posting or writing in Hiberno-English. All of her future posts must be in the queen's english.

Only if the user is willing to comply with all these restrictions will we know that she is seriously penant for her misdeeds. Any thoughts? Calthorp (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Support, as proposer. Calthorp (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this is a joke. Bielle (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What about donuts? Will we get donuts?! HalfShadow 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Community context

We've been here done that with Sarah already. On 27 May 2008, Sarah was blocked indefinitely for similar issues. She was unblocked on that occasion (after a similar period to now) after after promising to undergo mentorship. Despite this, it was necessary for the community to employ topic ban restrictionsfor any article that Sarah "disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." Now, there we have the latest fuss. Her behavior means that she has lost the confidence of the community. For this reason, she should be indefinitely topic-banned from areas where is cannot collaborate with others.

For those reasons, I propose the following for Sarah:

• Two-month block (from the date of the original block);
• Indefinite civility mentorship;
• Indefinite topic-ban from British-Irish and Troubles-related articles

However, Sarah's behaviour is not unique. There is a common thread of incivility and nationalist name calling on British- and Irish-related article. Addressing Sarah alone demonises her but does not address the wider culture of incivility and of dividing editors in to nationalist camps. It is that culture that escalates to the kind of behavior we have seen from Sarah. The community needs to take action on that culture and a decision on Sarah needs to address that context in order to genuinely address the problem.

Therefore, in addition, I propose that the community make a statement against incivilility and all forms of nationalist labelling and name calling on Troubles-, British- and Irish-related articles. Editors who engage in repeated incivility on these articles or who engage in nationalist labeling or name calling should receive similar escalating blocks, civility mentorship and topic bans.

We need to make it clear that this kind of behavior is a serious breach of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Civility is not optional. Maintaining and developing collegiate relationships between editors is essential to the project. Sarah's behavior damaged that. However, she is not alone and this behavior needs to end. --RA (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing is a community-enacted 'zone' (for want of a better term) of zero-tolerance of incivility, with this zone extending to all topics in the field of British-Irish relations, specifically including the The Troubles, broadly construed. Am I correct? Thryduulf (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In effect, yes. This is an area of heightened tension (but not the only one). It is crucial that editors maintain civility in this area because otherwise things can quickly get out of hand. I have seen editors become increasingly lax towards civility on these topics. In fact, some editors strike me as not even trying to be civil anymore. Eventually, this blows up into mayhem as tension builds up and ill-feelings fester.

It is also extremely off-putting to editors who want to contribute to these areas of the project but are put off by the combative nature of the area (even on sometimes the most innocuous of things).

I propose the following community sanction:

It's a big long-winded and I'm not precious about the precise sanction or the wording. It is the enforcement of a spirit of collegialism and civility in the wider community context that I am interested in. --RA (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the justification for an arbitration case and has many things that sound like arbitration remedies and procedures, just without the case having happened. I see absolutely no plausible benefit of this community sanction, given it doesn't contain anything that isn't already basic policy, and isn't already actionable after being reported to ANI or having been properly passed through other DR venues. I personally have seen many such reports just shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action, or even no substantive independent comment at all, save the usual meat puppets turning up to say the usual unsurprising things. The one such area of specific community sanction recently, BI naming, has had a very distinct game/lawyer-tastic flavour to it, while doing absolutely nothing to further the goals of ensuring a quality & respectful editing environment about which you speak of, let alone ensuring basic NPOV is respected. I simply don't see how this is going to change that, or focus people's minds any further than they already should be. It's not news to anyone, not least the admin corps, that the area of this topic is an ongoing source of dispute & policy violation. I for one agree that certain editors have been guilty of most or all of the above in this topic area, but you'd probably be flabbergasted to learn that I think one of them is you. I'm having a hard time getting you to acknowledge basic things like how un-"cooperative" it is for you to be making a proposal, recieving valid & detailed objections, and not responding to those in anything but the most policy lite personal opinion assertive or accusatory terms, and then simply returning to make the same proposal 6 months later to see if the 'consensus has changed'. The only way forward is either increased admin oversight in the areas, or an arbitration case, which if it found evidence for any of the above as a general theme, would punt violations into the field of arbitration enforcement, which is shall we say, a rather less volunteer driven process as regards getting someone to actually say yes that's a violation, or no, go away. MickMacNee (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On your point that none of the above isn't actionable already, I wholly agree. Unfortunately, like you say, "reports just [get] shuffled off into the archive in the sky with no action". At this stage I, personally, wouldn't even consider reporting some of the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith that I (and everyone else) receive. Nothing would come of it. If anyone did respond, I think I'd just get told to grow a thicker skin and stop coming to ANI with drama. And that's the problem: incivillity goes unchecked and consequently it is rampant and endemic.

That is the point of what I am proposing: no more shuffling off into the archive in the sky. Civility matters and these issues need to be addressed. I'm not precious about how it happens and at least the two of us agree that something has to happen — whether it is increased admin supervision or (another) ArbCom case as you suggest, or something else. --RA (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an incredibly wide ranging proposal - there are probably thousands of articles that are in some way connected to the UK and Ireland - 99.9% of which will never see any sign of Troubles or British Isles naming nonsense - to wave a vague threat of sanction over all these articles and all the editors who edit them is not helpful - are you going to ban someone for making an edit to say The Goodies (TV series)? The behaviour of the few editors who cause this problem should be dealt with by normal admin means - not by punishing everybody else.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Nigel Ish. And furthermore this is veering off topic. Consensus above is to unblock per the conditions laided out by Mting.
RA, proposals like the above are not going to fly. The vast majority of users on wikipedia understand and abide by WP:5 and need nothing else. The minority who can't need to learn how to, but if they can't it's their problem--Cailil ^talk 00:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cool enough. But in that case, can we start spelling it out to the minority so that they might learn? Incivility is a terribly incedious thing. It only takes a clutch of editors, who think naming calling, aggression and poor faith are par for the course, to drain morale and turn people off contributing to the project.

We need a healthy, respectful working environment where we can collaborate construtively (and keep focus on our work, and not the drama). I, personally, have tuned out twice in the last six months because I just don't want to contribute anymore in an environment where everything runs the gauntlet of combative editors and nothing is taken at face value. And yes, they are a minority - but they seem to be the only one's left on some pages. --RA (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree, these sectors are uninviting for new users and also any users that are not willing to involve themselves in an opinionated POV battlefield situation. We all know who the ringleaders are and we need to remove them using edit restrictions, they create a toxic environment and by their example encourage other contributors to join in and create gangs of tag teaming meatpuppets. Off2riorob (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're trying to make it specifically illegal for me to call you up on your nationalistic views when I feel you are being unreasonable due to them RA, it's not going to work(!) Appeal per WP:AGF if you feel people are being out of line with you – it's a law Wikipedia already has, and it's made to measure. You are blessed with the knack of always being calm an passive outwardly (though occasionally hurt when under criticism) when you offer your own personal views/demands in all these UK/IRE issues, but not everyone has the ability to be controlled at all times – an ability of course that can get people past these laws you propose.

Your proposal also effectively reinforces the various UK/IRE schisms, which is a criticism I always have of you - because I don't think it's right, and that is simply my opinion. UK/IRE should be such a 'special case' – Wikipedia should be able to deal with it completely, as it is in no way the bloody 'real word' battle people claim it is on here. All the UK/IRE issues on Wikipedia would pretty-much end with two simple guidelines so much more productive than the endlessly-punitive 'policing' ones: WP:BRITISH ISLES (Wikipedia chooses archipelago-only) and WP:SOVEREIGNTY (sovereignty is of greater weight to nationalism) is honestly all it will take. A number of 'reliably sourced' polemics will immediately lose their exaggerated power, and issues like Londonderry/Derry, British Isles and the UK-country 'naming disputes' will all be effectively resolved - and decent explanatory editing can then take place over the limitless space within Wikipedia (and there is plenty of it already – it's always that fight for the premium space). Admin will finally have something to go by when people contravene these guidelines. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, can we try and keep this about Sarah - and about existing policy too? If we make it an actual offence to point out nationalist bias, we may as well close the doors and switch off the lights in terms of NPOV. "The significance of words and symbolism in describing them"? This isn't the place RA. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Who will bell the cat?

We may think we are getting somewhere by refining the items on Sarah777's edit restrictions, but there is one detail which I feel has been overlooked. All of this depends on a mentor for this user; who is willing to take on this responsibility? With the right person, we won't need to worry much about the details of these restrictions, because the mentor's judgment will more than make up for shortcomings in this area. Lastly, what should be done if no one does take it on? Or the mentor either clearly fails at the job -- or throws it up because she/he can't keep Sarah777 from reverting to her bad habits? (Not that I'm volunteering for this. I have too little time for Wikipedia at the moment as it is.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure a mentor is the best thing for Sarah tbh - she is experienced and knows when her blood is up - she just has to curb it now. No more chances. I know she asked for one (which does show her genuine contrition I believe), but I think it's moot, and could be a needless extra responsibility for someone too. I'm writing a proposal for her that will hopefully explain. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kronikerdelta making threats against editors

Resolved

 – Kronikerdelta indef blocked HalfShadow 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I protected a version of a page that Kronikerdelta (talk · contribs) did not agree with. This often happens, per WP:Wrong Version. When I replied informing the user of this, his response was to make a threat diff.

Can another admin take action here?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Please also see sock case, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kronikerdelta. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sock and the only threat I made was to go to other editors to get a page fixed correctly. But f*ck it, no one here gives a damn about the truth. If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest, however since you have been informed of the truth and have not taken corrective action that does not bode well. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 05:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which individual are you, Kronikerdelta, refering to? Because I have done nothing one way or the other here. I'd like to be able to look through this case as a neutral observer, but you, Kronikerdelta, haven't informed me, Jayron32, of anything. I still haven't looked at anything, but have you tried to provide sources to back up what you are claiming in this case? Because Wikipedia is quite interested in the truth, insofar as the truth can be verified because it is reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not so interested in The Truth, which is usually reserved for information which is The Truth because someone asserts that it is The Truth. So, which is it: is this verifiably the truth, or is this The Truth? I'd like to know before I invest time in trying to help you if it would be worth my effort. --Jayron32 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• wow... I was about to come back here and say something to the effect of "give the guy a chance. It seems like he's just peeved about having the page protected."... and then you post this. Oh well. Hasta la vista.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The above comment by Kronikerdelta, in combination with the original response cited by Cirt, appears to be a legal threat. I suggest that Kronikerdelta be blocked indefinitely, per common practice in this situation. Chester Markel (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a definite threat. [39]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone saying they will "take action" could be interpreted various ways (e.g. simply bringing it here), but the one you cite (you beat me to it) leaves no doubt. Block him and explain the NLT policy - but also check and see if he has a legitimate beef. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor also made this much clearer legal threat: [40], I've asked them to retract the statements or risk being blocked for violating WP:NLT, and also warned about the civility issues this editor seems to be having. Dreadstar ☥ 05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the same one I linked, silly. =p Though you did provide more of a comment on it. Are regular editors really representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I blame the damned page loading problems...and now an ec as I was posting this: "I see my diff is a dup of one mentioned above, I'm thinking it's blockable..." Dreadstar ☥ 05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kronikerdelta now states that he won't retract the legal threat, because his comments never constituted one[41]. Making legal threats on behalf of third parties, such as his "I'll tell the school, and they'll sue your pants off" claim, still seems to violate the policy. Chester Markel (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• With the latest comment indicated above, I've indefinitely blocked User:Kronikerdelta for violating WP:NLT. Dreadstar ☥ 05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the block. I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between someone making a legal threat along the lines of "I will sue you", and someone informing/warning editors that an article contains libel which may result in someone else taking legal action. While the first diff posted by Cirt was closer to the former, even though there was no mention of it being a legal threat (just that the editor "will take action") the last diff ([42]) wasn't - he clearly stated that he was not in a position to take legal action, but he would be informing the school of the situation.

Part of my concern was that the article did contain libel. It made an incorrect statement about the institution, which was specifically denied by the source as it currently stands. And given the nature of the statement, the institution could have potentially lost a considerable part of their income if the Wikipedia article was believed. It has been corrected, but the version that was protected represented a real problem. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What was the allegedly libelous statement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was this bit right here. By the way, you guys don't mind random editors piping up a lot so long as we don't pretend to be admins, right? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to post here. OK, so the alleged "libel" was an apparently incorrectly sourced statement about restrictions on the school. Obviously, it needed to be corrected. That does not excuse the tone of the user. Legal-sounding threats are forbidden because they're an attempt to intimidate. If there are concerns about facts, those concerns can be stated without raising a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the region, libel can, or so I understand, cover more than individuals. But I don't like the term, anyway. The real point is just that the material was quite serious in regard to St Matthew's, as stating that people who complete their degree there will be unable to practice in the UK was a big deal. While I generally agree with you, in this case it wasn't incorrectly sourced, so much as a false claim, that could have significant impact on the institution, and one which was denied by the source being used. Thus I can see why the user was so upset, especially if they were in some way connected with the organisation. - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bugs: Just making sure it's not just for admins to mostly offer thoughts. Lol, my dad (a corporate attorney) sees fit to remind me of the definition of libel as well as defamy every time I mention a controversial topic I am editing xD (I saw the previous edit, and yeah, I know that's for everyone, but just sayin'). Yeah, he really could have tried a much softer and more friendly approach. That last bit seemed to me like "alright, you won't do what I want, so I'll get these guys to make you do it." Very rude imo. Though he was right that it could have been damaging to the school's ability to get med students from the UK as most people would probably look the school up here first. @Bilby, well doesn't Wikipedia go by the laws of the state of Florida? Yeah, the UK is especially a big deal as this uni is in a dependent territory of the UK (Cayman Islands), and so probably relies on the Home Island for the bulk of their students. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a side comment, but I've recently had to enquire about the legal status of additions here. Although you're right, it's worth remembering that individual editors operate under local laws. So if I added illegal content, the Foundation might be safe, but I wouldn't necessarily be. Anyway, this is a bit of a diversion, and I'm not really concerned about whether or not the material, as posted, was legally actionable. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't release the identities of editors unless they had to though. =p I think if worse came to worst, a representative would just contact Wikipedia about the error. I don't think you'd have these guys take the Foundation to court over it (unless they could prove that it had actually harmed their ability to get students, they had a good legal team, and the Foundation didn't have a good legal team to get them to settle or just go away). So that whole issue has been corrected then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation will release the identity of an editor when ordered to by the court, as would any such organisation. Nevertheless, I'd rather not rely on pseudo-anonymity to allow editors to post illegal content, whether or not they could get away with it. :)

The article has been fixed, so yes, that's great. My concern is different, though. WP:NLT is good policy. But in this case, the user didn't seem to be personally threatening legal action, but trying to inform editors that the information was libellous. Indeed, he specifically stated that he was not threatening legal action, because he was not in a position to do so, but that he would be informing the institution concerned - and it was that last statement for which he was blocked. His actions were understandable, his annoyance was understandable, and blocking him under those terms (and only then fixing the problem) seems like a bad sequence to follow. - Bilby (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, back to the article, please? I think there's a legitimate complaint here that's being overlooked. The source cited ([43]) has two listings, one is Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Belize; another is Primary medical qualifications which may be accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Cayman Islands. Since this school we are talking about is on the Cayman Islands, why exactly are we restoring - and protecting - a version with a highly questionable statement? T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Errr... this is odd, they're both listed and are technically the same uni, but one is the old (now defunct) Belizian institution, and the other is the current one in Cayman. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Bilby, Kronikerdelta originally stated to Cirt: 'Cut the crap and get this factually correct or I will take action against you and the other editor. There is no debate, this ends now,' which is unequivocally a specific, directed threat. Certainly, he later qualified this statement to suggest that he merely intended to inform the institution, but he also went on to accuse several editors of lying and malicious editing.

2. T. Canens, the article was updated to reflect changes on the GMC's website regarding St. Matthew's University (Cayman Islands). I'm not aware of an outstanding issue here (protected version v. current; talk page notification). Meph^talk 10:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the first comment wasn't necessarily a legal threat, and, as you point out, he later qualified it to say that it wasn't. At which point he was blocked for making a legal threat. There is a problem here - if we are going to interpret "making a legal threat" as "making something that we could interpret to be a legal threat, even when specifically denied by the user", and rely on that interpretation to make blocks rather than address the problem raised, then we have a significant problem with how we're using the policy.

We need to think about it from his perspective. He corrects a serious problem in an article, is reverted, told that he inserted false information, is immediately taken to an SPI case based on the one edit, and then at every point he is stopped from fixing it by people who continue to focus on his growing annoyance rather than the problem causing it. I'm not surprised he overreacted. The best way of ending this would have been to fix the article before it went too far. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your points, and agree that it could've been fixed earlier. However, Kronikerdelta asserted that material was defamatory, and would've resulted in legal action if s/he were to inform the institution ('If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest' and 'I'm going to inform the administration of the school that this foundations representatives (namely you) are acting in bad faith in producing libel about them.'). S/he thus qualified their initial complaint, and suggested instead that a third party would take action, with their assistance. This assistance simply reaffirms the actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. Best, Meph^talk 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If we assume good faith, looking at this from the editor's perspective, both statements are reasonable. There is significant incorrect content, that the user is being prevented from fixing. So the first point is valid. When no one does anything, but instead attacks the editor though AN/I and an SPI case, it is clear to the editor that no-one will tackle the problem. So the obvious next step is to inform the institution of the problem. If we continue to react by blocking upset people when they have a valid concern, rather than looking into their concern, on the grounds of making legal threats when they haven't actually done so, then we have a long-term problem. I'm not sure what I want done. But I'd like to think that next time this arises someone will speak for the editor before it reaches this point. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no question the guy was making legal threats. NLT is not about whether a threat is "legally" a legal threat - it's about an attempt to intimidate other editors. And that's exactly what the editor was doing. Very appropriate block. He has the constitutional right to bring legal action or to try to get someone else to bring legal action. But there is no consitutionl right to edit wikipedia, and if someone threatens legal action in some way, shape or form, they are not allowed to edit wikipedia until or if they fully retract their threat. Meanwhile, if the source about the school's restrictions turns out to be a good and valid, i.e. verifiable source, then it can be used in wikipedia, whether the school likes it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is 100% right here. The spirit of NLT is "Editors shall not use the threat of taking action outside of the confines of Wikipedia to force others to accept their preferred version of articles" or perhaps "Editing decisions should not be made under threat of actions to be taken in venues outside of Wikipedia". The issue with this user is they resorted to these external threats "If you don't change the article to read like I want it to read, I will take some action outside of Wikipedia", a clear threat he made immediately before his block. Editorial decisions should be made for editorial reasons, not because someone is willing to take extraordinary means to force through what they want forced through. Whether or not the editors preferred version is "right" in the end is irrelevent; NLT is about behavior, not content, and this editor's behavior was clearly over the line. It was a good block. --Jayron32 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So where do you draw the line? If someone says "this is legally actionable, and I think it should be removed before a third party, not connected to me, takes action", is this a warning, or a legal threat? Your reading is that it is a legal threat. Mine is that I'm damn pleased that someone is taking the time to try and explain why it should be removed. Had someone listened, rather than attacking the editor, the editor would never have felt that it needed to be brought to the attention of the institution.

This is creating a second chilling effect - any mention of the possible legal consequences of editing an article can be seen as a legal threat, and someone can be blocked accordingly. At least next time could someone try and address the problem first, rather than watching it escalate until they feel justified in making a block? Blocking instead of fixing the problem damages wikipedia. Fixing it would have improved things, and maybe gained a contributor. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A mention of a potential legal risk is not actionable ... but their statements was that "I am going make the schools administrative staff aware of the problem." [44] That is not "mention of the possible legal consequences", but instead direct action to facilitate legal actions.

It is a clear legal threat. Whether threatening to take action themself, or threatening to take the issue to someone else who can take legal action - the intent was clear: either do it their way, or else legal action will be taken - it was legal intimidation directed at other parties in a content dispute. See WP:NLT#Rationale for the policy - it's clear that their actions had the intent to cause the specific problems the NLT is intended to avoid.

Had they addressed the issue through standard internal WP:DR processes, a block likely would not have been needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Had someone told them about standard DR processes, maybe they would have. But thats's not what happened. Your reading is viable, but taken from a different perspective there is a completely different interpretation of what was said. At any rate, there is nothing to be done. It's just disappointing that we chose this path instead of addressing the problem, and only addressed it after the event. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel certain that no one will have any trouble interpreting this comment by the editor in question:[45] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Venting after being treated that way was, of course, a massive surprise and in no way understandable. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Most blocked editors don't react with obscenities, although socks often do. It simply underscores the editor's value (or lack thereof) to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a particularly fair argument. Again, all I hope is that next time we consider finding a solution before we seriously upset and block a user. There was a better, and simpler, approach to this, but we didn't take it. Something I was pleased to see you supported above, so thankyou, and I respect your view - my wish was that we could have checked for a legitimate beef first, because if it was legitimate and fixed, the editor would have been more inclined to step back. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• For a little light reading, here's a related, interesting link with information about Wikimedia's stance on the defense of editors: [46]. Dreadstar ☥ 22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass removal of Flagged revision from BLPs

Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been mass removing Flagged Protection from multiple articles because "the trial is over".

Generally, I have no problem with this -except he is also removing them from BLPs without any discussion. In many case, FR will have been set on a BLP because of serious libels or complaints, and administrators and others will be watching edits to the articles to prevent further trouble. If someone wants to remove FR from the article, and it has been set for BLP reasons, then there needs to be discussion FIRST to ensure that we don't suddenly expose living people to libels (particularly where the article may have been sensitive - or have been protected due to a valid complaint).

I need administrators to help me go through the recent removals and replace flagged revisions on any BLP from which it has been removed, until such times as we can be sure that it is safe to remove it from that particular article, and in particular at least until the protecting admin has a chance to comment on the article.--Scott Mac 17:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at the RFC was that FR's was over and no longer available as a protection option. People have been removing it for a while now, usually replacing with semi-protection if appropriate - this appears to be what KWW is doing... so I'm not sure what the problem is? --Errant ^(chat!) 17:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would note that per the RfC pending changes would be rolled back in general starting today, however Newyorkbrad also noted that removing it from BLPs without a good look would be irresponsible[47], and I have to agree. I would hold off on removing protections from these articles without a thorough look, which glancing at Kww's contribs does not seem to be given to each article. Semi-protection may not be an effective replacement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus at the aforementioned page is for PC to be removed. For BLPs a careful look is needed and it either needs to be replaced with semi-protection or left unprotected. N419BH 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not like I'm using a bot or anything here, people: I look at each article one at a time, review the history, and look at the protection state before the trial started. If I see the anonymous edits during the trial have been getting rejected or it was indefinitely semi-protected before the trial began, I'm semi-protecting it. If things have been quiet, I'm unprotecting it. Can people disagree with individual judgments? Certainly. Feel free to change an individual mistake to something you think is more appropriate.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At very least, if an article has been flag-protected for BLP reasons you must contact the administrator responsible. Often semi will do the job. But FR may have been applied for specific reasons, and that needs explored on a case-by-case basis to see if there is a suitable alternative. Don't assume that you can't have missed something with a look for a few minutes.--Scott Mac 17:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The consensus is to remove BP from all articles. The consensus is to not retain PC on any article for any reason, including failure to contact the administrator responsible, failure to explore on a case-by-case basis, or any other reason. You can keep coming up with new reasons why it is OK to violate consensus all day and the answer will be the same. All articles means all articles. You are required to abide by the consensus or step aside. This is not optional. Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PC: Blocked

Unfortunately Kww has persisted in removing FR from BLPs. I've asked him to stop and others here have expressed concerns. A discussion is needed. I have blocked him for three hours as a preventative measure. He should be unblocked immediately he sees the need for discussion before continuing with a controversial use of admin tools wrt BLP protection.--Scott Mac 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please reverse this asap. The PC trial is over, and the consensus of the RfC was that it should be removed from articles. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock I don't see the problem, if he's just implementing the RfC, he shouldn't be blocked for it. Disclosure: I've worked on articles with Kww and sponsored his RfA on an earlier, unsuccessful attempt.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a step backwards. What became of the alleged high-importance of BLP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi protection remains available.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see above. Serious concerns have been raised with lowering the protection on BLPs without discussion of the effects on a particular article. Kww has persisted without that discussion been concluded. This is not to do with a trial being over, but of a responsible way of changing protection on BLPS.--Scott Mac 17:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I unblocked per his talk request, but urged him to discuss before continuing. After all, his talk page isn't the place for a discussion on the merits of a WP-wide issue.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock This block should not have been done by an involved admin. You are firmly on one side of the debate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that I have been discussing. I've discussed it with Scott on his talk page. I've discussed it above. I've discussed it at the RFC. It's very simple: the RFC concluded that pending changes needed to be removed. Many admins have been stepping through and doing it. I've been reviewing articles individually, and making appropriate judgments. Scott seems to believe that I need to have an individual discussion on each and every BLP and that an individual admin's judgment is not sufficient. I pretty much reject that in it's entirety: it seems to be one more method of heel-dragging to prevent this trial from being switched off. If there's any article that I unprotect that others feel requires semi-protection, go ahead and semi-protect it. If there's an article that I have left semi-protected that requires full-protected, feel free to apply full-protection. That's the available set of choices. When I started this morning, there were 260 articles to get taking off of pending changes. Now there's 172. We can make Friday's deadline if we move efficiently. Individual per-article discussions in advance of each change is not the way to go, nor is not doing it a blockable offense in any reasonable sense of the word.—Kww(talk) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There was no individual discussion with admins when semi-protection was removed from BLPs and replaced with PC, and there doesn't need to be any individual discussion now either. The RfC was clear that it ought to be removed, and the admins doing it are looking at each case individually to see whether semi-protection is needed. There's no need to refer in each case to the admin who added PC, who may not even remember doing it. Everyone is equally able to look at the history and make a judgment. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Unblock, the trial is over. Removing PC is perfectly reasonable. Stop trying to create drama where no drama is needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Good unblock. Blocking admin should be admonished. Kww should never have been blocked to begin with, especially by the complaining involved admin with a tin ear for the wiki-editors that have !voted. The overwhelming consensus is to remove PC. There is no consensus currently for its use. The trial is over. R. Baley (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott not listening

I think it's worth pointing out that Scott has stated he will reblock me if I remove protection from any more BLPs without individual, per article discussion.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At which point Scott will be Wheel-Warring and would be immediately blocked by an uninvolved admin. N419BH 19:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid doing that. Kww - I'm sure either discussion here, or an arbcom case (though I expect that to be declined), will resolve how best to deal with pages under PC, at which point we can go back to removing them. Prodego ^talk 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

May I assume that Scot blocked anyone who applied PC without individual, per article discussion? Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This is rich. "Not listening". All I asked for was some discussion before mass removal of protection from BLP continued. I was only asking for some listening. I have filed an arbcom request.--Scott Mac 19:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

And you've threatened to reblock, which is not listening in my book. N419BH 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll not need to do that. If we all put the admin tools down and start talking.--Scott Mac 19:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Is a year of discussion and a blatantly clear community consensus not enough for you Scott? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Scott, you must not use the tools here no matter what anyone else does, because you're far too involved. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Don't think that'll help much since once again you've shown your contempt for community consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked Scott the following question on his talk page:

"The consensus is to remove BLP from all articles. There is no consensus for leaving PC on any article for any reason, including 'removing PC in a reckless way without proper consideration.' Are you willing to follow that consensus?"

He responded that he was not willing to follow consensus.

See his talk page for context. Guy Macon (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad's close specifically mentioned "that there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible". I don't see what the hurry is for removing PC from articles, and why there shouldn't be time for discussion between stakeholders. Let's do this in an orderly fashion, with due diligence and care for the BLP issues involved, rather than hurriedly. --JN466 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad asked a question about whether there may remain a few articles for which removing PC status would really be grossly irresponsible. The answer he got back was crystal clear and the consensus overwhelming that no such article exists, and that in even the worst imaginable case replacing PC with full protection would be just fine - not irresponsible at all. Guy Macon (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

PC: Interim Measure

How about all PC'd BLPs are semi'd until the protecting admin makes the final determination. PC is no longer a protection option until community consensus is established with regard to its implementation, and KWW is right to remove it, though I share the concerns with leaving BLPs unprotected. I agree that BLP concerns require protection to be fully examined, though I wonder why we're relying on a specific admin to memorize the reason and don't have a log of this somewhere. N419BH 17:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

This issue of dangerous BLP's; a problem does need to be demonstrated here (i.e. show us some of them) by Scott. I have a quick flick through some of the unprotects and they all seem fine. Requiring that the protecting admin be contacted in each case is pointless beurocracy; in most cases the admin probably won't even remember! Sure, care should be taken of biographies, but I can't see evidence that this has not been the case. Does Scott have an example of a specific problem caused by kww's actions? The block was extremely poor judgement. --Errant ^(chat!) 18:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Errant here. So far Scott has claimed that it could be problematic but they did not actually shown any example where it was problematic. Blocking another admin you disagree with like he did deserves a huge {{trout}}, even if Kww could just have stopped doing it for a while. But the consensus at the RFC does not require any admin to check with the previous protecting admin nor to semi-protect all BLPs. We can discuss such requirements of course and if there is consensus for it, we can implement it. On a side note, Scott didn't even leave Kww a notice about this discussion as far as I can see. Regards SoWhy 18:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are concerns about leaving BLP's unprotected apply semi/full protection to the relevant articles. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection does not monitor all edits. I have two articles which I've been monitoring all edits for BLP issues, Kww removed the monitoring without discussion of the merits of doing so on those articles. With BLPs we don't wait until someone can show a problem, we exercise extreme and particular caution. Simply removing protection, without discussion some attempt at discussion on a particular article is reckless in the extreme. You need to establish that other methods will do fine. That needs at least a check with the admin who set the protection. This is a bare minimum. If you can show that there's no higher risk by an alternative means of protection, then fine. But you can't assume that.--Scott Mac 18:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure nobody's going to die if a page is unprotected for a little while. RFPP exists for a reason, and everything can be undone. Hell, we even have revdelete now. I don't see why you're making a big issue out of nothing, except maybe you're annoyed that PC is going away. If that's the case, that's something you're just going to have to drop. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is going to die either if PC is removed from an article on Wednesday rather than on Sunday. --JN466 23:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been ten months already. Three more days, then seven, then two more weeks... Where does it stop if we don't stop it here? Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So as to avoid parallel discussions, it would be best to continue this line of thought at the existing talkpage. Skomorokh 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hold the phone. This is not some trivial content issue to be shuttled away to some obscure page. It has been made clear, countless times, that BLP's are of very high importance. This so-called "consensus" seems to mock that alleged importance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The exact same issues are discussed at the talkpage of the linked sitewide, heavily-advertised, just-closed-with-firm-consensus RfC. And had those opposed to Kww's actions been paying attention and participated there, we wouldn't be throwing this drama party. Skomorokh 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Since when does "consensus" somehow override BLP concerns, which are supposedly of paramount importance to the owners of Wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

When did you stop beating your wife? Your reply bears no relation to my comment, which is simply asking people to keep the discussion in one place so as to forestall chaos caused by admins trying to enforce contradictory conclusions. Skomorokh 19:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If Baseball Bugs has a BLP concern, he can address it by removing PC from all BLPs and replacing it with full protection. That would prevent any possible harm to the BLPs while still following the clear consensus. It is unacceptable to propose a limited-time trial of PC and ask people to approve it as a limited time trial, only to refuse to remove PC after the end of the trial because "BLP concerns are of paramount importance." It is even more unacceptable to ignore the clear consensus - a consensus that carefully considered the BLP issue in detail -- for those reasons. BLP concerns existed long before the limited-time trial, and nobody has ever made a case that PC is the only possible way that BLP concerns can be addressed. There is a clear consensus to not leave PC on any article for any reason, including the reason given above. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly lists the exceptions that supersede consensus. "BLP concerns" are not on the list. Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I read your comment. My question is, How does consensus apply here? Are BLP's important, or are they not? I've always been told that BLP overrides consensus. On that basis, it is not appropriate to even conduct a vote on the matter. It has to stay - unless BLP is suddenly no longer a priority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because a handful of people decide that BLP applies does not mean it does. Yes, BLP can override consensus, but just because a single admin (or a handful of people) think that BLP applies, does not give them free rein to do as they please when nearly everyone else disagrees with their actions. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales is the visible face of Wikipedia, and hence is the most obviously accountable to the public. What is his opinion on this question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh please, this is pathetic. If you want Jimbo's opinion why don't you go and ask him? But I'm sure his opinion will be the same as always: That this (PC) is something for the community to sort out among itself through consensus. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In any case where I could detect any BLP concerns, BB, I increased the protection level on the page. The BLP argument is a red-herring. There are good arguments that PC can make addressing BLP issues simpler, but we had WP:BLP around long before we had any implementation of pending changes.—Kww(talk) 20:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a number of bios on my watch list, and I might miss something. The PC is a red flag that lets you know someone has changed it. I can't imagine why anyone would oppose PC other than laziness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the RfC, you won't have to imagine why the consensus is what it is. BTW, the consensus was to remove PC from all articles with no prejudice against reinstating it if there is a consensus to do so. I personally am very much in favor of PC and will vote for it if it comes up in a RfC. It is the violation of consensus that I object to, and the concensus is to remove PC from all articles - no exceptions. Guy Macon (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing the red-flag will simply make it more difficult to protect BLP articles. BLP was once considered to be of paramount importance. Apparently "consensus" now says otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would really like a citation for the "paramount importance" claim. Is that an official Wikipedia ppolicy?

An individual editor is not allowed to completely ignore consensus just because in his opinion and his opinion alone it goes against this alleged "paramount importance." Just asserting "paramount importance" without showing that any BLP would be harmed in any way does not give you a free ticket to to unilaterally violate any and all Wikipedia policies. Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hard telling who you're talking to. I'm thinking back to when Wales created this category called "Living people", whose purpose presumably was to raise some heightened awareness of BLP's. I've also seen countless discussions, here and elsewhere, where the bottom line was that BLP violations are not tolerated, regardless of any "consensus". The Flagged Revisions stuff is probably not needed for things like Madonna's latest record album. But it's very useful for Madonna herself, as BLP's are constantly subject to random vandalisms, no small number of which could be considered libelous (and hence could potentially damage the wikipedia foundation) if taken seriously and if not removed quickly. By no longer flagging BLP's, you're making it less easy to observe changes to BLP's. I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that's a good thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope you can see the huge gap between "BLP violations are not tolerated" and "this particular temporary experimental tool that is convenient when dealing with BLP violations cannot be removed, even though a less-convenient tool that protects them better (full-protection) exists." You cannot use BLP as a club to enforce your own set of rules that do nothing to prevent actual BLP violations. Guy Macon (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't know who you're talking to. It sure ain't me, because your comments don't follow up to what I'm saying. BLP is considered a very important and sensitive issue. By abolishing flagged revisions, you make it more likely that a BLP violation will be in an article longer than if it were flagged and jumping out at you in bright colors. If I see a BLP violation, I can immediately fix it. If it persists, I can post it at WP:RFPP, and an admin might protect it within a few hours or whenever they feel like getting to it. But if I don't see the violation, due to the red flag no longer being there, then bad stuff could stay there longer. I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking to you. You are the one who keeps posting invalid arguments. For example:

"BLP is considered a very important and sensitive issue.": The PC RfC closing admin has made it clear that the above argument is not valid. He wrote "'BLP; is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making."

"By abolishing flagged revisions, you make it more likely that a BLP violation will be in an article longer": Incorrect. As has been explained to you several times Full Protection does a better job of stopping BLP violations. Even if this was not so, "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making.

"But if I don't see the violation, due to the red flag no longer being there, then bad stuff could stay there longer." Again, incorrect. The bad stuff doesn't get in in the first place under full protection.

"I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles": If you don't understand this, then you clearly are not listening. I have explained to you several times that there is a clear-cut consensus to remove PC from all articles with no exception for BLPs (again, replacing PC with full protection prevents any BLP violation). It isn't my fault that you refuse to read the RfC where all of this was debated at great length. I have also explained to you several times that "BLP" is not a catchphrase that, by intoning it, automatically supersedes all our policies, norms, and community decision-making, yet you keep invoking it as if it does. Guy Macon (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're intending to proactively and pre-emptively assign full protection to all BLP articles, that will certainly be a very high level of protection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Either there is a real danger of BLP violations or there isn't. If there is, then full protection will solve the problem - no PC needed. If there isn't, then semi-protection or no protection will do - no PC needed. What is NOT true is the assertion that PC is the only possible way to address potential BLP violations. What is NOT true is the idea that merely saying "BLP" automatically supersedes Wikipedia policy on consensus. You have to actually have some shred of evidence that there is a BLP violation that cannot be solved any other way. Guy Macon (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments continue to make no sense. It's not about "no other way", it's about an additional aid to those who think BLP articles are worth defending. Which I am beginning to think they are not, given the obstinance I'm seeing here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that you personally disagree with the consensus to remove PC from all articles but also agree that consensus is binding even when you disagree? If that's your position, that seems pretty normal. It sounded as if you thought that something supersedes consensus in this case. Probably because of statements like I don't see why you're arguing against a higher level of monitoring for BLP articles" and "I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think that[the consensus to remove PC from all articles]'s a good thing." Sorry if I misunderstood and that you actually agree that consensus overrides your desire to retain PC. BTW, you are coming close to the edge of violating Wikipedia's civility guidelines, so I will give you the last word and not tempt you further by explaining things after you say you don't understand them.. Guy Macon (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What I don't understand why it's a good idea to make defending BLP articles more difficult. Go ahead and try to explain that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-admin comment

Whoa! I've worked with a couple of you before and frankly can I state that the behaviour of all admins involved in this discussion is regrettable. Its not a good reflection of the principles of wikipedia. When PC was set up it was made implicit that it was a TRIAL that would need to be removed following the end of the trial. Consensus was established that PC needs to be removed by the given deadline. Challenging those who are working to uphold the consensus sends out a bad message to non-admins and new editors. How can admins then block others for edit warring or failing to uphold consensus when they are seen to be unable to do it themselves. It makes no sense. If certain admins feel that Kww's actions are incorrect then a new discussion should be opened about the application of the removal of PC from bio articles. But the fact this has gone to ARBCOM is a bad reflection on all those involved. I hope you've all got your suits ironed and your boots polished. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 20:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am just flabbergasted that this debate is still going on. Again and again, people have said, this trial is over. There are no policies for patrolling PC - there's no policy to say who gets to be a reviewer, or what a reviewer is supposed to do or must not do. Other than the RFC, there's no policy about when articles would be added or removed from the system. And there's no plan for a further test or for full scale implementation. Which makes me wonder when I read Talk:Dustin Diamond and Talk:Barry Chamish, which both say:

Please do not remove pending changes from this article without discussion. It was not set as part of the trial, but because of distinct and particular BLP concerns with this article. I am happy to discuss whether this is the best approach for the article, a pragmatic approach to a BLP needs to take precedence over whatever general experiments and discussions are currently happening over FR.

This article has had major BLP issues, and has ongoing problems with edits. It is therefore useful not to have any edit immediately published before being scrutinised, and (if no one else does it) I am willing to scrutinise all edits. The scenario is liable to long term, so absolute prevention methods like protection or semi-protection are undesirable, but the traffic is low enough to scrutinise all edits. I use common sense and the available tools to do what I can for specific articles, and I'm happy to change from this pragmatic approach if someone tells me how using this tool is detrimental to the article in question, or to the goal of encouraging people to improve such articles.--Scott Mac 09:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Now bear in mind that both these articles are subject to Level 2 Pending Changes, where only "reviewers" have the right to accept an edit, not long-time Wikipedia editors. Also bear in mind, as discussed at User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt and previously at Talk:Pippa Middleton, Scott Mac has claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from a person who accepted an edit containing reliably sourced material, because he felt that material was "trivial" and not appropriate content for a biography, despite news coverage in the Chicago Sun-Times and other non-tabloid newspapers. He in fact claimed the right to remove reviewer privileges from me, simply because I expressed a different opinion of how BLP articles should be handled on the talk page. I don't see that per se as something I could call a violation of policy on his part, because, as I said, there's no policy for how reviewer privileges are given or lost, and I was given them just as arbitrarily.

Nonetheless, the effect now is that we have two articles that Scott Mac seems to be saying that only he, and people whose opinions he is willing to accept, can make changes to - and those changes apparently would be based not on what is verifiable, but some subjective criterion of what is trivial or appropriate that I don't understand. This goes to a whole new level beyond WP:OWN. And I have to say, from what I've seen as Pending Changes winds down to its bitter end, I'm becoming altogether convinced that it was intended as a censorship scheme rather than any kind of legitimate curb on vandalism.

Finally, we still have articles subject to Level 2 PC which I have no idea how they ever got on list, like Palaeoarchaeology, Ahmadiyya, Al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf ibn Maṭar ... the mass removal per consensus is now lagging behind the most recent May 20 deadline, and needs to be completed now. Wnt (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• God only knows why I'm replying here, but... I've been a witness to Scott Mac's previous hissy fit on this issue, and now there's this one. Can someone please get arbcom to take his bit now? To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with biographies. For whatever reason Scott is just not stable when it comes to this issue, and we're letting him run roughshod over all of Wikipedia. You can't work with the guy, since he polarizes everything that he seems to be involved in to the point where everyone has to take sides. Maybe once he's out of the way we can actually do something about referencing BLP articles and improving our content some.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons

By a vote of 9-0, a majority of the Arbitration has voted to pass a preliminary injunction. Arbitration policy states that "injunctions are binding decisions that shall be in effect until a case closes". In the event that there is insufficient agreement among the Committee to open the case, clarification should be requested from the Arbitration Committee on how to proceed.

The injunction was proposed and passed after User:Scott MacDonald brought a case to the Committee regarding the implementation of the shutdown of pending changes. At the time of the passage of this injunction, the case request is currently pending before the Committee. The injunction is the following:

Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration and replace level 2 pending changes with full protection of an equivalent duration. This measure shall be effective immediately, and administrators who have recently removed pending changes from biographies of living persons articles are expected to assure that these protection levels are applied to articles from which pending changes protection has been removed.

For the Arbitration Committee,
NW (Talk) 15:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

As noted by a few arbs, this does not prevent admins from subsequently, even the same admin immediately after, consider in their own appreciation which level of protection is needed, with all due regards to the specifics of the article and in accordance with WP:PP. The reason arbcom doesn't mention this yet acknowledges it unofficially is because they want to appear tough on BLP issues. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the arbs might consider protecting a page, only to unprotect it a few seconds later, to be gaming? If they pass a useless injunction, surely they can't abide a demonstration its uselessness. Since it's inadvisable to irritate a committee with desysopping powers, I suggest asking another admin to unprotect the articles, ensuring an additional review, or contacting the protecting administrator, and waiting up to 7 days for them to respond. While arbcom can't desysop everyone (the stewards will refuse), starting a power struggle over a small number of articles will generate more disruption than it's worth. The most important remedy is to bide our time, and vote the incumbents responsible for this mess out. According to Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent, about half of the arbitrators will be up for reelection this December. The community needs to send arbcom a message at the polls that wheel warring and involved blocking to further a wiki-political struggle must not be countenanced, and administrators' hands should not be tied with bureaucratic red tape. Authoritarian actions hinder the development of a community-approved policy for the application of pending changes protection to BLPs, by alienating many potential supporters. The result is bad for the people about whom Wikipedia editors write. Chester Markel (talk) 07:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing to avoid a totally unfair boomerang. Regardless of the history, this particular request for clarification was reasonable, given an admin's redaction of what, in context, was unambiguously an argumentum ad absurdum and not a personal attack. Enacting a topic ban based on a misconception so obvious is unacceptable. TreasuryTag: let this be a lesson to you - you've "cried wolf" too often and people aren't willing to take your complaints seriously any more. You'd better bite your tongue for a good long while and not make any, even if you're in the right. Rd232 ^talk 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Can someone clarify (a) whether or not this is a personal attack – ie. who is it attacking, or is it just an analogy used to make the point that people usually evaluate advice based on its source? – (b) whether or not it is appropriate for it to be removed as per WP:TPO and (c) whether or not it is appropriate that the people removing it are the person who considers themselves to be being attacked and an admin who has previously declared themselves INVOLVED with regards to myself? I am particularly concerned because the only uninvolved admin to have looked seems not to have been too concerned.
I would like to clarify that I am not drawing comparisons between Edokter and a terrorist. I was simply using an analogous situation.
If the conclusion is that it should not be removed, I would appreciate it being restored, since it is currently deleted. If the conclusion is that it should be removed, I would genuinely appreciate advice on what is wrong with it, and how WP:INVOLVED does not apply, so that I am aware for the future. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Implying that someone would like to take advice from bin Laden is a personal attack in most situations, yes. Can you explain how this isn't an exception?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment (obviously) doesn't address the issues I raised in point (c). ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see how it would be construed as suggesting one would take or value advise from bin Laden. Personally, I wouldn't have zapped your post, but that's because very little offends me. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have further added an apology if my remark was mis-interpreted, but as I have stated, it was only intended to be an analogy. Interestingly, Sarek seems to be treating it differently to Edokter, who says he thought I was comparing him to Bin Laden. Neither was my intention, I assure you. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• My God, Treasury Tag, could you just please not argue and fight and complain and wikilawyer and snipe and push the boundaries all the fucking time about everything? When you're fighting and arguing with everyone you come across, and finding the need to start ANI threads about everything, eventually it should occur to you that maybe it isn't always everyone else's fault. Even when you're right, you're wrong. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  If you don't actually comment on the issue I've raised, it's quite difficult for me to tell whether or not to take you seriously... ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 19:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't much care whether you take me seriously or not; that's your choice, and doesn't affect me. You might find it is to your advantage to take me seriously, however, because I have a gut feeling that I am less inclined than many others around here to severely limit your ability to continue to disrupt everything you touch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban for TreasuryTag

- Sub-heading added. Fences&Windows 22:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please have a complete topic ban on TT starting these incessant 'requests for clarification' sections on ANI which, shock horror, always turn out to be anything but. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Oh yes. The recurrent drama achieves nothing - apart from consuming other editors' time, which is a valuable resource on this project. bobrayner (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's either an attack or terminally uncivil, take your pick. It should never have been said, and certainly not re-added. In any case, I agree with Floquenbeam and Mick above. Incessantly arguing about disruption is even more tedious than merely disrupting. Dayewalker (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would absolutely support any measure that would reduce the amount of drama-laden threads Treasury Tag starts in order to air their Grievance of the Day against [insert random editor's name here]. My patience, which I used to believe was nearly infinite, has finally warn out with regard to TT's near incessant complaints. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose ban on me starting ANI threads. I am not aware of any other editor subject to such a restriction, probably because it's a ludicrous idea which prevents the free and fair exchange of views and can only cause more trouble. If people object to me starting threads complaining about the stupid behaviour of some other editors, then they would probably waste less time by (a) not reading them, and/or (b) not typing long comments complaining about drama. Paragraphs such as those which Mick produce do not reduce drama. They increase it. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 19:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  "It's everyone's fault but mine". There is indeed a reason that there's no other editor "subject to such a restriction". Can't you even get the slightest hint from all the adverse coments against you every time you open one of these threads? Unbelievable. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attack? No. Incivil? Perhaps. Stupid? Yup. Fortunately, for me certainly, we don't block/ban for stupid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• If it's not a personal attack, it's definitely uncivil and inappropriate, and I don't much care who redacts it as such. Banning TreasuryTag from ANI is an overreaction in my opinion. I'd suggest a WP:TROUT instead. N419BH 19:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• A more adult way to express a dislike of the frequency with which any editor complains about things, is to ignore him, as you would in real life. You don't tape over someone's mouth, you walk away and he either shuts up, changes his behaviour or goes and complains to someone else. It doesn't consume anyone's time if they just ignore it. Note that I am not making any comment on TT personally, I am talking generally. It works for me - I ignore a number of editors that p**s me off and they just go away. If we're going to block idiots, then it's going to be a long job. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

  Your mistake of course is to comment on the general case, whereas all the people commenting here about TT, already know through experience that none of what you said applies to him, or the drama threads he starts here. Even you commented in the thread, to tell everyone to ignore it. If that's not wasting everybody's time, I don't know what is. And while everyone else gets to ignore this nonsense, that's not the case for the 3 people he specifically notified of the important thread he started that involved them. That's not the case for people monitoring this board for replies in threads which do actually matter. This is an admin's noticeboard for dealing with specific incidents. It doesn't exist to simply host an endless stream of pointless crap where TT seeks feedback about an issue he's never ever going to accept anyone else's interpretation of except his own in the first place, and will only make sarcastic reply after sarcastic reply, lawyer point after lawyer point, until yet again someone finally comes to put a bullet in its head and forcibly archive it (often having to close it two or three times as TT won't accept the conclusion). Even if everybody ignored it, that's still a hell of a stupid way to use the Foundation's server space. If you stopped ignoring him and started watching him, you'd see how hilarious it is to suggest that either his behaviour will change or he will just shut up, if we all just pretended he doesn't exist. It's nonsense. The guy is addicted to this sort of timewasting self-centred drama. A topic ban would be like an intervention frankly, a way to save him from himself, rather than ensuring this board remains an efficient incidents needing action board. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• A bit snippy, and hence a bit uncivil; but not a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• What "incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators" does this question refer to? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Probably the inappropriate reversion of another editor's comments, on the dubious grounds that they constitute a "personal attack". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I only see a request for clarification, which seems inappropriate here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Bringing things here inappropriately as a way of continuing to express insults is so totally inappropriate, that I think a block might be in order. In my view this certainly counted as a personal attack, and I certainly am willing to block for personal attacks when they become disruptive. This one was. It's appropriate to stop continuations of it. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• It wasn't a personal attack at all. It was just a potentially (I didn't examine the full context) valid point explained with a drastic example. TreasuryTag is one of those editors who are definitely causing more trouble than they are worth, and starting this section was a bad idea. But as the TT's complaint is basically justified, this is not the occasion for proposing an ANI ban. Hans Adler 20:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• God, not another one from TT. Per Floquenbeam and MickMacNee et al., TT should be topic banned from An, AN/I, WQA etc. DeCausa (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban from AN, AN/I, WQA, etc. Much too quick on the draw that way; it's just disruptive.  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban on TreasuryTag opening AN/I, AN and WQA threads, support block the next time he makes uncivil comments like the one he's advertising here. Fences&Windows 22:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure opening is enough. He seems to horribly escalate threads opened by others, especially on WQA. DeCausa (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• TreasuryTag, telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack. That you came here to argue about it tells me you should take a long break from the noticeboards. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Once again I see a number of normally quite intelligent people claim incivility by completely misreading a harmless contribution to a debate. (Not just you but also several people above.) It is pretty obvious that TT was merely arguing that to some extent it does matter who advice comes from. Using an extreme example to drive the point home is hardly criminal. This is one of the few things about which I agree with TT: I am quite unlikely to take any advice from TT seriously, ever.
    I wouldn't mind an ANI ban for TT, but I don't understand why this can't wait for a better occasion when it doesn't have to be justified with a pedantic, anti-intellectual civility extremism argument. Hans Adler 23:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are ignoring the context of the discussion. I certainly recognize and acknowledge that one can argue both sides; that TT's comments are or are not personal attacks based on this and that is of course debatable. However, TT's comments were taken as a personal attack by Edokter who expressed his displeasure. TT's comments were made just after telling Edokter, "I don't value your advice in the slightest, nor do I trust your judgement". After this comment, Edokter reminded TT to stick to comments about content not persons, at which point TT told Edokter that he probably valued advice from Osama bin Laden, ignoring the fact that Edokter was simply restating NPA, and it didn't matter who repeated it. Hence, the conclusion this is a personal attack. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment re "telling an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden is a personal attack". TT did NOT tell an admin that they value advice from Osama bin Laden -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, he did, and he did it in the context of ignoring the advice of someone reminding him to avoid personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Quotation please? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
        • It's the very first diff in the beginning of this entire thread. I encourage you to read the entire discussion in its original context. The irony, is that it shows TT saying he won't abide by Edokter's advice to adhere to NPA. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, I read that, but "I am assuming, perhaps unfairly, that you would not value advice from Osama bin Laden," does NOT say that the person in question DOES value advice from bin Laden, and I have read and (I think) understood the context (the "perhaps unfairly" clause may be a little provocative, but it does not necessarily imply your conclusion) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Did you read the next sentence, which read "But I guess that would be wrong"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

              I have stated – and apologised for that matter, though everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten that – that I did not mean to compare Edokter to Bin Laden (which is the offense he took from it) nor to say that he took advice from Bin Laden (which is the offense Sarek took from it on his behalf). I intended to make a very simple point, in response to Edokter's bizarre suggestion that one should not evaluate advice based on its source. My comment has obviously been misinterpreted, which is unfortunate, and I have apologised, but since I am guaranteeing that its intention was not to be a personal attack, I'm not sure why such linguistic analaysis of it as is being done just above is necessary! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

              • (non-admin) Perhaps in part because you apologised after you opened this discussion? The words horse and stable door may be appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

                If memory serves, I apologised immediately after opening this discussion but before anyone commented (so it wasn't really a discusssion...!) because I was drafting both comments at the same time. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 07:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support ban on starting or commenting on WP:AN/I, WP:AN and WP:WQA. TreasuryTag's uncanny talent for escalating non-issues into dramalanches is disrupting the project by wasting people's time. Reyk _YO! 00:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, this ban obviously would not apply is TT is the subject of a thread started by someone else. He would clearly have the right to speak in his own defense. Reyk _YO! 00:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Not sure if this is in TT's defense or not, but I would not call his comments attacks. Then again, that is simply because TT takes great care in adding a level of ambiguity to his comments in order to be able to claim his statements are not attacks. Kind of like if I were to say "I'd say you're an idiot, but of course, that can't be possible" (not nearly as refined as his efforts in this regard, but you get the point). On that note, TT, when having not gotten his way and run afoul of others, has, on at least one occasion, admitted to being willing and planning on "WikiStalking" (note the parens, TT) at least one other editor[48]. There is definitely some pattern of behavior here, which I've seen numerous times throughout ANI and TT's TP edits or edit summaries, but I would be hard pressed to define them. With hopes this doesn't add me to his "stalking" list... ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, I said that I would be carefully checking that Sarek didn't abuse rollback (which is a violation of policy) or make inappropriate blocks (which are in violation of policy). Tracking an editor's contributions for policy violations is not wiki-stalking, as clearly specified at WP:AOHA, where it is also noted that false allegations in that regard are a serious personal attack. And don't worry, you're not going to get onto my stalking list for the comment above. You'd have to do something far worse ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 07:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would support a one-year ban on TreasuryTag's participation on AN or ANI, except in threads started by others in which he or his actions are directly involved, or if he wishes to draw attention to an undeniable emergency situation. I do not believe I have ever supported a similar action against anyone, but TreasuryTag's overall pattern of participation on the noticeboards renders them significantly less useful for their intended purposes. (I will note that I have probably had more than my share of disagreements with TreasuryTag on here over the years, so my view can be discounted appropriately.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban from AN, ANI, WQA unless they are named in the thread. Reyk words it well just abovr, these "dramalanche"s are tiresome to wade through. As to the original post, it's wrong anyway, 'cause if you intended to commit a crime against humanity, you would definitely want to think about asking Osama bin Laden for advice, of course you would. Oh wait now, so the analogy being drawn is between TT accepting Edokter's advice and Edokter accepting bin Laden's advice? Which Edokter would only do if he intended to commit what crime? That is an extremely offensive nnalogy and as such constitutes a personal attack. If such continue, then blocks should follow. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - The number of TT's ANI threads and the tenacity with which he prosecutes them contributes to the unnecessary overhead here, and have become in essence disruptive. I can't recall one of them ending with a compromise acceptable to all parties, a good indication that it's TT's intransigence -- the only factor they have in common -- which prevents any kind of amicable resolution from being achieved. (When there is an actual issue, that is.) Instead, TT just rails away until everyone gets tired and leaves. TT himself realizes that his ANI complaints never achieve what he started out to do, since he's begun complaining that (paraphrasing) "I don't know why I post at ANI since it always becomes about me." Well, I don't know why he posts either, but it would sure be nice if he was stopped from doing so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban of TeasuryTag from ANI, AN and WQA (with the exceptions mentioned above). There is too much unhelpful and needless drama. Mathsci (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support; it would prevent much drama, freeing up TreasuryTag and other editors to spend more time doing something useful, like working on articles. bobrayner (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• 'Support'; I've never interacted with TT before but I have read a vary large number of threads on ANI and wherever he goes, he tends to be accompanied by a fanfare of drama, explosions, borderline attacks and general unpleasantness. --Blackmane (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Dungane and Arilang1234

• Dungane (talk · contribs)
• Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)

massively chaotic thread collapsed, see admin note below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on 21:52, 13 October 2010- "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources. They deliberately malign Cixi and Qing as corrupt, to further their communist ideology by making it look good"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Report on the substance of Arilang1234's accusations against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ- it consists of ranting conspiracy theories, etc. I wish to bring the attention of admins towards the racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion. Note- Arilang1234 contradicts himself here, he claims this is about alleged "racist" behavior I made- (He did not offer examples or proof at all.) Later, he says this, when he is confronted by the fact that he made racist remarks on Manchus- "Now this ANI discussion is not about sensitive and controversial content editing, nor about any racist remarks, instead, it is about enforcing WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and all the other WP rules, especially the Neutrality of all articles"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC) ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, the "racist" term refer to your uncalled for bring up of an issue which had been discussed and settle. See comment (3) at below. Arilang talk 03:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC) nope- Arilang1234 claimed that there was " racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", as if I was posting racist comments on the talk page or article- what I was doing was pointing out Arilang1234's record of hurling racist insults at the Manchu people, and Arilang1234 twists it so much he is bordering the edge on outright lying, claiming I am exhibiting "racist....behavior".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, allow me to remind you of User:Seb az86556 remark:"Dungane, are you going to stop?" Arilang talk 06:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Reminder to Arilang1234 on what exactly User:Seb az 86556 said- ("Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around.) Again, Arilang1234, if why did you title this section "Racist... behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", when you were also warned not to accuse others of being racist? Not only that, you offered no evidence of my alleged racism. Wheres my edit where I made racist comments? You titled this thread "Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", accusing me of engaging in racist behavior. As far as I can see, not only have you not offered and proof of that, you were also warned by Seb az, who said Both of you to stop accusing each other of being racist.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 is bringing up straw man attacks and red herrings, and not only are they are straw man and red herring attacks, they are false straw man and red herrings.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC) [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] From the above diff, it is very clear that I was trying very hard to get editors to join the discussion on how to improve this article under the guidance of WP rules, and how to keep this article neutral. Instead of providing positive feedbacks, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ tried to bring up racial sensitive topics which had been fully discussed and resolved in the past, here. False Accusations by Arilang1234 against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ nope. what Arilang1234 was bring up recycled (unproved and therefore deleted) ad hominem attacks and straw man claims on the Boxer rebellion article, claiming that the communist party was creating a positive portrayal of the Boxers in Chinese high school textbooks. over here, and even claiming that it was marxist, bringing up the black panthers and vietnam war Arilang1234 ranted on the talk page, claiming, without offering sources, that chinese communist propaganda was inserted into the Boxer rebellion article he does it again over hereΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) In addition to inserting that, Arilang1234 also inserted massive rants directly into the article earlier. Arilang1234 accuses me of speaking "chinglish" without offering any proof Benlisquare's comment:"I notice that a lot of your articles have a few language issues here and there," see here, it shows that I am not the only one who had made offer to help improve your English, even though my own English is far from perfect. Arilang talk 00:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Following are ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's combative and un-cooperative remarks: (1)"very strange that Arilang1234 is suddenly so concerned about wikipedia policy, when he violates wikipedia policy all the time":Quoted from [57] A personal attack against me, because (a) not only Arilang1234 should be concerned about WP policy, all the editors should do so. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is again making false accusation against me, "violates wikipedia policy all the time", when he could not produce even one evidence. Arilang1234 claims i cannot produce, "one evidence" Here is a short list, not inclusive of all his violations of wikipedia policy, which lists his insults, personal attacks, racist attacks, insertion of insults and personal opinions into articles, claiming people of "anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.", accusing people of communist party propaganda without evidenceΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (2)"claiming australia is a socialist country based on his own original research when wikipedia says NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH":Quoted from here ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is bending and twisting WP rules to serve his own purposes, when he knows that WP:No Original Research do not apply on talkpage. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is inventing his own WP rules, a disruptive behavior. Going off topic is against talk page rules, which you violated when you claimed australia was a socialist country, not only that, you insinuated that marxists, black panthers, and vietnam war protestors were behind the boxers as "anti imperialists"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (3)"claiming people are "salvages" (whatever that is), are "stupid", and that entire ethnic groups are "barbarians":Quoted from here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ again tried to stir up sensitive racial issue which had been fully discussed in great depth in 2010 and had since been resolved, see here, and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ had been firmly warned by User:Seb az86556, see here, yet ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose to ignore it. (Remarks by User:Seb az86556:Both of you please stop throwing "barbarian," "savage," "Nazi," "racist", or anything else from similar vocabulary-lists around./Dungane, are you going to stop?) Again, Arilang1234, why did you title this section "Racist... behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ", when you were also warned not to accuse others of being racist? Not only that, you offered no evidence of my alleged racism. (4)"Arilang1234 himself inserted Mao Zedong/CCP's POV into the Taiping Rebellion article, Arilang1234 tried to make the taipings look like heros fighting against the "evil" manchu qing,":Quoted from here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is trying to distract other editors by going off-topic, when he knows that Taiping Rebellion has nothing to do with Boxer Rebellion. Arilang1234 goes off topic here claiming australia is a socialist country, and rangting about black panthers, marxists, and anti imperialists, and vietnam, which had nothing to do with the article (5)User:John Smith's commented that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ does not understand the meaning of WP:OR, see here User:John Smith's's comment:"You keep demonstrating a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's original research policy." User:John Smith has a pattern of personal attacks on authors whos views he doesn't agree with-"nobodies", I certainly hope he was not attempting to insult Dr. Leonhard with these obnoxious words- "On a separate note, who is Robert Leonhard, and why should we care what he has to say?", especially given the fact that he inserted the work of a completely uncredentialed author with no phd or degree, published by a "Christian vanity press", into the Boxer rebellion article. On [http://www.jhuapl.edu/ourwork/nsa/papers/China%20ReliefSm.pdf page 5 of this PDF which i showed to john demonstrated that the author he claimed was irrelavant "why should we care what he has to say?" has a PHD, was an army officer and wrote multiple books on war.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) not only that, john smith was blocked numerous times for edit warring and violations on China related articles, it appears that he does not have a good grasp of wikipedia policy (6)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ insisted on using minority view points, cold war style rhetoric such as "imperialism", he refuse to acknowledge WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight " Quote:"The article actually cuts down too much on what the sources say about the imperialism and exploitation of chinese peasants." End of quote. See here note that Arilang1234 purposely avoids mentioning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=429839601 this edit of mine where I cited all my sources which said imperialism occured in the boxer rebellion, none of which were marxist or communist, or even from china.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) another false accusation by Arilang1234. I never used a single communist party, or marxist source. All of my sources were from western authors, with degrees from western universities. I hope these ad hominem and straw man attacks stop now. I posted a laundry list here linking directly to all the western sources, NOT communist or marxist sources, which I presented as evidence that foreigners had committed imperialism and aggression against Chinese peasants- its what the sources said, not me or any "marxist communist"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) in this book edited by Joshua A. Fogel (scroll down to bottom), and published by a reputable western "Stanford University Press", it specifically stated that missionaries from the west and chinese christians were using imperialism to seize the land of chinese peasants and oppress them the author of the book, Kazuko Ono, appears to publish mainly books on Japan and China, no evidence of "marxism", or "communism" Joshua Fogel has academic credentials and is not a marxist or communist, or from the Chinese "propaganda department"- Joshua A. Fogel entered the University of Chicago where he majored in Chinese history. Upon graduation in 1972, he proceeded to Columbia University where he received a Masters in History in 1973, an East Asian Institute Certificate in 1975, and his Ph.D. in History in 1980.Joshua A. Fogel is Professor of History at the University of California, Santa BarbaraΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Definition of "imperialism"- Google dictionary"A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force" Dictionary.com "an instance or policy of aggressive behaviour by one state against another" merriam webster dictionary- "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence" I fail to see what the Cold war in any way has to do with the definition of imperialism, or with the Boxer rebellion, which happened 45 years before the cold War. This is another ad hominem and straw man attack, by bringing up the "cold war" as ths straw man/attackee in ad hominem.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (7)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ has a habit of spamming talkpage with irrelevant trivial, see here Again, who is spamming irrelevant trivia? Arilang1234 goes off topic here claiming australia is a socialist country, and rangting about black panthers, marxists, and anti imperialists, and vietnam, which had nothing to do with the articleΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (8)See here, quote:"several anti China Users" unquoted, another example of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ using bias, non-neutral, Cold War style political epitaph to attack editors he dislike, to turn other editors away, so that he can have monopoly control of the editing. Arilang1234 was the one who used "biased, non neutral cold war stype epitaphs" to attack sourced material in the article he disliked, claiming that the lead of the article "reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" NOTE- Arilang1234 offered absolutely no proof for his accusations [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxer_Rebellion&diff=429813902&oldid=429794529 Arilang1234 goes on a rant about marxists, leninism, and anti imperialism, bringin up the black panthers and the vietnam war era, with the implication that only marxists consider the boxers anti imperialists, since he earlier complained about the lead describing boxers as anti imperialists, as resembling a "chinese high school text book".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) (8)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ made statements like "the foreigners were paranoid", "they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded.", "trigger happy marines", see here, these statements are 19 century old style anti-foreigners rhetoric, is biased and non-neutral, do not belong on wiki talkpage. These kind of statements only serve to create more non-neutrality. Arilang talk 00:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Wow, first Arilang1234 accuses me of putting in communist party propaganda, when that was disproven, and didn't work, Arilang1234 now accuses me of engaging "in century old style anti-foreigners rhetoric"- classic example of "throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks" the following- "they shot at all chinese that passed by the legations, which led to them being blockaded", is a factual statement, not an opinion. If a high profile bank robbery occured in real life, and a reliable source stated that "the robber killed all xxx people in the bank", on wikipedia, we would right "the robber killed all xxx people in the bank". We don't sugar coat facts here on wikipedia, if we did, many articles would get deleted. see Wikipedia:Not censored.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) In the edit Arilang1234 pulled out, I was talking about a specific section othe article- "Peaceful Chinese Intention", which was sourced by the book "Imperial masquerade: the legend of Princess Der Ling", if we look at the book here, we can see I was using the source when I made my statements about the foreigners being trigger happy, shooting at all chinese near the legations, and being paranoid- "The various legations were united and daily fired their rifles and guns, killing innumerable officials and people." "Chinese court officials and military officers came bearing truce and were immediately shot at or killed" "the legationers had nothing but their instincts to rely on, with all the paranoia that that implies" Wikipedia is, first and foremost, an encyclopedia, and as such, its primary goal is to be a fully comprehensive and informative reference work; that is, it does not purposefully omit (i.e. suppress or censor) non-trivial verifiable, encyclopedically-formatted information on notable subjects. In the pursuit of completeness, Wikipedia includes truthful (sometimes "sensitive") information which could itself be considered, or may have possible uses which could be considered, illegal, immoral, unethical, or potentially harmfulΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Allow me to remind ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ one more time, we do have a WP rule called: WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, minority view points do not get covered as much as main stream view points. Arilang talk 04:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Allow me to remind Arilang1234, final warning, that his ad hominem attack and straw man arguments of attempting to link the Boxers to marxists and the black panthers will not stick as he desperately throws these random accusations against the wall. Arilang1234 has not offered on iota of evidence, that the Boxer Rebellion article which is sourced with western works by authors with academic degrees from western universities, contains "marxist", "communist", or "chinese high school text book" propaganda. He is first saying that marxism is a minority viewpoint (its your opinion, editors, on whether its minority, I don't care, quite frankly, since No marxist sources were used in the article), then attempts to link the Boxers to marxists, black panthers, and vietnam era protestors (classic attempt at crap throwing against the wall, and seeing what sticks) First he claims its the communist party, then the black panthers, vietnam protestors, whats next?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (9)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ made statement like:"(the book claims)that christianity is the one true religion and everything else is essentially lies", which has a strong anti-Christian overtone, in itself is a biased and non-neutral statement. Arilang talk 00:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC) arilang1234 claims I made anti christian comments- wrong, I said on April 25, over here that "Mr. Stanley is a christian, and writes from a christian POV. Now, being a christian is not an impediment to reliability, but having no academic credentials and writing from a religious christian POV is. The aim of his book is to glorify christianity and claim all other religions are false. He has no academic credentials whatsover, let alone credentials in China or history"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) User:John Smith's attempted to use the book as a source. I noted many ridiculous statements in the book, like "We can see in chinese history how broken covenants and violations of god's laws, judgements, and bitter root expectations have sown curses and reaped violence, revenge, and murder" and- "The generational judgments and expectations were broken. God's love towards Shirley had always been the same. It was her own sin and the generational judgments and bitter root expectations which barred her from experiencing the blessing" when I brought this up on the reliable sources noticeboard, User:Jonathanwallace firmly agreed with my judgement that the book was totally unreliable, saying "Definitely not a reliable source. Xulon Press is a Christian vanity press, the book is about prayer and does not purport to be a well sourced historical work, and the author does not appear to have a historian's credentials or prior publications sufficient to pass our ban on self published sources. This was correctly removed from the article. " Can Arilang1234, with a straight face, tell me that this book is a reliable source?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (10)When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ again completely disregard WP rules, he went on to paint a dark picture of then multi-nation foreign diplomats and Chinese christian converts taking refuge at the foreign legation, virtually calling them "terrorists", "invaders" and "bank robbers", see here. When ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ has such a extreme biased attitude towards then Peking multi-nations diplomats, when ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ called them invaders and terrorists, there is really not a slim chance that he would be able to contribute any neutral material on WP. Arilang talk 02:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 again has engaged in cherry picking edits (and is therefore lying in his claim that I ignored John Smith's complaint about neutrality, by not showing my actual response to John smith- I addressed his assertion that the article was not neutral, by pointing out there was already a section in existence about chinese atrocities and that I contributed to that section. If you go look at the talk page now, at Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section, you can see I clearly responded to User:John Smith's about the article being "not neutral". John Smith's then did not raise any more question regarding neutrality, he then said that it was the organzation of the article that was poor. per WP:DUCK, since my response to John smith's was in plain english and clearly visible in the same section, I will assert that Arilang1234 is a liar, since he claimed I did not discuss improving the neutrality of the article when I did, and falsely claimed that I called diplomats and chineese christians bank robbers and terrorists ( first of all, I was saying that as an example, and second I wasn't even talking about the diplomats or chinese christians, I was talking about the relief soldiers who entered Beijing after the end of the warΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Heres a fact- real life is indeed not neutral. I wasn't being sarcastic, unless someone shows me otherwise, real life is indeed and never will be neutral. A sarcastic remark would contain information that the user does NOT believe to be factual, If say, I was insulting a musician, and i thought he was horrible, I would make the comment, "What a fine musician you are! You played so great you shattered my ears!" If I was being sarcastie to User:John Smith, I would have said- "And sure, real life is neutral, just like it was when the Turks did the Armenian genocide and massacred armenians. Both Armenians and Turks were responsible, were they not?" that would have been sarcasm, since I would be using ridicule and mockery to disprove something which I DO NOT believe. Since I do believe real life is not neutral, I was not being sarcastic, I was being serious. I recommend that Arilang1234 look up "sarcasm" in the dictionary or look for an example. Can Arilang1234 offer any evidence that here I was calling foreign diplomate and chinese christians "terrorists" and "bank robbers"? As far as I can see, I was offering a hypothetical example of what would not be considered neutral in a wikipedia article- which would be inventing atrocities by a victim to balance out an article, and John Smith was insinuating that we would need to do that.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Can arilang1234 prove that I was talking about the legationers? When in fact, I was referring to the relief expedition forces (from the Gasalee Expedition), and not the diplomats or chinese christians. Again, Arilang1234 is bordering on the edge of outright lying, no where did I mention Chinese christians and legationers, nor did John Smith, he was talking about the alliance troops on the relief expedition who committed rapes and massacres against chinese, not the legations" User:John Smith brought up this section- Boxer_rebellion#Alliance_Atrocities, all of which had NOTHING to do with foreign diplomats or chinese christians I was taling about the Alliance relief troops raping and killing chinese? Where did I claim that diplomats and chinese christians took part in it? ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (11) ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ said:"the origins section is vague... because we don't know", see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is not telling the truth, because there are many reliable Chinese reference books on the origin of the Boxers, and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ had decided not to use them, books like (Chinese:庚子國變記), (Chinese:拳變餘聞), (Chinese:西巡迴鑾始末), and File:Boxerspamphlet.png . Is there any reason why ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ choose not to use Chinese source? Arilang talk 06:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I posted adequate english langauge sources on the article, books by authors with academic credentials from western universities (Paul Cohen (historian) is professor of history emeritus at Wellesley College and Associate of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University ) (lanxin xiang has american citizenship and american degrees, not chinese)- [58][59]ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) more english sources can be found here on chu hung teng and the boxer originsΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) (12) Comment made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on Boxer Rebellion talkpage on 19 May 2011: is the fact that the crimes of Chinese christians and foreigners, per the sources, aren't explained in even more detail, with every aspect of how they robbed chinese peasants of their land and how chinese "christians" were actually bandits who converted to avoid prosecution.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC) It is clear that here: ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is claiming that "chinese christians were actually bandits", and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is into adding more detailed and every aspect of "chinese christians robbing peasants" into Wikipedia article, in blatant violation of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. At the same time, it looks like ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is using Wikipedia as a political platform to advocate his anti-Christian agenda, thus he should be given a indefinite ban. Arilang talk 02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC) More lying/obfuscation from Arilang1234. Arilang1234 doesn't mention the fact that I cited four non chinese, non communist sources proving my assertions. The sources stated that Chinese bandits converted to christianity for the purpose of avoiding prosecution, and christian missionaries and chinese christians " presumed upon the power and might of imperialism to seize peasants' lands and property for their churches and to intervene in lawsuits. no matter how perverse the demands of the missionaries might be, officials could do nothing" This source says Chinese bandits converted to christianity to avoid prosecution and this source does also, they are authored by Paul Cohen (historian) (Professor of Asian Studies and History Emeritus at Wellesley College and Associate of the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies, Harvard University), and by Joseph Esherick (Holder of the Hwei-chih and Julia Hsiu Chair in Chinese Studies, A graduate of Harvard College (1964, summa cum laude), with a Ph.D. from U.C., Berkeley (1971),) Can Arilang1234 show me a source, by an author with PHDs from Harvard, Berkely, or UC, which can prove Arilang1234's strange allegations linking marxists, black panthers to the boxers, or claiming australia is socialist?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 is the one who should be perm banned, since he treats wikipedia as his personal blog, shooting off conspiracy theories on marxism, black panthers, vietnam and boxers, claiming that since Australian textbooks say boxers were anti imperialist that australia must be a socialist country, and expects to be taken seriously.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC) (13) Statement made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on the start of this ANI discussion:Comment by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on 21:52, 13 October 2010- "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources. They deliberately malign Cixi and Qing as corrupt, to further their communist ideology by making it look good"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC) On this statement, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is telling us that "do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources", as if all Chinese government websites are Unreliable Sources, not to be trusted by Wikipedia. This statement of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is yet another solid proof of his biased and non-neutral personal agenda on Wikipedia, he is here openly defying and rejecting WP rules, especially WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, thus he should be barred from editing, to stop him from poisoning this encyclopedic building project. Arilang talk 04:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC) That statement was a specific edit summary in response to an edit that introduced unreliable information. In that diff, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ replaces history sourced to a government website with history sourced to scholarly references. These are the sorts of edits that should be praised, not misrepresented and maligned. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ drew attention to that diff—with strong language, perhaps—because you were repeatedly accusing him of being a Communist agent. It should be clear to everyone now that whatever ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's biases, they are not pro-Communist. Anyway, you have a history of trying to reject information from reliable sources by accusing the sources of links to the Chinese government. Just last month, you were sullying the reputation of a mainstream Hong Kong newspaper, just to exclude information which even Jimbo Wales said merited inclusion. This desperate ruse to discredit ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ at all costs is painfully plain. Quigley (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC) My response to Quigley, yes, as soon as I learned that Wen Wei Po is a reliable source, in order to comply with WP Neutrality rule, I had begun to cite Wen Wei Po, see here. I have stated many times, shall I repeat again:"I am no longer into content dispute, I am into implementing WP Neutrality rule", I have begun to cite Wen Wei Po, a known communist China mouthpiece. I can change, can ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ? Arilang talk 05:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC) ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's stement:"do not use Chinese government communist websites as sources" is a blanket statement that cover hundreds, possible thousands of Chinese government websites, in defying WP Neutrality and WP:RS rule. If ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is so keen on creating his own personal rules, maybe he should start his own online encyclopedia? Arilang talk 05:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Clearly you have not "changed" enough if you continue to take users' words out of context to defame them. Supplanting the nationalistic government source in that specific edit with a more measured, complete, and neutral account from the scholarly sources was an unequivocally good thing. On principle, you would agree, since you normally take a strong anti-Communist stance. But by switching to the weaker side in the content dispute only to continue your dispute with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ after your main accusations against him were proven without substance, you are only shooting yourself in the foot. Quigley (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC) In my opinion, someone should give ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ a stern warning, and if he refuse to observe and implement WP rules, a topic ban on Boxer Rebellion would be good for him, instead of allowing him to impede other editors from building a better encyclopedia. Arilang talk 12:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC) The title of this thread is a false personal attack, Arilang1234 has yet to show a single racist comment I made, not has he adequatly explained how it is "cold war" style, mentioning the cold is in itself a straw man/ad hominem attackΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 is the one who constantly brings up ad hominem attacks and straw man attacks about the communist party of china and marxists on the boxer rebellion article, claiming, without offering proof, that the article's content is "chinese communist party propaganda", when every single source used in the article is a western source by an academic with a degree.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 should be warned and topic banned. I can't believe this is happening again, and I grew tired of the back and forth bickering by both parties on the Boxer Rebellion article. I think it's time for a mediator or third party intervention. This issues, particularly Arilang's editing behavior, were noted in at least two ANI posts earlier this year, [60][61] in which he was given a stern warning. At the time, I hoped that Arilang's edit behaviors would improve in due time, and he did put effort into cleaning up several copyvios, but I'm saddened to see the some of the addressed problems continuing. On the otherhand, I had no problems with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's editing outside of the Boxer Rebellion article, and I've see him putting considerable effort into editing and expanding articles such as Ma Fuxiang and other regarding Kuomintang and Islam in China.--PCPP (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I also believe that user PCPP is a well known bias and non-neutral editor, see here, so his opinion is of no value here. Arilang talk 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Ad hominem. All users have the right to engage in community discussion as per WP:PILLAR. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) On here user Smallchief made a comment on ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, quote:"Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. " unquoted, the comment was made on 25 April 2011. Today is 21 May 2011, nearly a month has passed by, yet ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose to ignore the comment. This comment is a serious accusation against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's bias and non-neutral editing, why is it that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose not answer it and try to clear his name, is it because ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is guilty conscious, he knows that he cannot provide user Smallchief a satisfactory explanation, so he chose to bury his head in the sand? Come on, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, we are still waiting, patiently. Arilang talk 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234's selective cherry picking of edits shows that his accuation against me is false, I directly responded to smallchief's accusation here, by noting the sources I used had academic credentials, while the author of the source he picked out did not have them, providing accurate sources in response to Smallchief's accusation, which pertained to the fact that chinese forces did not commit rape in the war. in fact, Smallchief noted that I had responded to his accusation, by posting another responseΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I then responded again, to disprove his accusation against me, with the logic that #1, my source which said chinese forces did not rape was reliable, by an author with credentials, so it should be in the article, and #2, even if there were no sources saying that chinese did not rape, the very lack of sources accusing chinese of commiting rapes during the war, would logically mean that we could not reference the article with such accusations After that, smallchief did not respond, see the section yourself- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovableΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC) this is serious. Arilang1234 linked directly to smallchief's specific edit rather than the section, which would haveshown my response, out of bad faith, since users would not be able to see that I did indeed respond and disprove smallchiefs accusationsΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Bad faith accusation in my opinion. I don't see how Dungane has done anything wrong at all, and I think the fault is on the part of Arilang. Even if Dungane is partially at fault, this does not make Arilang exempt from having made an absurd tu quoque argument. In other words, Arilang is the pot calling the kettle black. Arilang has demonstrated on many occasions to be WP:SHOPPING for policies and whatnot to bolster his arguments, even though sometimes they don't fit in. He tries to bend the argument by arguing that he is the warrior of justice upholding Wikipedia policy, and that other editors are at fault for breaking said policy; the "policy" arguments he makes are generally thrown porkie pies, having no logical backing at all, and appear to be used as a distraction to bring attention away from a point or topic. (example diff diff2) Arilang also has the habit of making WP:KUDZU clauses whenever he can fit one in. He makes non sequitur arguments by drawing irrelevant conclusions, and then ostracizes other editors when they show that they have no idea what he's on about. He frequently attempts to have editors stop making criticisms towards a certain position by repeatedly using the lines "I'd like to warn other editors that they cannot place their POV here in this discussion; if this continues, I will bring this to the attention of an admin, and you will be topic-banned", or something like that. I see this as Arilang's tendency to engage in WP:WIKILAWYERing. (example diff) Arilang has the tendency to make threats in retaliation for criticism against him, usually something along the lines of "calling an administrator" or something similar. (diff) I suspect Arilang's WP:COMPETENCY ability; he has shown on many occasions that he has no idea what he is talking about, and that he is playing the expert. He claims that Australia is a "socialist country" (diff), i.e. akin to a government system found in the Soviet Union, Socialist Republic of Vietnam or German Democratic Republic, despite the fact that the Australian constitution confirms that it is a constitutional democracy with the Queen of Great Britain as head of state, and that the current political party voted into power has nothing to do with the type of government that forms a country. He also somehow associates anti-imperialism with Marxism and WP:UNDUE, and claims that "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all", arguing that anti-imperialism in a 19th Century topic is a "minority view". Arilang is quick to make assumptions in topics that, I assume, he has little knowledge about. This only furthers my suspicions that Arilang is not taking the Wikipedia project seriously. Arilang shows behaviour that is borderline WP:GAME, almost akin to trolling. He is quick to ignore the words of other editors during discussions, and goes off all sorts of strange tangents, which gives the impression that he is playing with the patience of other editors. Arilang has been in incidents that has brought him to ANI before; these incidents were based on his POV pushing on Qing Dynasty and Boxer Rebellion related articles, that the Manchus were horrible barbarians, and that the Boxers were horrible barbarians. If I recall, there was an agreement made where Arilang pledged not to start such disputes again. These recent actions by Arilang seems to me like he's quick to forget what he's promised. TL;DR: Arilang is trying to twist things into the way he prefers it to be, by shopping for policy and then acting under the pretense and justification that he is doing everything for the sake of upholding said policy. He doesn't use logical arguments to justify his beliefs, and instead uses all sorts of attacks and lawyering to make his stand, and it appears that rather than doing everything for the sake of Wikipedia policy as he claims, he seems to show an WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance towards the article content. Hence, I believe that the attention should be brought towards Arilang, and not Dungane. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC) No, Benlisquare, you have recalled it wrong. The previous ANI was about name calling and racist remarks, and the admin decision was 1-3 months of moratorium on sensitive and controversial content editing, which I have fully complied with, with plenty of help from User:Ohconfucius. Now this ANI discussion is not about sensitive and controversial content editing, nor about any racist remarks, instead, it is about enforcing WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and all the other WP rules, especially the Neutrality of all articles. Arilang talk 16:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC) User Benlisquare, this is the wrong place to have a go at me, instead, any criticism should be done on my talkpage, unless you are trying to distract or disrupt other editors. Arilang talk 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) No, I don't think you understand. You are a part of the problem; henceforth, I by all means am free to give an explanation of what I have personally seen. Also, see exhibit B directly above: a perfect example of WP:WIKILAWYERing, especially the line "unless you are trying to distract or disrupt other editors". He has done this quite a lot during other discussions as well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC) this statementby Arilang1234- "User Benlisquare, this is the wrong place to have a go at me, instead, any criticism should be done on my talkpage, unless you are trying to distract or disrupt other editors" is a classic example of Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot- it states the following- "There are often reports on various noticeboards, especially the incident noticeboard, posted by editors who are truly at fault themselves for the problem they're reporting. In other cases a person might complain about another editor's actions in an incident, yet during the events of that incident they've committed far worse infractions themselves. In both cases, such editors will usually find sanctions brought against themselves rather than the people they've sought to report." "A common statement on noticeboards is "this isn't about me, this is about them". There is sometimes a belief that, if someone's perceived misbehavior is reported at a noticeboard, the discussion can only focus on the original complaint, and turning the discussion around to discuss the misbehavior of the original reporter is "changing the subject" and therefore not allowed. However, that just isn't the case. Anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny." I very well know that there were 2 ANI against me in the past, however, I have changed completely since then, now I am a strong advocate of WP rules on every wiki articles, I am going to enforce Neutrality on all the articles, how do you like to comment on that? Arilang talk 16:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC) No comment. I'd like to let the diffs and the talk page discussions to speak for themselves. I think the situation is shown quite clearly already. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 16:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang's edits show otherwise, that he has not "changed" at all. At this ANI thread, PCPP lists edits in which Arilang1234 accuses other people of being "employee of the "50 Cent Party" they "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept", that " wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department", that "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government" and that PCPP was"always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Just now, concerning the Boxer Rebellion article, he claimed that the Boxer rebellion lead had chinese communist party propaganda in it, to attack sourced material in the article he disliked, claiming that the lead of the article "reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" NOTE- Arilang1234 offered absolutely no proof for his accusations Arilang1234 goes on a rant about marxists, leninism, and anti imperialism, bringin up the black panthers and the vietnam war era, with the implication that only marxists consider the boxers anti imperialists. note, that marxism is an integral part of communism. he is, effectively repeating his earler (false and disproven) claims that the boxer rebellion article had material from the "Communist party propaganda books", not onyl that, he offers absolutely no proof for his accusations of chinese high school text book and marxist propaganda.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) We are here to build a better encyclopedia through cooperation of all the editors, under the guidance of WP rules, shouldn't we all discuss nicely with each other to achieve consensus, instead of using harsh words to heck at each other? Arilang talk 16:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 spams the talk page desperately trying to link marxists, black panthers, and vietnam era protestors to the Boxer rebels, I don't call that "building a better encyclopedia. Such accusations come from people who use tin foil hats.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC) And in this very discussion you attacked me, and referred to me as a "well known biased editor", and that my opinion is no concern.--PCPP (talk) 17:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC) PCPP, I would not call it a"attack" on you by calling you a "well known biased editor", see here:User talk:PCPP#Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Falun Gong, frankly, if you are a non-biased and neutral editors, you wouldn't have got a 3 months ban. You agree? Arilang talk 23:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 claims he has "changed completely since then". Arilang1234 has a history of offering insincere apologies. He pushes his insolence to the limit, and then suddenly "apologizes" and backs down when his account is on the verge of being reported and blocked. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Huaxia and barbarians Arilang1234 first went into hate filled rants against Mongols and Manchus, not just calling them barbarians, but personally attacking editors like Madalibi, accusing him of "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action", of being "Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation," and even of "denying the holocaust"!), Arilang1234 then offered an "apology", saying- "take back my comments on calling other editors (including user Madalibi) twisting the rules, if ever other editors think that my comments were of personal attacks, I am sorry if I have hurt anyone's delicate feelings and I shall apology to them with all my sincerity, and I solemnly promise that there shall not be a second time. On me calling User Madalibi various names, "Gestapo-style of Thought Police action"Dr. Fu Manchu's reincarnation,"denying the holocaust all these names calling are just jokes Note, this "apology" was BEFORE his recent ANIs about his incivility and POV pushing, accusing other people of communist party propagandaΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang, Here we go again about the distractive comments. I don't understand how on earth you can talk about "building a better encyclopedia", when a large portion of your contributions have been based on a particular motive, an intention to pursue a certain POV or standpoint? You've made edits critical of the Manchus last year, critical of the Chinese Communist Party the year before that, and then created an article claiming superiority of the Chinese language or something-o'rather the year before that. Rather than continuing with the fluff talk and attacks against "well known biased editors", are you willing to listen to what other editors have to say? Also, an WP:ADHOM WP:ATTACK is an WP:ADHOM WP:ATTACK. Going on and on about the FLG enforcement on PCPP is an irrelevant argument when we are not discussing FLG. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Comment: This should be taken to WP:ANI, as it relates to a specific concern. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC) This should be taken to a cryptology expert, as it is completely incomprehensible. Look below. -- ۩ Mask 00:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC) history of Vandalism and POV pushing by Arilang1234 on the Boxer rebellion article This guy made probably over a hundred (non constructive and vandalism) edits to boxer rebellion a few years ago "This is the last "good" version of the article from August 31st. Since September 3rd user Arilang1234 has made over a 150 edits to this article. Various people have tried to revert back to the August 31st version to remove Arilang1234's changes only to have those reverts reverted by Arilang1234. Arilang1234's edits are now so numerous in the edit history that people are beginning to attempt corrections of Arilang1234's version of the article rather than seeing they can achieve the same thing by simply reverting to the August 31st version" "reverting over 150 revisions made by Arilang1234 between the 3rd and 7th of September. While not simple childish vandalism these revisions are bizarre and are not the stuff of a coherent Wikipedia piece. Some of it appears scholarly but in fact reflects the personal assertions of an individual (on dates etc.) rather than established historical fact, some reflects non-mainstream opinion on historical events and groups and most is just rambling and irrelevant" Did you hear that? over 150 bizzare and incoherent edits, not just childist vandalism, but non mainstream ranting opinions on the article, had to be reverted Boxer's anti-civilization and anti-humanity evil doing.Boxer members pulled out telegraphic poles,burned missionary schools,destroyed railroads,burned foreign imports,murdered foreigners and Chinese who happened to be connected to any foreigners.The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme. same thing readded here Arilang1234 claims he is "Remove unreferenced content", when the content had a reference No, I do not agree with you. If you read through Chinese history, it is very easy to come to the conclusion that Manchu was the most murderous barbarians of them all. Barbarians are barbarians, like it or not Disruptive behavior of Arilang1234 on talk page of boxer rebellion- ad hominem attacks of marxism and of alleged chinese propaganda, which is what i was responding to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive663#Arilang1234 First of all, Arilang1234 has a history of disruptive behavior at the Boxer rebellion article. a couple of years ago, he inserted personal opinons, insults, and rantings into the article, in which he claimed that the chinese communist party propaganda textbooks were creating positive portraits of the boxers. his edits can be seen at this ANI thread here Arilang1234 was the one who used "biased, non neutral cold war stype epitaphs" to attack sourced material in the article he disliked, claiming that the lead of the article "reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" NOTE- Arilang1234 offered absolutely no proof for his accusations Arilang1234 goes on a rant about marxists, leninism, and anti imperialism, bringin up the black panthers and the vietnam war era, with the implication that only marxists consider the boxers anti imperialists, since he earlier complained about the lead describing boxers as anti imperialists, as resembling a "chinese high school text book".ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boxer_Rebellion&diff=397217284&oldid=397171327 when I added sourced information to the article, Arilang1234 goes into offtopic rant about manchus, claiming I am doing "casual chatting on internet forum", without offering proof. Arilang1234 also suggests pushing out wikipedia users onto blogs, claiming they are violating policy, without offering proof Its suggestive of his mentaliy- editors who add content which he doesn't like, in his opinion, should be forced out of wikipedia.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Insincere claim by Arilang1234 that his "Behavior" has changed since his past two ANIs, and direct false accusation that I never ansered Smallchief's accusation Arilang1234 has not changed on this thread, Arilang1234 claims- " very well know that there were 2 ANI against me, however, I have changed completely since then, now I am a strong advocate of WP rules on every wiki articles, I am going to enforce Neutrality on all the articles, how do you like to comment on that?" Your edits show otherwise, that you has not changed at all. At this ANI thread, PCPP lists edits in which Arilang1234 accuses other people of being "employee of the "50 Cent Party" they "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept", that " wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department", that "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government" and that PCPP was"always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points". Just now, concerning the Boxer Rebellion article, he claimed that the Boxer rebellion lead had chinese communist party propaganda in it, to attack sourced material in the article he disliked, claiming that the lead of the article "reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" NOTE- Arilang1234 offered absolutely no proof for his accusations Arilang1234 goes on a rant about marxists, leninism, and anti imperialism, bringin up the black panthers and the vietnam war era, with the implication that only marxists consider the boxers anti imperialists. note, that marxism is an integral part of communism. he is, effectively repeating his earler (false and disproven) claims that the boxer rebellion article had material from the "Communist party propaganda books"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Outright lying, blatantly false accusation that I did not respond to another user Over here, Arilang1234 makes a false accusation, I'll even say he is lying, that I have not answered an accusation by Smallchief. Arilang1234 says- "On here, user Smallchief made a comment on quote:"Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. " unquoted, the comment was made on 25 April 2011. Today is May 2011, nearly a month has passed by, yet ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose to ignore the comment. This comment is a serious accusation against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's bias and non-neutral editing, why is it that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose not answer it and try to clear his name, is it because ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is guilty conscious, he knows that he cannot provide user Smallchief a satisfactory explanation, so he chose to bury his head in the sand? Come on, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, we are still waiting, patiently." Arilang1234's selective cherry picking of edits shows that his accuation against me is false, I directly responded to smallchief's accusation here, by noting the sources I used had academic credentials, while the author of the source he picked out did not have them, providing accurate sources in response to Smallchief's accusation, which pertained to the fact that chinese forces did not commit rape in the war. in fact, Smallchief noted that I had responded to his accusation, by posting another responseΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC) I then responded again, to disprove his accusation against me, with the logic that #1, my source which said chinese forces did not rape was reliable, by an author with credentials, so it should be in the article, and #2, even if there were no sources saying that chinese did not rape, the very lack of sources accusing chinese of commiting rapes during the war, would logically mean that we could not reference the article with such accusations After that, it was smallchief who did not respond to me, see the section yourself- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable) this is serious. Arilang1234 linked directly to smallchief's specific edit rather than the section, which would haveshown my response, out of bad faith, since users would not be able to see that I did indeed respond and disprove smallchiefs accusationsΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC) note- I do not like to call people liars or engage in this accusation, but my response to smallchief was standing right there in plain english, and Arilang1234 blatantly, and falsely claimed that I did not respond to him, when in fact I did, and not only that, disproved his accusations, and he was the one who did not respond after my second response, I'll call a duck a duck, and say that a liar is a liar.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Second False Accusation/Lie That I did not respond to another user Arilang1234 over here claims- "When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ again completely disregard WP rules, he went on to paint a dark picture of then multi-nation foreign diplomats and Chinese christian converts taking refuge at the foreign legation, virtually calling them "terrorists", "invaders" and "bank robbers", see here. When ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ has such a extreme biased attitude towards then Peking multi-nations diplomats, when ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ called them invaders and terrorists, there is really not a slim chance that he would be able to contribute any neutral material on WP" Arilang1234 again has engaged in cherry picking edits (and is therefore lying in his claim that I ignored John Smith's complaint about neutrality, by not showing my actual response to John smith- I addressed his assertion that the article was not neutral, by pointing out there was already a section in existence about chinese atrocities and that I contributed to that section. If you go look at the talk page now, at Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section, you can see I clearly responded to User:John Smith's about the article being "not neutral". John Smith's then did not raise any more question regarding neutrality, he then said that it was the organzation of the article that was poor. per WP:DUCK, since my response to John smith's was in plain english and clearly visible in the same section, I will assert that Arilang1234 is a liar, since he claimed I did not discuss improving the neutrality of the article when I did, and falsely claimed that I called diplomats and chinese christians bank robbers and terrorists ( first of all, I was saying that as an example, and second I wasn't even talking about the diplomats or chinese christians, I and John Smith's were talking about the relief soldiers who entered Beijing after the end of the warΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234's lie is completely in bad faith, anyone who takes a look at the section sees that I did respond to John Smith's concern about neutrality by noting the existence of a section on chinese atrocitiesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) And can Arilang1234 offer any evidence that here I was calling foreign diplomate and chinese christians "terrorists" and "bank robbers"? As far as I can see, I was offering a hypothetical example of what would not be considered neutral in a wikipedia article- which would be inventing atrocities by a victim to balance out an article's "neutrality". on the Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians, We don't "invent" atrocities by the circassians to the Russians, to make the article "neutral"- we the report the facts from cited, reliable sources- the Russians commmitted ethnic cleansing against the circassians. Would that have been a better example? I never said or suggested that #1 the people in the boxer rebellion were equal to bank robbers and terrorists, I gave that as an example for a situation where we report on what the sources say, not what neutrality demands. #2, the specific people me and John smith's were talking about were the Eight Nation Alliance relief soldiersin the Boxer_rebellion#Alliance_Atrocities who entered Beijing after the war, not the diplomats or chinese christians in the legations.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Can arilang1234 prove that I was talking about the legationers? When in fact, I was referring to the relief expedition forces (from the Gasalee Expedition), and not the diplomats or chinese christians. Again, Arilang1234 is bordering on the edge of outright lying, no where did I mention Chinese christians and legationers, nor did John Smith, he was talking about the alliance troops on the relief expedition who committed rapes and massacres against chinese, not the legations" User:John Smith brought up this section- Boxer_rebellion#Alliance_Atrocities, all of which had NOTHING to do with foreign diplomats or chinese christians I was taling about the Alliance relief troops raping and killing chinese? Where did I claim that diplomats and chinese christians took part in it? When did I say Chinese christians and diplomats were banks robbers and terrorists in my comment?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC) STOP Arilang and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, you are both over the line and making personal attacks. Please stop immediately. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the warning.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 07:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Contradiction by Arilang1234 Arilang1234 titled this thread- "Racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion", and says- "I wish to bring the attention of admins towards the racist, Cold War style combative, and disruptive behavior of user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on talkpage of Boxer Rebellion." Note- he has not offered any proof of any racist remarks by me Over here, he says- Now this ANI discussion is not about sensitive and controversial content editing, nor about any racist remarks, instead, it is about enforcing WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, and all the other WP rules, especially the Neutrality of all articlesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Dungane, calm down for a bit. It will do you good if you can take a breather before going any further. I recommend you take some time off the project, and then coming back when you're feeling more relaxed. Editing with a hot head can't do you or anyone else any good. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your criticism and executing it in a polite manner. I hope Arilang1234 learns to receive such criticism instead of brushing it off as he did here.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Not again I gave up trying to edit/copy-edit the article into some sort of consistency after spending some time trying to muddle through all the convolutions, not to mention reading through and trying to make sense of the fighting on the talk page. I've interacted with Arilang before on the talk page but not with Dungane. I've also read through the previous threads involving these two. If things cannot be worked out it might be time to impose a topic ban or an interaction ban. --Blackmane (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I counted at least 2 false accusations which you can easily take a look at (meaning its not muddled up or confused with random edits). #1 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to Smallchief- I did #2 Arilang1234 claims I did not respond to John smith's concern about neutrality- I didΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This is not just an ordinary mistake, or slip up by Arilang1234. My response to Smallchief and John Smith's was right there in plain english- and Arilang1234 deliberately went into the edit history to select and post specific edits I made before I responded, to make sure users were unable to see that I did respond to their concerns later. If he had posted a direct link to the section as it is now, all the users would have been able to seen my responsesΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 has been doing Wikipedia:Canvassing, deliberately asking editors whom I have had disputes with to come here- User:John Smith's and User:SmallchiefΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Comments from John Smith's Arilang asked me to look at this thread. Irrespective of whether or not he should have done that, I'm here and to be honest it's what I've come to expect. These guys honestly cannot get along and to be honest I think that they should both be banned from editing the article. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ even took their dispute to my talk page, when he should have complained on Arilang's talk page. John Smith's (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 was engaged in WP:CANVASS, and where canvassing occurs, is where it should be warned. If we do not bring up WP:CANVASS where it is occuring then that would signify that it is tolerated.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) and you are also part of the problem- you have a massive block log for edit warring on Chinese related articles. Earlier, I caught you trying to insert an author's work, who had zero credentials into the article, and you were desperate to insert any instances of wrondoing by chinese into the article. you have a pattern of personal attacks on authors whos views you don't agree with-"nobodies", and "On a separate note, who is Robert Leonhard, and why should we care what he has to say?" I largely left the boxer rebellion article to User:CWH who was doing fantastic job cleaning it up, I only added a few minor details recently, I will agree to leave to to CWH to fix it.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC) John Smith's had been blocked edit warring on Great Leap Forward, Nanking Massacre, Jung Chang, most of his edits had any anti chinese bent. And in me saying John Smith's is part of the problem, any topic ban will include him as well, all three of us.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) You don't raise concerns by continuing a dispute on someone else's talk page. This is exactly the sort of problem I'm talking about, you can't help but argue with each other. You're being really immature and are doing yourself no favours. The dispute over the inclusion of a single source has nothing to do with this ANI report. Moreover, I received six blocks over a period of a bit over a year, largely due to the disruptive behaviour of a now banned editor. I would say I'm doing quite well given that I haven't received a block for 3.5 years. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in as far that I didn't think you were entirely to blame for the arguments between you and Arilang, but I see now that you have a massive etiquette problem, in as far that you can never assume good faith as soon as anyone disagrees with you. Raising my edits on other pages is again irrelevant. There is also no reason to topic ban me because I don't scream and rant at people if I have a disagreement with them. Now, put the spade down and stop digging yourself a hole. John Smith's (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC) This ANI has to do with POV pushing on the Boxer rebellion talk page. Arilang1234 tried to link marxism, communism, the black panthers, vietnam era protestors, and the chinese high school text books to the boxers. As far as I can see from your edit history, you have a long history of trying to push your POV on chinese communist related articles, Mao Zedong, Jung Chang, Mao:The Unknown Story, and push anti China, not just anti communist, POV on Nanking massacre. As far as I can see, both you and Arilang1234 are on the same page, and I'm the only one on the other side. So if you throw Arilang1234 under the bus and get us both banned, you would still be free to push POV on the article.19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) It doesn't matter is a user is sly and polite in pushing POV- its still an offence and breaking of the rules, you don't scream and rant, but you have said obnoxious insults regarding authors you don't like, when you disagree with them- calling them "nobodies", saying "why should we care?", in short, any author who is not against China, is a "nobody", and subjected to "why should we care" by User:John Smith's. But authors like Jung Chang, who have absolutely no credentials in Chinese history, no degrees in history at all, are lauded as reliable by User:John Smith, since they put out anti China POV. I don't see how you are a neutral third party at all.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC) I don't remember holding myself up as a paragon of virtue in terms of "neutrality" (how can anyone be neutral if they ever come down on one side of an argument?). But the fact you think I'm anti-China because I don't love the Chinese Communist Party and Mao Zedong to bits rather shows your bias and why you have trouble getting on with people. I've tried to get on with you, but you repeatedly created problems in the past. Again, I tried to assume a bit of good faith in as far as I didn't hold you purely responsible for the problems with Arilang. But you're still deciding to poison the atmosphere here. I haven't edited the Boxer Rebellion page for some weeks, yet you believe that I'm ready to pounce as soon as the time is right, such as if you can't edit the article. You also just contradicted yourself because earlier on you said you weren't going to involve yourself with it again much and would let CWH do it. You can't have it both ways. Oh, and no offence, but I don't see how you can complain about canvassing given that you've left messages on other users' talk pages complaining of this and asking for their assistance. Even if you think they're "neutral" it's still canvassing. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC) You have edit warred on Senkaku Islands and Nanking massacre in favor of the Japanese, the Nanking massacre had absolutely nothing to do with the communist party or Mao Zedong, and the Senkaku islands are also claimed by the Republic of China, which is not communist. you are deliberately conflating Mao/CCP with China when I specifically said-"and push anti China, not just anti communist, POV on Nanking massacre" I also revert junk edits/vandalism, keeping off the article means not adding content. Such as inserting unreliable sources. I canvassed people who have nothing to do with the Boxer Rebellion, except Benjwong, who has reverted mass vandalism done to the article by Arilang1234 a few years ago (calling people salvages and stupid), thats not against policy. read WP:CANVASSING to see that Arilang1234 breaks policy since he is deliberately selecting users I have had disputes with and therefore biased, why didn't he ask User:Blackmane to come? Is he afraid that a neutral third party user would take a look at his edits as well?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Can we this be moved somewhere else? This is wasting space. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Can this just be closed? Arilang1234 did not bring a specific administrator action he wanted against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ. The title of this section ("Racist, Cold War style combative...") has not been substantiated. This thread is just a rallying point for everyone who has ever had a content dispute with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ to reopen old wounds, knowing that he feels he has to respond to every allegation, no matter how far-fetched. If I would recommend any action, it is that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ be recommended a mentor or written guide that can teach him when and how to write concise replies. Arilang1234's behavior in this thread should be reviewed in light of Arilang's previous ANI problems around this subject area. Quigley (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC) In response to Quigley's comment:(1)"Cold War style combative" is the correct and fitting adjective describing ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's heated and knee-jerk responses on this ANI. (2) Looking at all the comments made by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ on this ANI, it is clear that he is firmly into rejecting the principle of WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight. It is amazing that an editor can be so openly and blatantly rejecting WP rules, yet still carrying on attacking other editors unpunished. (3)I am fully aware of my editing shortfalls which were the subjects of 2 past ANI, but I have made a complete change under the mentor of User:Ohconfucius, and I am no longer into content dispute nor name calling, I am into implementing WP rules, and you can confirm it with User:Ohconfucius. Arilang talk 01:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC) ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's quick responses are to be expected when you are accusing him of very serious things on this board, where bans are doted out liberally. There is a fundamental disingenuity that permeates this discussion, starting from your calling ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ racist for pointing out your past anti-Manchu comments. And there is absolutely no connection to the Cold War here. The core content dispute is about the Boxer Rebellion, a conflict in the 19th century. This fascinating leap in logic to the Cold War seems to start from your perceiving ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's position to be anti-Christian missionary, and therefore anti-Western, and therefore pro-Chinese, and therefore pro-Communist. The logical fallacies in this line of reasoning number by the dozen. Perhaps we should stop thinking in such a binary, battleground way? I am glad that you have a mentor, but your comment here, which is the nexus of this thread, was unnecessarily provocative, much like this ANI complaint itself. If your primary concern is for the neutrality of the article than to do holy battle with ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, then you are better located at the Neutral point of view noticeboard than here. Quigley (talk) 01:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234 says- "ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's heated and knee-jerk responses on this ANI"- so, I have responded to every single one of Arilang1234's accusations on this ANI, and disproved them, and Arilang1234 is unable to respond to my responses, so he goes and calls them "heated and knee-jerk responses". I answered all his allegations. where is his response?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Let us note, Arilang1234 lied twice, claiming I did not respond to User:Smallchief and User:John Smith's complaints on the Boxer rebellion talk page. I did respond, I proved in the above sections posting links to my responses. this is a deliberate malicious accusation by Arilang1234, who posted direct links to the past version of the talk pages, only including User:Smallchief's and User:John Smith's challenges/questions, rather than the current version of the talk page, so that Arilang1234 would make it appear as if I did not respond. per WP:DUCK I will say that Arilang1234 is lying, this is a serious allegation, so I have taken the liberty to create a link where I can prove he did it. click on this link to see me prove that Arilang1234 is not only false in his accusations, he delibarately lied ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC) It looks now as if ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ did respond to Smallchief and John Smith's. Therefore, Arilang's two-time accusations that he was unwilling to engage in discussion are not true. Whether Arilang1234 "lied" or not, only Arilang1234 knows his true intentions. However it is not likely that he simply glossed over ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's replies, because he continued to write messages on the Boxer Rebellion talk page after ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ replied, and because in preparing diffs for ANI, Arilang1234 should have seen the talk page in its current state or the article history. The whole premise of this thread is based on Arilang's multiple misrepresentations of ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's behavior. If there are behavioral issues to be discussed here, they belong to Arilang1234. Quigley (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have collapsed this whole thread above as a massive waste of space (sorry to third parties who tried to inject some sense into it before). Both Dungane and Arilang1234 have contributed to making this whole thread completely unreadable. We'll have a fresh start now. Both users are requested to make one brief statement, of 300 words maximum, in one separate section each, describing in a calm and matter-of-fact way why they think the other party should be sanctioned. Stay civil, avoid rhetorical hyperbole, don't attack each other, and don't start threaded debate with each other in each other's section again. If you can't do this, you will both be blocked for a longish period, if for no other reason than for disrupting this board. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Dungane

Arilang1234 has engaged in pushing fringe conspiracy theories at the Boxer Rebellion article, not even offering evidence for his theories, just links to other wikipedia articles and WP:WIKILAWYERING, when his arguments were pointed out to have severe fallacies (and being outright false)

Current dispute

The current disptute started when Arilang1234 first began engaging in claims that the content of the Boxer Rebellion article resembled a "chinese high school text book", since it mentioned that the Boxers were anti imperialists.

When we (Benlisquare and I) confronted Arilang1234 with the fact that #1, not a single communist or chinese source was used in the article, which was all sourced by non chinese sources, and those sources said the Boxers were anti imperialists, and #2, non Chinese sources also mention anti imperialism, Arilang1234 then started blowing off more conspiracy theories/POV pushing mixed with WP:WIKILAWYERING, claiming that marxists, leninists, black panthers, and vietnam era people were behind pushing the label of "anti imperialism", which has absolutely nothing to the with the Boxer Rebellion.

He is effectively using wikilawyering involving neutrality principles, and original research/concoting fringe theories that claim in effect, marxists and black panthers were pushing pro boxer POV.

Arilang1234-

"If we read Anti-imperialism|Marxism, Leninism.. anti-imperialism, we know that people who advocate "Anti-imperialism" are mostly Marxists, and Marxist revolutionary theory is not mainstream political ideology in.. 2011. Marxism had been a popular ideology ... the 60s and 70s, ... the anti-Vietnam war era, see Black Panther Party . According to WP:NPOV...., Marxism is "the views of tiny minorities"...My remark towards user ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, editors should only discuss ways to improve this article, any discussion of Sun Yetsen's attitude towards the Boxers or whether Kuomintang is more "Anti-imperialism" than CCP is completely irrelevant."

Here Arilang1234 claims australia is a socialist country

Arilang1234 was earlier complaining that the article's content was taken from a Chinese (CCP) high school text book since it mentioned anti imperialism, and he claimed only communists are anti imperialists, now, since he was confronted with evidence that his claim was false, he switches to wikilawyering and original research, fringe theory pushing in order to push us out.

I think this also constitues wikilawyering and bullying by Arilang1234- arilang1234 wikilawyering and suggests forcing users to go onto blogs when confronted with his past history of unconstructive edits on the article here, he wikilawyers and threatens.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I also want to note I did not have any intentions of editing the article myself or have any in the future unless blatant vandalism creeps in, my comments on the talk page and my involvment were centered on me reputdiating Arilang1234's unsupported claims that the content of the article was from a chinese high school text book, or that marxists and black panthers had anything to do with the article.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank Users/Admins for reading this, and what I want is for an admin to make clear any kind of unsubstantiated fringe conspiracy theory pushing involving ad hominem attacks of marxism, black panthers, communists, or the chinese government/chinese textbooks is forbidden as off topic on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article,ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not 300 words. (1,515 actually) Try again. N419BH 07:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for clearing up the mess. This incident started as a gradual build up of baiting on Arilang1234's part Over here, I have compiled a list of links and quotes, not all inclusive, of the massive amounts of ethnic slurs, insults, POV pushing, mass spamming of the boxer rebellion article by Arilang1234. This is what his past behavior was like. the POV pushing (claiming that the boxer article contained communist propaganda, is basically exactly what he said now in this dispute Arilang1234, in the past, has repeatedly claimed, without providing a single iota of evidence, that the content of the Boxer Rebellion article was that of the Chinese Communist Government propaganda department. Note-every single source I used in the article was non communist and non chinese. Now, he repeated this claim on the talk page, which started this incident, saying "The lead section now reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" Arilang1234 proceeds to concoct his own original research, citing other wikipedia articles to suggest that the black panthers, marxists, leninists, vietnam war era people were the people pushing anti imperialism POV, what this had to do with the Boxer rebellion, I have no idea. Arilang1234 then proceeded to claim, that statements which explained why the Boxers existed and why their movement emerged were "biased" Benlisquare reminded Arilang1234 that textbooks in Australia also mention anti imperialism, it is not exclusive to the chinese communist party Arilang1234 claims Australia is a "socialist" country, again Original research Arilang1234 proceeds to engage in WP:Wikilawyering over here, assering that people who "ignored" wikipedia rules ( in his mind that means everyone who disagrees wih him), should be chased out of wikipedia onto blogs I brought up the fact of his mass vandalism and infractions on the Boxer rebellion article, which he had committed in the past, he responded against with WP:lawyering and tried to desperately brush it off. Arilang1234 again engages in wikilawyering- "Allow me to remind ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ and Benlisspuare again, all discussion on this talkpage should focus on improving this article while implementing WP rules, particularly the neutrality of the content. Editors who ignore WP rules should be topic banned permanently from editing" Arilang1234 has not changed on this thread, Arilang1234 claims- " very well know that there were 2 ANI against me, however, I have changed completely since then, now I am a strong advocate of WP rules on every wiki articles, I am going to enforce Neutrality on all the articles, how do you like to comment on that?" His edits show otherwise, that you has not changed at all. At this ANI thread, PCPP lists edits in which Arilang1234 accuses other people of being "employee of the "50 Cent Party" they "wipe the bum of the PRC propaganda dept", that " wikipedia is the PRC's propaganda department", that "50 cent party" and being paid by the PRC government" and that PCPP was"always busy trumpeting official Chinese government view points". Just now, concerning the Boxer Rebellion article, he claimed that the Boxer rebellion lead had chinese communist party propaganda in it, to attack sourced material in the article he disliked, claiming that the lead of the article "reads like a straight copy from standard Chinese high school text book, all these anti-imperialism rant" NOTE- Arilang1234 offered absolutely no proof for his accusations Arilang1234 goes on a rant about marxists, leninism, and anti imperialism, bringin up the black panthers and the vietnam war era, with the implication that only marxists consider the boxers anti imperialists. note, that marxism is an integral part of communism. he is, effectively repeating his earler (false and disproven) claims that the boxer rebellion article had material from the "Communist party propaganda books"ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Two false accusations by Arilang1234 (he repeated one of them a second time after I alerted him to the fact that his accusation was false Arilang1234's false accusation that I did not respond to Smallchief Over here, Arilang1234 makes a false accusation, I'll even say he is lying, that I have not answered an accusation by Smallchief. Arilang1234 says- "On here, user Smallchief made a comment on quote:"Your objective is, of course, to portray the Boxers and the Chinese government in the most favorable light possible and to paint the sins of the West in the darkest colors. " unquoted, the comment was made on 25 April 2011. Today is May 2011, nearly a month has passed by, yet ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose to ignore the comment. This comment is a serious accusation against ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ's bias and non-neutral editing, why is it that ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ chose not answer it and try to clear his name, is it because ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ is guilty conscious, he knows that he cannot provide user Smallchief a satisfactory explanation, so he chose to bury his head in the sand? Come on, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, we are still waiting, patiently." Arilang1234's selective cherry picking of edits shows that his accuation against me is false, I directly responded to smallchief's accusation here, by noting the sources I used had academic credentials, while the author of the source he picked out did not have them, providing accurate sources in response to Smallchief's accusation, which pertained to the fact that chinese forces did not commit rape in the war. in fact, Smallchief noted that I had responded to his accusation, by posting another response[ I then responded again, to disprove his accusation against me, with the logic that #1, my source which said chinese forces did not rape was reliable, by an author with credentials, so it should be in the article, and #2, even if there were no sources saying that chinese did not rape, the very lack of sources accusing chinese of commiting rapes during the war, would logically mean that we could not reference the article with such accusations After that, it was smallchief who did not respond to me, see the section yourself- Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#According_to_you_then.2C_everything_is_unprovable) this is serious. Arilang1234 linked directly to smallchief's specific edit rather than the section, which would haveshown my response, out of bad faith, since users would not be able to see that I did indeed respond and disprove smallchiefs accusations Arilang1234's false accusation that I did not respond to User:John Smith's (first time) Arilang1234 over here claims- "When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ again completely disregard WP rules, he went on to paint a dark picture of then multi-nation foreign diplomats and Chinese christian converts taking refuge at the foreign legation, virtually calling them "terrorists", "invaders" and "bank robbers", see here. When ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ has such a extreme biased attitude towards then Peking multi-nations diplomats, when ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ called them invaders and terrorists, there is really not a slim chance that he would be able to contribute any neutral material on WP" Arilang1234 again has engaged in cherry picking edits (and is therefore lying in his claim that I ignored John Smith's complaint about neutrality, by not showing my actual response to John smith- I addressed his assertion that the article was not neutral, by pointing out there was already a section in existence about chinese atrocities and that I contributed to that section. If you go look at the talk page now, at Talk:Boxer_Rebellion#Atrocities_section, you can see I clearly responded to User:John Smith's about the article being "not neutral". John Smith's then did not raise any more question regarding neutrality, he then said that it was the organzation of the article that was poor. Arilang1234's lie is completely in bad faith, anyone who takes a look at the section sees that I did respond to John Smith's concern about neutrality by noting the existence of a section on chinese atrocities And can Arilang1234 offer any evidence that here I was calling foreign diplomate and chinese christians "terrorists" and "bank robbers"? Arilang1234 is bordering on the edge of outright lying, no where did I mention Chinese christians and legationers.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Arilang1234's false accusation that I did not respond to User:John Smith's (second time) When faced with user John Smith's remark:"There's one line on this and then the rest is devoted to the conduct of Alliance troops. This is not neutral." see here, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ went on to make a casual and sarcastic remark:"Real Life isn't neutral" see here, instead of discussing with John Smith's on how to improve the neutrality of the article, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ completely disregarded WP rules. this was after I posted a notice to him on his talk page concerning the falsehood of his accusations, and provided a linkΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Arilang1234

First, I like to offer my apology to all the editors for wasting their precious time.

I had 2 ANI(all resolved and settled) here.

and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive663#Arilang1234 against me, because of content disputes, name calling, and racial epitaphs. But I have changed, I am into enforcing and implementing of WP rules. The argument between me and ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ began here:Boxer Rebellion#Lead section, then I went to opened an ANI on him, with the intention of forcing him to follow WP rules, such as WP:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight, see BR talkpage:[62]

[63] [64] [65] [66] [67] and on ANI thread:[68] [69] [70], altogether more than 10 calls for WP Neutrality to be implemented, but all fall on deaf ears. On this ANI thread and other places, ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ roughly wrote 10300 words, not many of these words are about implementing WP Neutrality, and most of these words are attack words, calling me names, digging out my past and early errors. I am all into WP rules implementing now. The fact that wiki editor(ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ) can be so openly reject and resist WP Neutrality rule is beyond my understanding. I have nothing more to say. Arilang ^talk 10:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, sorry if it seems a bit disrespectful to nitpick at your words, but after telling us Dungane's wordcount, your edit count and contribution history, and possibly (actually... likely) misinterpreting WP:UNDUE, what is your final point? I do not understand what you are implying, having written all that. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion by uninvolved editors only

I have just hatted a thread Arilang started where he is asking for "admins attention towards user ΔΥΝΓΑΝE" at WP:NPOVN#Anti Chinese christians and anti Chinese government POV issues at Boxer Rebellion. Obvious WP:FORUMSHOPPING and the last thing we need is these two editors going at each other elsewhere while this hasn't been resolved. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice a distinct lack of compliance with the 300 word limit. N419BH

...And a personal attack while we're at it. Looks like we'll need an interaction ban at minimum. N419BH 07:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Both of them are too wound up for any rational discussion to take place. I recommend closing this thread and asking them both not to make any edits on the subject or on their disagreement anywhere on WP for 24 (no, make that 48) hours. A fresh discussion can be re-opened at Boxer under strict observance of WP:CIVIL, on pain of death ;-) . --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I fear they are so wound up that technical measures may have to be implemented in order for such a directive to be heeded. The next edit to this board by each editor will likely determine whether or not that will need to be done. This thread is now taking up half the table of contents, and would take up the whole board if it wasn't hatted. N419BH 07:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• ΔΥΝΓΑΝE certainly won't leave well enough alone. He's now using my talk page to discuss the dispute - I have no idea why. I think he's had enough warnings, another one won't solve anything. John Smith's (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Both the "personal attack" to which User:N419BH refers and the user talk page discussion to which User:John Smith's refers took place before the collapsing of the main thread here. Quigley (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I previously commented on the thread, which has since been hatted, Dungane has also posted on my talk page with his view of things. As I see it, that's beginning to violate wp:canvass. --Blackmane (talk) 09:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, he posted a wall of text to my talkpage as well; I don't think anyone who's dealt with this before has the nerve to read all that junk and the word-hurling contests. We'll be back next month, and we'll be faced with an equal amount of garbage. In that case, I suggest we prepare a special page Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/D&A's-mudbox, and ban both of them from posting here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that Dungane is given some help on how to reduce WP:TLDR so that we don't have to end up with similar problems if issues arise in the future, and that Arilang is mentored on what policy actually is, and when to cite certain policies during discussions, as I believe that Arilang might have the wrong idea of what some policies are. It seems that Arilang tends to overuse mentions of policy, whilst Dungane simply writes too much without getting straight to the point. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Uhuh, and what about ΔΥΝΓΑΝE's difficulty in assuming good faith with people he disagrees with? I don't even think he believes he's making personal attacks/is being uncivil. John Smith's (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I second Benlisquare, and feel that several of the issues expressed in the last ANI still aren't addressed, particular Arilang's understanding of Wikipedia policy.--PCPP (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"comment retracted"- I'm not an uninvolved editor.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to hat that per WP:NPA, but I'll leave it to the admins to decide. This has gone on long enough and it's time to do something about it. N419BH 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"comment retracted"- I'm not an uninvolved editor.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Dungane, like I've said before, you can't just make personal attacks here and there and expect to gain sympathy from third-party editors. It would be best for you to let this pass, and move on. Going on any further would be akin to WP:DEADHORSE, and may well land yourself a block. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• As an univolved and completely ignorant editor (I didn't read any of this discussion above the 'univolved editors discussion'. I agree that both of the editors in this dispute need a 48 to 72 hour break from en.wikipedia. If they cannot do it themselves, I recommend a technical method to get them away from the keyboard for a while. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed

Rocksanddirt- , I will be willing to take a 72 hour break from wikipedia along with Arilang1234 and a permanent interaction ban with him, since I almost never added new content to the boxer rebellion article in the past few months, only a few sentences and citations. I just want an admin to make clear any kind of unsubstantiated fringe conspiracy theory pushing involving ad hominem attacks of marxism, black panthers, communists, or the chinese government/chinese textbooks is forbidden as off topic on the talk page of the Boxer Rebellion article.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

the 72 hour break starts when you guys agreed to it. drop a note on my talk page.ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Raleigh DeGeer Amyx

This incident concerns User:Raw4815 and the application of a COI tag on the article Raleigh DeGeer Amyx. Based on edit [71] and comments on my talk page I applied a COI tag on the article. User:Raw4815 has removed the tag mutiple times and has denied any affiliation with the subject of the article in teh edit summaries when removing the COI. I cannot add back the COI without creating a warring situation and do not wish to do so. I am also concerned that the article is not only a coi, but that the article is possibly being used for self-promotion. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done some clean-up and will watch-list. Off now for dog-walk, TTYL. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When it gets to a point that you're worrying about a 3RR situation, you can always report the article at WP:COIN. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

On my watchlist. The article called him historian and antiquarian, but sources call him what he appears to be, a collector. I'm dubious about at least one source which I raised at WP:RSN#Wealth Perspectives", JULY 2010 after failing to find out what it is. It also includes some trivia that looks promotional (he was given a signed photo, etc). Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What to do with uncredited and machine-translated versions of foreign language Wikipedia articles?

Wikipedia:Translation states in bold text (presumably to stress the importance of the points) that machine translations of foreign language Wikipedia artiles are worse than having no article at all, and that any translation must be appropriately credited back to the original foreign language article. With that in mind, what should be done about Lapierre (bicycle) and Winora, both of which are a largely unmodified copy/paste of Google translations of the German language originals? No attempt has been made to correct the machine translation, and no credit has been given to the German language original articles. I have nominated both at AfD, but wonder if in fact these should be speedy deleted, and if so under what criteria? Help from a knowledgeable admin would be welcomed. I already reverted a machine translation of Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co by the same editor (Degen Earthfast (talk · contribs)) because an article already existed at Hercules (motorcycle) - the editor had blanked the original and redirected it to his machine translation, but everything on that article is back as it was. I have left a message on the editor's talk page pointing out the translation policy. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

G12 will work nicely, since they are essentially copyvios without the attribution. T. Canens (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't sorted. Degen Earthfast just blanked and redirected the original Hercules (motorcycle) article and left a stroppy message on my talk page (dif) saying he is going to undo the deletes and telling me to "deal with it". --Biker Biker (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have warned them not to. If they do, I or somebody will need to apply the clue hammer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Any chance you can speedy delete the remaining copyvio article Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co? --Biker Biker (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to speed, I reverted it back to a redirect. Obviously if you think it still needs speedy deletion then go ahead. b.t.w. The same "deal with it" message came in the edit summary of that article from 71.162.161.175 (talk · contribs) who I'm guessing is the same editor. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider it very pointy to delete an article under G12 when the copyvio can be fixed by attribution using the standard interwiki links, and a comment in the edit summary. The sort of mMachine translations that are discouraged are ones that are not even minimally rewritten to fix the obvious grammar faults. Wikipedia has many acceptable articles that started as machine translations. I've done some of this sort of revising myself. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You consider just about any deletion to be pointy, honestly. We shouldn't have articles that look as though they were run through Babelfish; drop these rough translations into userspace first, then move them when they are readable. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, how can iI consider "any deletion pointy when I've made over 13,000 of them myself, and when about 1/4 of my AfD !votes are for deletion? I go article by article; in my experience, most articles sent for deletion at speedy, prod, and AfD, should certainly be deleted. True, I do not interpret "most" to mean "almost all" DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As Biker Biker pointed out, there is a strongly worded advice note that "machine translated" article creation is to be avoided, and the very pertinent point that copy and paste translated pages - without referencing - is in violation of WikiMedia's requirement that proper attribution must be provided. Of course any number of editors could rectify these issues by copy editing the content and researching and adding the links and attributions, but this is a volunteer project and in the interests of both compliance with requirements and maintain standards it is often quicker to delete the content. Of course, this does not stop an editor continuing to work upon presenting a compliant and comprehensible article in the meantime. Further, and I suppose this is where your raising of WP:POINT applies, it discourages editors such as Degen Earthfast from dumping bad content into the encyclopedia - as it disappears from their contribution history. It is a consequence that I feel the project could live with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I work with {{Copied}} tagging unattributed copies, and it's difficult and tedious enough when the source content is on the same wiki. I have used G12 once, for an article that was deuserfied without its author's consent (see Talk:List of cricket grounds in New Zealand for the gory details). I think that G12 may be used on a technical infringement if fixing the attribution is more trouble than the article's worth. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

....de-redirect

I am requesting that we restore iPad 2 from an redirect. Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs) (notified) said to do it here. I am requesting it because that it was expanded and then it was released so it meets WP:CRYSTAL. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Where the hell did I say that? The standard location for discussion is the talk page, not ANI. T. Canens (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

At deletion review... I would say the talk page was best too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk about taking quotes out of context...that suggestion was made when the page was full-protected by a highly involved admin, and I suggested that the case be taken to ANI for a swift unprotection (which was rendered moot when the admin unprotected the page in response to a message I left at their talk page). It was certainly not intended to suggest that all disputes with respect to the redirect be taken to ANI. T. Canens (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You did not specifically suggest to request an unprotection at ANI, you simply stated that "WP:ANI is probably the best venue here" - if I was a less-experienced editor, I would have come here as well. GiantSnowman 23:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Here, as in the particular set of circumstances raised in the drv nomination? If someone drv's a 3-year-old xfd, drv's typical response is "just take it to afd". Does that somehow imply that all future drvs of that article should be taken straight to afd as well? Context is everything. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Tim, it probably was a bit confusing to a new editor. In any case Ebe123, the iPad talk page is the right place for the discussion. Good luck! Hobit (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Naive move from Two-dimensional display size to Display size

I've come across another naive article move. Could an admin copy the contents of Display size into Two-dimensional display size and then move that article to have the name Display size? That would keep the article history.

Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. One user is happy with the article being at Two-dimensional display size, but there is some disagreement. Yaris678 (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can these users be blocked per WP:DUCK?

• QAQUAU (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Oilosiso (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 90.231.116.189 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

QAQUAU showed up on Computer monitor on May 18 & 20 and ran into trouble. Oilosiso was created on May 22 and continued that editing. Oilosio did the c&p move mentioned above {now at Display Size), only to have auto-confirmed QAQUAU show up out of nowhere to complete the move. The IP also supported the move. English appears to be a second language for both, and the IP geolocated to Sweden. Is this enough to block as socks per WP:DUCK? QAQUAU appears to be the sockmaster. --64.85.215.26 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Qur'an and science user Tauhidaerospace and mentoring

I was about to take Tauhidaerospace (talk · contribs) to 3RR but as he is, I think, editing in good faith, thought I'd take the issue here as I believe this editor really needs mentoring rather than blocking. I don't think he understands 3RR and he certainly doesn't understand our policies on sources, original research, etc. He posts to talk pages of both the article and editors but then for some reason seems to ignore responses. I've been posting to his talk page asking him to read our policies and to the article's talk page in some detail about his use of sources, etc. I'm hoping that somehow we can harness his enthusiasm constructively. The article was a terrible mess before he got there, by the way, so it didn't provide much in the way of a good example for him. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No response by him or anyone else here, and he continues to edit war, so perhaps other action will be necessary. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems on British National Party Page

There have been problems on the British National Party page for a few weeks now. These are as follows:

• Constant Vandalism i.e posters calling the BNP 'racist idiots', 'Nazis' etc.

- In some cases users who make these dispruptive edits get a warning posted on their page (one was only done less than half an hour or so ago - check the history of the page, i won't list names). However if you look over the history of the BNP article for the past month or so, there are many vandals who get no such warning.

• The BNP article is literally controlled by self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) and far-leftists (mostly users with "I'm a communist" etc userbox graphic on their page) who won't allow anyone go near the article to edit it more appropiately. Please look for example on the talk page [[72]] where for the past few weeks i have been politely discussing how to improve the article, but most users there instead have no interest and just attack the BNP or their policies. Anyone who wants to improve the article from a more neutral perspective is then smeared as a 'nazi' or 'racist' by these self-titled "anti-fascists".

• Reverted edits.

- There is a huge problem with other users reverting others edits. In fact that's all that happens. There are 5-10 or more reverts basically each day. No one is allowed to contribute or edit the article as the self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) then revert peoples edits or call them 'racists' (see [[73]]. These same self-titled "anti-fascists" then say when they revert your edit, to take it to the talk page. Then when you go into the talk page, they reject your edits, call the BNP nazis, racists etc (see [[74]].

• Biased posters.

- The BNP article is dominated by self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) who won't allow anyone near to edit the page. I've already mentioned this, but it's the main problem. You only have to look at whats in their usernames to see how biased they are (i won't list specific users, but one has "multiculturalism" in his name, and the other "commie" i.e communist. These users are clearly biased against the BNP and clearly its a problem that these sort of people are allowed all over the BNP article. As i have stated they have virtually all the controll. Anyone who isn;t an anti-facist or far-leftist and just wants to edit or update the BNP page from a neutral perspective in then abused or has their edits reverted (see [[75]]. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• - I totally agree with this users comments. The tag teaming , and bias against that group by experienced contributors most of them easily recognizable through their contributions as supporting groups opposed to the BNP is one of the worst examples I have seen in all my travels around this wikipedia - without even looking I could name who the users are. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm completely uninvolved, but wish to note that AP has been previously reprimanded for pushing for an equally non-neutral (i.e. pro-BNP) viewpoint on that article - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive685#Apparent personal attacks at British National Party talk page and the related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive686#User Anglo Pyramidologist. GiantSnowman 19:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I noticed that while there is one edit summary by RolandR (talk · contribs) to Alexandre8 (talk · contribs) saying "Please keep your racism to yourself;" Alexandre8 had posted "Get your stalinish/nazi (no difference) sympathising bullshit off my user page, " on RolandR's talk page.. Other than that I don't see any accusations of racism in the last 250 edits. Some of Alexandre8's other edit summaries are also dubious. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well that article is going to be a powder keg of anti-BNP sentiment :S The talk page seems to be full of pretty pro/anti-attitudes which are simply not appropriate, hence a cruddy article. I doubt AN/I will be able to sort it ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

A major issue with an article such as BNP is that the sources available are nearly always going to be fervently pro or anti the subject matter - and of the two only the anti brigade are likely to even attempt an critical evaluation. The same goes with the editors of the article, there is most likely a dearth of "neutral" contributors since it is an issue where most have very strong opinions - although it may be hoped that there are those among them who are capable of editing in a NPOV manner. The other major drawback is how NPOV is defined, since what may appear to be npov to a pro Nationalist editor may not be so to an editor with an anti fascist mindset - and vice versa.
To point, I am a little concerned that you seem to have an issue with someone who proclaims a "multi culturalism" sympathy by means of a username, and those who have Socialist/Communist userboxes on their page and refer to them as "those sort of people" and infer that their bias make them incapable of permitting what you consider as neutral edits - while having a username that commences with "Anglo" and has userboxes noting that you are English (rather than a British citizen), support nationalist politics generally and the British National Party specifically. It might be that the counter claim of your proclaimed bias effects your ability to neutrally review the contributions of editors you have determined - by reference to their usernames and userboxes - to have a contrary viewpoint.
Ultimately, whether or not an article is written neutrally depends on the Reliable Sources available and how they are incorporated into the text. I would point out that very little of your complaint, if anything, refers to whether sources are being incorrectly referenced or being deprecated according to the viewpoint expressed. If you can provide instances of WP:UNDUE weight being given to some sources, and of others inappropriately misrepresented then you can initiate dispute resolution processes, and if necessary make complaints about specific editors who are hindering the proper use of editorial input. Moaning about the commies and pinko's "controlling" an article is not sufficient when there are policies in place (for instance, WP:OWN) to ensure an open editing environment. All you need do is use them. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that Anglo Pyramidologist states he supports the BNP. That makes it hard to take seriously some of his comments unless he is also suggesting that he recuse himself from the article as having too much of a conflict of interest. Which of course I am not asking him to do. You can be pro or anti the BNP and still edit the article from a neutral point of view. I agree that the focus here, if we are to actually be expected to do anything, should be about actual edits, policies, sources, etc.

I'll also note the comment made in the context of AP's topic ban: "Please also be aware that senior administrators and arbitration committee members have indicated that your behavior has come very close to justifying an outright indefinite ban on editing Wikipedia in any form, going forwards. I advise you strongly to stay away from topic areas and forms of discussion in which people have complained that you were being abusive or hostile." [76]. This might apply to his editing in this area. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware, myself, of the fact of a topic ban and those comments - I felt that AP's comments were only "tainted" by the bias upon the subject that they might have, and that in the main that their comments were not inflammatory but only prejudiced. The issue as regards neutrality and the subject matter is such that we might only deem we have a neutral article when both sets of biased editors equally dislike it (although for differing reasons). Whether or not AP should have been commenting, and in this manner, there is possibly some issue as regards OWNership of this article - however, that is not an admin concern. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I was the admin who enacted the community topic ban (AP banned from evolution related topics) and left the additional comment Doug quoted above. Doug left a message about this thread on my talk page and I'm responding.

There are a couple of long-time editors/admins above who are agreeing with AP that they see a problem on the article. I have not studied the article and talk page history on my own in depth, but I am inclined to take Off2riorob and Errant's reviews at face value.

AngloPyramidologist has had a spotty history with engaging very controversially in topics, hence the evolution topic ban. That said - we don't ban editors for holding controversial views (with the sole and notable exception of pedophillia). If he is materially contributing to the disruption on the article then that may be worthy of further inspection. I don't see that here on first light inspection.

I think that more uninvolved admins with some time bandwidth looking in more depth at the article would be good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another user has proposed edits which will remove the biased content of the article: [[77]]. The other problem regarding biasness is that the self-titled "anti-fascists" (view their personal pages) are adding posts made on facebook about the BNP. I have repeatedly pointed out content posted on personal user accounts on facebook do not reflect the BNP, their policy or position however still the inappropiate content about facebook is all over the BNP article. I'm sure no other political party on wiki has people posting links to what was posted on facebook. Any attempt to remove these invalid sources however and you find your edits reverted by the "anti-fascists", in the last few hours there have been more than 5 reverts on this subject. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that the proposals have already been rejected by the "anti-fascists" on the talk page. Last week i spent 3 hours digging up legit sources and posting them, but they were also rejected. The "anti-fascists" don't even read them, they aren't interested - they just want the article to remain inaccurate which demonises the BNP. Currently the article claims BNP members are sexist (with the only reference to facebook), holocaust deniers etc etc which is completely inaccurate. Its insulting to members or supporters of the party as it doesn't fairly portray them. Also remember this is the first or second link you get when typing BNP on a search engine. Ten's of thousands of people click on it to read that the BNP are sexists and holocaust deniers, it costs them potentially thousands of votes - all diliberatly set up by the "anti-fascists" and communists (view their user pages) who oppose the BNP Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to be paying much attention to the comments above, so I will ask you in light of them; where are your sources that define the core beliefs and stance as regards the BNP? While primary sources are allowable as far as indicating what the BNP might say is their ideology, can you provide RS for that? Further, you should be reminded that WP operates a "verifiability, not truth" policy - and if there are RS that there is a belief that BNP are white supremacists, a neo fascist organisation, are inherently sexist, or even holocaust deniers then such viewpoints may be included per WP:Due weight. You may have a valid concern that there is an over emphasis on one viewpoint in relation to the RS available, or even the definition of RS in relation to this issue, but you need to start providing examples. Unless you do, then your references to other editors political and cultural preferences are personal attacks - and you really do not need to get into that area again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The article must be based on reliable sources. The fact that AP believes that these sources are unfair to the BNP is not something that we can correct in the article by for example providing parity to BNP views. TFD (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see all the sources i posted here already about non-indigenous members of the party: [[78]] Yet despite these sources, the article has not been updated in over 2 years on this issue and the article is very inaccurate. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 00:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"RS that there is a belief that BNP are white supremacists, a neo fascist organisation" --- please see picture here of BNP supporters: [79] - second photo down. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that the BNP propaganda department has been hard at work again... GiantSnowman 11:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant... There are all these policies available that ensures that WP NPOV criteria requires an article viewpoint is culled from available RS, and that primary sources are only to be used in limited situations, and WP is not responsible for the degree of RS which may support or oppose a particular viewpoint but must follow the references available - and you resort to name calling... Sometimes it makes you wonder if it is worth bothering. If you are unable to argue the case that the article is npov per the projects policies and the aggregate of the sources used then it really would be best if you didn't comment at all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Without necessarily endorsing the comments by GiantSnowman, you might be better off counselling AP that a picture on the BNP website of BNP leader Nick Griffin with some non-white people does not negate the views of reliable sources, since the majority of time wasted on the article over the past several years has been by BNP supporters (which AP admits to) who refuse to follow policy and post the same discredited or irrelevant arguments time and again. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have been saying exactly that, that primary sources need to be buttressed by independent third party ones. The independent sources regarding the Sikh would be member are also clear in noting that this is an unusual if not unique occurrence, and that these are insufficient to establish the BNP's claim that they are more receptive to non white membership and considerations - my point to Giantsnowman is that AP's arguments regarding the appearance of bias can simply be refuted by reference to WP policies and there is no need to make stupid comments that are likely to be highlighted and shown as evidence of prejudice within WP by the BNP. That does not help at all. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if my comment earlier came across as a little short. What I should have said to AP is that we require "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in order to verify information, and that a photograph (which is surely open to interpretation anyways) published by the BNP is not a suitable source for an article on the BNP. GiantSnowman 18:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Earlymorningcans / User:Trumpkin

• Trumpkin (talk · contribs)
• Earlymorningcans (talk · contribs)

These editors appear to be meat puppet / sock puppet team related to the alleged hoax at St John's Jerusalem.

They are currently engaged in some quite obvious pestering of Ghmyrtle and Snowded, who spotted the St John's Jerusalem alleged hoax.

Neither user have much edits but an examples of the meat/sock puppet is that Trumpkin — a "veteran Wikipedian of 5 years" according to his page but with actually only ~50 edits since 2006 — re-stared editing directly after Earlymorningcans opened a spurious SPI on Ghmyrtle and Snowded. The edit was to express support for Earlymorningcans in defending the St John's Jerusalem against Ghmyrtle and Snowded.

See also tag team like edits to Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland and Snowded's talk page. --RA (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Trumpkin is using the sig Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) --RA (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I must deny all these allegations which have only the flimsiest of evidence and no basis in truth. Secondly I would point out that I have been the victim of harassment by Snowded (wikihounding as set out by WP:HA) - I first encountered him on edits on the page Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming and then he followed me to Talk:Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland, seemingly simply to undermine my efforts to improve the page - as such I would like his actions investigated and certainly his neutrality is suspect. Any user check will clear my name but Snowded's harassment has made me feel extremely uncomfortable, a fact I warned him of on his talk page. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also completely untrue to assert that I supported anyone against Ghmyrtle and Snowded in regards to St John's Jerusalem. I wrote on User talk:Earlymorningcans to express my gratitude for his edits to improve the article following vandalism by Stellas4luncha and Bobadillaman: "Can I thank you for your recent edits to St John's Jerusalem, it certainly makes a start to undoing the vandalism the page has sustained over the last month." - I don't know what I have done to inspire such hatred against me by this user but I am patently innocent of all trumped up charges. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also:

• Hellohenry57 (talk · contribs)

...whose only edit was here and is referenced here. --RA (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he was scared of by Snowded's abuse of editing priviledges, bullying and condescending tone. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a new user contributes to a discussion I am involved in does not make me guilty of anything, and a check user will clear my name of such an implicit charge. Could an admin please ask RA and Snowded to desist from their harassment of me so I can edit in peace! Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an SPI which has been endorsed which could do with a hurry up. Worth noting that we have had sockmasters on these pages who use proxy IPs so behavioral evidence may also need to come into play --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

May I add in relation to St John's Jerusalem that I have made it my mission to restore the page after the appalling incidents of vandalism. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have never defended the edits of Stellas4lunch or Bobadillaman at St John's Jerusalem as RA suggests above. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also (courtesy of this edit):

• Diegothesuperdog
• Bobadillaman

--RA (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know whose sock this is, but it's someone's. Also, he's obviously trolling. Earlymorningcans blocked indef, the SPI can continue to determine if the others are socks too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears a dresser full of socks has been stumbled upon. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to be dragged into what looks like a long running dispute started by some vandals. I just happened to agree with them in my first edit and had not realised that they were trolling! Can I clarify by saying that I am not supporting them and are not in this situation. I am sorry for the confusion caused by my single edit and lack of follow-up. Thanks Hellohenry57 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Advise for Trumpkin: Shorten the alternate appearance of your moniker. Its length ("Grand High Most Supreme...")is a tad annoying. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that your 'advice' has any particular bearing on this issue, nonetheless I shall consider considering it presently. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Block review: Neutralhomer

• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wgfinley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WMAQ-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wgfinley has blocked Neutralhomer for 24 hours for "Improper reversion and warning of disputed content as vandalism" on WMAQ-TV. Neutralhomer requests to be unblocked because he believes that Wgfinley is too involved to make this block. I agree with this assessment, though not for the reasons given by Neutralhomer, but because Wgfinley has twice removed (15 May, 22 May) the content that Neutralhomer edit-warred to re-insert, which makes Wgfinley an involved party to the edit war.

Another block reviewer, FisherQueen, has declined the unblock request because she considers that the block is correct on the merits as a block for edit-warring and frivolous vandalism warnings, with which I agree. I'm starting this thread to get more opinions as to whether the block should be undone as procedurally flawed, or upheld as materially correct.  Sandstein  19:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support unblock Had It been administered by another admin I would oppose unblocking. There is definite WP:INVOLVED violation here which makes the block invalid and raises concerns over how Wgfinley uses his tools The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that FisherQueen, totally uninvolved, has endorsed the block then it seems fine to let it stand as upheld. I dislike overturning blocks on a technicality like this. Wgfinley is undoubtedly involved, and we should discuss his actions and perhaps sanction/chastise him appropriately. (I'd probably have supported an unblock, except Neutralhomer doesn't seem to "get" the problem with using the vandalism revert in his unblock request) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• - User:Wgfinley was also at AN last August for a similar involved week long extension block on User:JRHammond that was overturned for involved issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see now that I made an error; I thought Neutralhomer was edit-warring to remove the content, and now I see that he was the one adding it. My bad. Either way this is not vandalism, but I did look at it a little backward. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock - Wgfinley has stained the issue through his involvement. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock I regret to say that this is an egregiously bad block, not only might the blocking admin be involved in editing the article, and did so to revert the editor they have blocked, but they are also apparently acting in a mentor capacity to the other involved party to an edit war, and they have used the technicality of sanctioning for one editor for misrepresenting the other editors contributions as "vandalism" - when the blocked editor had already made the argument that as the edits were being made in bad faith that they were correctly labelled as such (I am offering no opinion on whether this statement is based in fact, let alone accepted). Even if an uninvolved admin were to take over the block, I would suggest that it is still inappropriate to sanction one side of what appears to be an edit war. Under the circumstances, I think NeutralHomer should be unblocked and final warned for edit warring, User:TVFAN24 also so warned, and Wgfinley cautioned regarding the correct application of distance in regard to an issue they are involved in and an editor they have a relationship with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock immediately. Disclaimer: I consider NH a friend. This a truly atrocious block. The blocking admin is so unambiguously involved that it is difficult to fathom what was going through his mind when he made this block. The block is not preventing anything that wouldn't have been prevented by telling NH to go for a walk or invest his energies in a different part of the wiki for a while. But even if there was emrit to the block (and I objectively don't think there is), to then revert the editor you've just blocked in the same edit war is gross miconduct. With possible exceptions for vandalism, copyvios and BLP issues, it is never appropriate to revert an edit in an edit war that was made by an editor you've just blocked. You don't even have to read the policy to know that. I have little doubt that the blocking admin wasn't trying to get the upper hand in the dispute, but the appearance of impropriety alone means that a swift unblock, with appropriate annotation in the block log that it was a bad block, is the only appropriate thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have voluntarily unblocked this user. I agree it could be construed that I am WP:INVOLVED as I previously mentored TVFAN24. However, this user has done nothing to state he will change his conduct. I hope this will at least draw some attention to that. --WGFinley (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reblock pending: Neutralhomer has repeatedly mislabeled vandalism and reverted using Twinkle, and he's repeatedly promised to stop. I've asked him to renew his promise to not do so again, and if he does not then we need to look into removing his access to Twinkle.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• As noted before, Nh has forwarded the notion that the other parties edits, although apparently compliant, are being made in a bad faith manner - which constitutes WP:DISRUPT and is thus vandalism. Having Nh agree not to mislabel edits as vandalism might be argued as not applying in this issue. I thus suggest a more specific undertaking in this instance, that Nh will follow DR process in trying to resolve the issue and not reverting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• LessHeard, while I would always have thought it made sense to label intentionally disruptive edits as vandalism, they actually are not. Interesting, huh? Within certain definitions of disruptive, I wouldn't mind seeing that change, but alas, this isn't the venue for that. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• The issue is not limited to the WMAQ-TV edits. NH has labeled other edits as vandalism for no clear reason.[80][81][82]   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't block NH, but I am putting him on the Twinkle blacklist. There have been numerous complaints over the years and he only retained his TW access by promising not to use it to label edits as vandalism. If he can go a year without mislabeling vandalism then he can get the tool back.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NH had TW removed twice in December 2007,[83][84] and again in November 2008.[85] He apparently added it back in March 2009 without any discussion.[86] He agreed to a permanent blacklist if any admin thought he'd misused TW, in December 2008.[87] He agreed to remove access to TW in April 2009.[88] He was blocked in April 2010 for misusing TW, and again promised not to abuse it.[89] He was on the verge of being blacklisted again just three months later, but again promised to change his behavior.[90] He violated that promise just 12 hours later and made fresh promises.[91] Those are just a few of the TW-related incidents involving NH. He will need to maintain a very clean record in his other editing over the next year to earn access again.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: I do understand the policies and guidelines on it... there's a line of common sense in determining whether disruptive editing is vandalism. Thus, what I am trying to say is that simply because the editing is disruptive, one cannot label it as vandalism. And in this case, one would be hard pressed to do so. Nonetheless, that still leaves either war or 3rr. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• WGFinley, that is straight up abuse right there, what you did. You knew that you were involved and was mentoring a user on the opposite side of the conflict, and yet you blocked anyways. Moreover, Neutralhomer has now left because of your careless action. Well, I suppose the one side has indeed come out on top. –MuZemike 06:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'd guess that NH is more upset about getting Twinkle removed (again) than for the now-expired block. I hope and expect that his retirement will be short.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment While I don't feel it is right for "involved" admins to make judgement calls such as this (it smacks too much of trying to insert THEIR version of whatever), a block may have been warranted under the circumstances, but it should not have been done by Wgfinley.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably why he undid his own block yesterday.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound on MOMK

RockSound (talk · contribs) Ok, yes, it's the Murder of Meredith Kercher article again.... things were going fairly smoothly with editors discussing issues on the talk page. However a new editor, RockSound, started editing the article the other day. Generally the edits are ok, some are contentious and some go against pre-discussed consensus (consensus we worked really hard to get compromise agreed). I've been trying to get him to participate in the talk page but instead he is claiming things like The cabal needs to stop with this censorship and harassment and on his talk page there is a rather unfortunate pro-innocence rant. I can't get him to participate in the talk page, he simply does not seem to want to engage, if his edits are reverted with requests to discuss he simply ignores it and reverts back (not really edit warring, more just consistently changing things over and over) :( I'm not sure what else to do; could someone have a strong word to try and iron this out. Some of his changes shouldn't be reverted, but not discussing the issues isn't helping get his content kept. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has been involved in this article as reported in the news media. Many people are upset that there is a clique of pro-guilt editors who have a lock hold on the article and won't allow any changes unless approved by the clique. Mr. Wales was served with an open letter now signed by hundreds of people complaining of the pro-guilt bias in the article which violates BLP since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not been finally convicted of the crime. Mr. Wales needs to come back as he promised to help make this article more neutral and less of an advocacy piece to pursuade the public of the guilt of the two students. Wikipedia is being abused by these people who are using it for their own agenda.

There has been a lot of media coverage of Mr. Wales trying to straighten out the problems with this article, but no follow up.

Check this out: "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?" http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/03/26/news/updatewikipedia-founder-jimbo-wales-reviews-page- —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound - Wikipedia operates by open consensus, and strives to find a neutral point of view. If you will not cooperate with discussing your issues with the article with other editors, on their talk pages or the article talk page, you're intentionally disregarding the whole method Wikipedia uses to resolve conflicts and deal with questions.

If you edit disruptively and will not discuss issues on talk pages, no matter what your background or particular problem, you will be warned, and if you continue can be blocked from editing.

Please, simply take the time to participate in discussions on the talk pages. That's the correct response and will avoid any unncessary friction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think we have here a sock of user:PilgrimRose aka User:Zlykinskyja aka etc. Does match style and interests.TMCk (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the user is a sockpuppet. However, I agree that RockSound needs to demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in talk page discussion, rather than throw around accusations of a perceived "pro-guilt" bias whenever their failure to engage in talk page discussion leads to their bold edits being reverted. SuperMarioMan 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a whole lot of people raising this exact same issue of pro-guilt people having total control of the article, with the same style and interests. Everyone is accused of being a sock or some other misconduct so that they can be immediately banned and the real wrongdoing ---violation of BLP--continues. The problems with this article being used as an advocacy piece for guilt are outrageous and Mr. Wales needs to come back and follow up as he promised. And all those who were banned by those trying to silence those who did not support a view of guilt need to be unbanned, like PhanuelB for instance. It isn't simply a problem of not discussing on the Talk page. It is a problem of a pro-guilt POV having control of the Talk page and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign your edits, please. You've been here almost a year; I'd like to believe you know how. HalfShadow 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you sought a third opinion, or otherwise attempted to come to consensus by discussion or through dispute resolution? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive people should stay banned, no matter what their views are. Wikipedia can't function if too many people are disrupting the work.

There have been allegations of abusing multiple accounts: Has anyone actually opened a sockpuppet investigation, or are we just making accusations because we can? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the essence of the problem:

" “I just read the entire article from top to bottom, and I have concerns that most serious criticism of the trial from reliable sources has been excluded or presented in a negative fashion,”

This is what Mr. Wales said in April. The situation is still exactly the same. Virtually everything I tried to add was deleted, even the most tiny, neutral of edits that should never have needed discussion.

For those who may be interested, there is a Petition to Mr. Wales now signed by over 300 people complaining of serious problems on this article. It is at this site petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html

Since there is no help here, I will approach Mr. Wales directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You should feel free to talk to Mr. Wales.

That does not absolve you of the responsibility to participate in community discussions going forwards.

Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia that everyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. If you are not willing to cooperate with discussions and the community consensus process - i.e., go to talk pages and discuss issues there in good faith - you are not going to be welcome to continue editing.

This is not a "Stop having an opinion and go away". This is "You need to participate in the community discussions in good faith along the way".

This is not optional, regardless of what Jimmy Wales may eventually say. You HAVE TO participate in discussions here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rocksound, in terms of the Meredith Kercher murder article, Jimbo Wales is just one voice, one editor. He has no more and no less of a say than any of the rest of us do. Please stop holding up his participation as some sort of bright-line gospel that we are failing or not failing to live up to. Editing here doesn't work that way. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales is the owner and founder and a very important person on this website. I certainly value his opinion as do most people on here. I am entitled to value his good judgment and opinion if I want to. He makes a lot of sense and I happen to admire the fact that he seems like a very principled person. If he says there are problems on the Kercher article, and he has said that, that is good enough for me. I will see if he will follow up, as it is quite needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs)

"No help here"? I see plenty of help. Suggestions to engage in discussion on the talk pages, which is always the first way to resolve disputes. Having been involved in disputes where discussion on talk pages is not fruitful, I can understand that it is not always a panacea, but the evidence suggests you haven't even tried. Other dispute resolution suggestions were given, and I see no response form you indicating whether they have been tried and failed, or even acknowledging their existence. It looks to me like you think you can convince Mr. Wales to support you, so why bother with the usual routes. Jimbo is quite interested in ensuring that articles are neutral, and do not promote one side over another, but he is also (I believe) a fan of following normal dispute resolution processes, at least until they are shown to fail. I don't see evidence you have even tried. My hope and expectation is that Jimbo Wales will urge you to at least try. (Disclaimer - I'm not familiar with the incident discussed in the article, and had not viewed the article before today, Even now, I merely glanced at it to see if I knew the incident. My comments are based solely on the exchange in this forum, in which I see no evidence of an attempt at dispute resolution by you.)--SPhilbrickT 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is just another data point on how advocacy has rendered the atmosphere there highly toxic, and counter to improving the article. Jimbo's involvement has been well-meaning and even in some regards helpful, but by encouraging those who have an ax to grind to believe that he is on their "side" he has made life harder for those of us who believe there should only be one "side", and that should be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup. I tried to get Jimbo to see this the first time around, but he took offense to my comments and told me not to comment on his talk page anymore. As long as Jimbo stays involved in this topic, it's going to be a source of conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mr Wales has to cop the public blame for the misdeeds of the editors, which makes him much more than just one voice and one editor. Editing together makes us all responsible. Community consensus is not a panacea. If there are public allegations that an article is gravely flawed, and the editors working on it are ignoring reliable sources, then that should be concern us all, and should be investigated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the most part that is just false characterisation by the rather vocal pro-innocence bloggers/commentators. There are issues on the article, but it's not quite the white wash as it is characterised. The problem is that this is an ongoing event that has tow hugely divided factions using the internet as their battleground - they expect Wikipedia to have an complete article about the case, and naturally expect it to reflect their view of events. It's basically impossible for the article to be complete, and it won't be for some years. And that both the pro-innocence and pro-guilt whine about it being a biased article says something, I think :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to learn more about the problems and attempted solutions on the Kercher article, these two sources give some of the background and this is all reflected in the archived pages of the discussion pages. It seems that out of long frustration and disappointment a whole lot of people resorted to the petition route and finally someone responded, Mr. Wales. But there has been no follow up. I understand that he is very busy, but maybe he can squeeze the article in soon. I will also send an email to the email address on the petition to see if I can learn anything further from them, and maybe they would like to talk to him too. Then maybe Mr. Wales and everyone could go back to using the discussion pages on the Kercher article. Talk to you later. - - petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html - - "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?" - http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2011

You seem to be under the impression that when Jimbo says jump we all respond with a "how high?" That is not the case and has not been for a long time. He devolved authority over wikipedia to the community. Despite being the founder of wiki his decision meant that he has the same status as any of us. A petition to Jimbo will not mean that he'll step in on your side or on anyone's side for that matter. I've neither interacted with you nor involved myself with the article but I can see that this is a content dispute that has yet to be discussed on the talk page. In fact, looking through your contributions history, you have not discussed anything at all on the talk page on the article, which is the issue that needs to be addressed here. You cannot continually keep editing an article when other editors are raising concerns on the content you are adding. This amounts to disruptive editing and will get you blocked. Your posts here have a great deal of wp:idht and attempts at side stepping the issue at hand, your increasingly disruptive editing. --Blackmane (talk) 09:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Some are also of the opinion that Jimbo's involvement in the article has done more harm than good, in that the Amanda Knox advocacy camp feels emboldended to turn the page away from coverage of the murder and into detailed CSI-fueled evidence rebuttals. I'll also note that online petitions are utter garbage that will not sway a single policy or editorial decision here. Thousands of people signed onto a "remove the images of Muhammed from the Wikipedia, they offend meeeeeee!" petition a few years back. It was dismissed out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

SlimVirgin userspace page on Poetlister

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In the context of the current Arbcom case, this is clearly retaliatory and WP:POINTy. If anyone not involved has concerns about that page, WP:MFD is that way. Rd232 ^talk 02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

One of the interesting things about SlimVirgin is that she attacks incessantly, and largely by digging into your history (not that she gets the facts straight). Eventually, when somebody does this, curiosity prompts you to dig into theirs.

In lights of all the BLP purism flying around, SlimVirgin's huge page attacking a single editor named "Poetlister" is interesting. Wikipedia is NOT A FORUM y'know, that's why you can be blocked a single sentence criticizing someone. (But if an admin wants to write an entire attack page, that's OK):

"The man behind the accounts has been named on Wikipedia Review as a middle-aged British civil servant who stole photographs of attractive women so he could pretend the accounts were run by them. The prettiness of the women consolidated support for him....He has a history of impersonating women elsewhere....He flattered and flirted with BlissyU2 (User:Zordrac)....The two most damaging aspects of this affair are, first, that Poetlister was supported by at least two members of the ArbCom (Charles Matthews and FloNight, both of whom pushed for him to be unblocked), and Lar, a steward; and secondly that one of his sockpuppets managed to gain access to the global checkuser mailing list....On Wikipedia, the man behind the accounts ran Poetlister, RachelBrown, Habashia, Bedivere, Taxwoman, Newport, Londoneye, Yehudi, Osidge, R613vlu, Holdenhurst, Simul8, and Runcorn, an admin. Poetlister's WP account was recently renamed to Quillercouch; he claimed to be G______. H_______., 26 years old, who lived either in Hertfordshire or Essex.....The writing was also either very masculine and pompous, or too feminine, or rather it was what some men might suppose is feminine — simpering, flirtatious, and childish....There were also some edits that few women would have made e.g. to Fucking machine. It was pretty clear that the writer was male, probably an older man, and very likely someone who had issues with women and little experience of close relationships with them." [92] Mindbunny (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The page User:SlimVirgin/Poetgate should be moved to Wikipedia Review. Count Iblis (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The page criticizes a number of editors by account name, including yours truly. Since it has been around for so long, someone probably needs to slap the speedy delete tag on it per WP:ATP. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think one can while the page is protected? Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss the merits of the page in question, if necessary, at another time, but I think this particular post is a WP:POINT violation related to a pending request for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, of course. The single thought "Robert Mugabe is degenerate and corrupt." is a blockable BLP-violation (when written by a regular, peon editor). An entire attack page is defensible (when written by an admin). If you're going to invoke WP:POINT you should explain exactly what is disruptive. Somebody should write a guideline WP:LAZYACRONYMUSE for those who just poop out WP:MEH everytime they want to dismiss an idea without doing the work of open-minded analysis. Mindbunny (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What's your particular stake in this particular essay that was written several years ago? It looks to me like documentation of a harassment case that's important and needs to be retained, not censored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. What we do not tolerate regarding those who are not part of Wikipedia's community (attacks on BLP subjects, etc) is sometimes necessary for administrative purposes here.

That is not to say that we must and always do retain every item, but cases that resulted in real-world harassment need to be memorialized in ways that prevent us from accidentally letting unrepentant abusers back onto the project. We may at times blank pages out of courtesy but deleting abuse records is a questionable suggestion.

Mindbunny, you are pushing buttons that have consequences associated with them. You are approaching the threshold for disruptive here. Once you've started an Arbcom case filing, you (and everyone else) is under heightened scrutiny, and expected to be on their best behaviors. This is not an example of best behavior. We have a WP:BOOMERANG essay for actions that come back to bite poeple who thought they'd "get" their perceived enemies on Wikipedia. Please lay off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is so wrong, and the fact that you think it is so right sums up everything: "What we do not tolerate regarding those who are not part of Wikipedia's community (attacks on BLP subjects, etc) is sometimes necessary for administrative purposes here." If you want to boomerang those who try to "get their enemies," explain why you aren't boomeranging SlimVirgin. Oh wait, is SlimVirgin....an admin?

There is no custom of blocking for off-hand criticism of living people, and we all know it. Unless....it is part of "getting your enemy," and you're an admin. This community is pathetic. Permanently ban me, you fuckheads. Mindbunny (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

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

Can we please, at the very least, add a {{NOINDEX}} to the page? I've tried before but it was reverted. That seems unfair - Alison ^❤ 09:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the page in question contain any factually untrue statements? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Alison's right: The page does need a __NOINDEX__ tag if it's to be kept. Whether the page contains true or untrue statements would take months to research, but that's not really the point.The point is that we can't legitimately allow Wikipedia to be used to promulgate so many accusations against real people on a single user's say so. That's what Wikipedia Review does, as I understand, and I don't think we should be emulating them, even if they started it. The only possible motivation not to allow a no-index tag would be to use Wikipedia's credibility and its search-engine clout to promote the content across the web, and that's just not right. I feel strongly for SV's distress, but she's using Wikipedia as a self-publishing site in this case. The content either needs to be moved to a genuine self-publishing site, or it has to have a no-index tag.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

IP phishing

70.48.238.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Porgers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
67.193.59.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I thought there was something about this here on ANI, but I can't find it. Maybe I saw it elsewhere. Anyway, the above IP (currently blocked as a sock of Porgers) sent a request to Wikimedia asking for my password to be reset. Naturally, they didn't blindly do that. I'm not an admin, so hacking my account wouldn't have done them much good anyway. But I wonder how widespread this phishing attempt is getting to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Only four of us here on en.wiki, that I'm aware of. He's tried a few times from other WMF sites as well. The password reset attempts, while somewhat annoying - are generally harmless (as long as you delete them rather than clicking any links). Just make sure you have a strong password set & if you haven't already, set up a committed identity (just in case). --Versageek 18:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive697#User_Porgers_attempting_to_crack_my_account. --64.85.215.26 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this could work anyway - even if the Wikimedia folks did reset someone's password on request from a hacker, the new randomly-generated password would be emailed to the user's registered email address and not the hacker's address. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So he's not really trying to hack, he's just being a pest. Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was one of the recent targets for Porgers (and his various sock puppets) over the last 5 days or so. I also got a notice from Wikimedia about someone (IP address 70.48.238.196) requesting a new temp password for me. It is a nuisance, but nothing more than that. Nothing was compromised. Obviously, only the recipient of the email can see the password, not the requester, if he is someone else.

I suppose this option is there for people who forget their passwords. I did notice, however, that the following statement is not true:: "If someone else made this request, or if you have remembered your password and you no longer wish to change it, you may safely ignore this message. Your old/existing password will continue to work despite this new password being created for you." I could not log in anymore with my old password by the time I read the email message, so it had already been reset by Wiki as a temp pwd, without my confirmation. That was rather annoying (although easily fixed). <[:-) --Skol fir (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic banned editor returns on William Greer

74.96.114.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the editor who is banned from William Greer (and all other articles relating to the assassination of JFK) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive204#Topic ban redux, see the history of the talk page for previous similar IP 74.96.113.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The general method of dealing with him has been to protect the article (and on occasion, the talk page too), but if someone wants to take a less drastic approach and just block the IP and leave any protection unless problems persist that might be a better way forward. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and semi-protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User:FuFoFuEd creating essays to support his position

This is a first for me and I have no idea how to respond. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ChucK:

1. FuFoFuEd argued to keep based on the existence of similar articles.
2. I responded that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
3. FuFoFuEd replied with a link to WP:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES.

Here's the problem: FuFoFuEd is citing an essay he had just created, just so he could cite it. (Take a look at the history.)

My concern is two-fold. First, I think that's a somewhat less than completely honest way to try to win an argument in an AfD. Second, the essay appears inconsistent with the rest of guidelines regarding reliable secondary sources. I would like to propose it for deletion but I have no idea how to do that (or what the deletion criteria are) for an essay. Advice would be appreciated. Msnicki (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:SPS would be a place to start... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the reviewing admin is capable of not taking user written essays as policy. Why does it matter if he is linking to his own essay? It's basically a link to his argument, much like your own comment was just a link to your argument with no other content. The closing admin is hardly going to read it and say: "Oh! Thats an essay! This comment carries triple weight!" because that isn't how it works. (One hopes anyway.) Don't see much point doing anything here. Regards, --81.98.48.154 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also what does self published sources have to do with anything here? He is making an argument in a discussion, not attempting to cite anything as the original poster here incorrectly asserts. Normally as a dynamic IP I just lurk, but sometimes I really am tempted into replying to some of the nonsense that goes on on Wikipedia, and this is one of those times. --81.98.48.154 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I've moved the user essay into FuFoFuEd's namespace. - SudoGhost™ 14:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two problems: first, you did it wrong. Secondly, you probably shouldn't do that unilaterally; that's what MfD is for. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Two things: first, stating I did it wrong without saying why doesn't help. Second, the MfD page's "Alternatives to deletion" suggested that I do the very thing I did. - SudoGhost™ 15:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "you did it wrong" was too harsh. Let me rephrase. The essay Msnicki was concerned about, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES, has not been moved. Apparently FuFoFuEd had also created a copy with a misspelled title, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES; you moved that one to his userspace. I'll db-tag the userspace duplicate and the misspelled redirect. Regarding "Alternatives to deletion", it suggests moving articles out of Wikipedia space, not essays. Userfying a Wikipedia-space essay isn't really a case where a page is in an obviously wrong namespace, so it's usually better to discuss first, either with the editor directly, or via an MfD, before doing that. 28bytes (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES was the one linked above, so I assumed that it was the only one, I wasn't aware of Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES (with the correct spelling).

You're right: it is linked above; I stand corrected. I was looking at the one linked to in the AfD. Regardless, we only need (at most) one copy of this, so I've requested speedy deletion for the copy. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems there's also a Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESWITHAPPLES in addition to Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPPLESTOAPPLES and the previous Wikipedia:COMPARINGAPLLESWITHAPPLES. I'm not sure which of the two is the preferred version, so I'm hesitant to request a speedy deletion of one over the other. - SudoGhost™ 17:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He sure likes copying and pasting that essay! I've redirected the first to the second; easy enough to undo if needed. 28bytes (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As 81.98.48.154 says, it's perfectly OK to write an essay and link to it rather than spelling out one's argument on the AfD page. You can MfD the essay if you want, but it's well within the guidelines for essays and would probably be kept. What you've done (noted in the ChucK AfD that the essay was written by the editor citing it) is probably sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(Correcting again for the edit overlap.) Thanks very much for the feedback. You've answered my questions. Msnicki (talk)

Just to note, I agree that best practices would be for a person citing an essay that they just wrote to mention the fact that they just wrote it. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There you go. It was the seeming deceptiveness that bothered me. If someone links to a WP: page, we WP:AGF and we also expect that if it was worth the link, it's probably to some material that's been around for a while, that's been debated and can provide useful outside guidance on the prevailing consensus on that particular matter. We don't expect someone to quote themselves. This was a first for me and I had no idea how to react. Again, thanks to all for your kind advice. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite an amusing usage of WP:AGF there, as what you did was jump to the conclusion they were trying to mislead you... --81.98.48.154 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

"I quote myself all the time." - SudoGhost | SudoGhost™ 17:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He did mislead me last night when I first read it because I did WP:AGF. It wasn't 'till this morning I realized I might have been tricked. Bear in mind (as you can see by my contributions on that page) a lot of what attracts me to AfD discussions is the part about checking sources (they're not always what they appear to be!) and I realized this was one I hadn't really checked. But I'm disappointed I should have to in this case. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I welcomed the user to Wikipedia btw, since no one else thought of doing so. Probably a better welcome to the project than an ANI notice accusing him of bad faith editing when he probably isn't well versed with the mountain of red tape/rules (take your pick) that this project has. --81.98.48.154 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Possibly pointy AFDs

After various discussions at FTN, including WP:FTN#Delete 4 of my Fringe articles, Liveintheforests (talk · contribs) has started 3 AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Milton (author), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Rattray Taylor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Pitman all claiming no references. But at least for one of them he added references and then removed them[93]. Given the FTN discussion this looks pretty pointy, but I'd like some other opinions. I'll notify him and FTN. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• IMO this editor is indulging in a lot of pointy behavior; he's been warned about it. While I sympathize that he is a fairly new editor, he shows no sign of trying to learn despite several editors reaching out and trying to help him; his behavior has become more, not less, disruptive. I have concerns this is developing into a WP:BATTLE violation as well. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• What is going on here? Can you not see? Hrafn has been stalking me and reverting all my edits. So i decided to delete the articles i worked on. I spent over 48 hours working on the J. Francis Hitching article, Gordon Rattray Taylor article, Michael Pitman article etc. - Hrafn comes along, reverts most of my edits and adds tags as usual all over the place just becuase he disagrees with what the authors say. Let's delete the articles, Hrafn doesn't want them on wikipedia. No references either except all of the ones i found. I agree with the deletions.

  Also see here: Michael Denton, David Berlinski and Lee Spetner in the last 12 hours Hrafn (Hrafn) has stalked my edits on these pages and reverted my edits or changed them.

  Also see his history Hrafn all he does his spend his time stalking and reverting my edits. Liveintheforests (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

  Hrafn first edited Michael Denton on 18 February 2008 and David Berlinski on 30 August 2007, years before you edited either. Users are entitled to monitor pages on their watchlist, and is not alone in expressing concerns about your edits. Your claims of stalking are nonsense. You don't own these pages, neither does Hrafn; they're the work of dozens of editors. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 15:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest all three be WP:SNOW closed as "keep" based on WP:POINTy noms. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Concur; close Afds as suggested by Alan. I am somewhat involved or I'd do it myself. Also is there a checkuser in the house? Looks like User:Marchetti 77 might be a sock of User:Liveintheforests , since he only showed to offer Del views on the Afds and make other unhelpful edits. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Marchetti 77's edits, I'd say quite possibly. But he's been blocked for vandalism now. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Sarek is quick. I think it would still be useful information, however; Lives has made 3 POINT violation Afd noms, gutting the articles to make it more likely they will be deleted, which is a violation of WP:OWN - it would be good to know if he's also a sockmaster, so we know the extent of the issue we're dealing with here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:POINT aside, the complainant on the WP:FTN board shows a lack of understanding of (or may not be aware of) WP:OWN (i.e. "my fringe articles"). –MuZemike 15:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, I am sympathitic that he is a fairly new editor; I have also brought the article editnotice to his attention. He is no longer unaware that he releases the rights to his edits as he makes them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• J. Francis Hitching article, Gordon Rattray Taylor article, Michael Pitman article and many others- are articles which NOBODY had updated in over 4 years they are "not the work of loads of people" just me basically, nobody knows who they are except me i own all their books and updated each one of their article with many references. I spent in total 48 hours working on all of them. Hrafn is a user who is not neutral who goes about deleting anything or anyone on wikipedia who does not agree with the mainstream evolution synthesis, he thus spends his time reverting my edits he has broken WP:NPOV. He does not edit anything else he just reverts my edits and puts tags all over the place. Not neautral editor, but we else can we expect from someone with his own userpage attacking intelligent design and self describing himself as a "darwkinist". Nothing neautral there Liveintheforests (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This will make the third time I have directed your attention to the notice immediately above the box where you enter your edit summary and below where you make your edits. By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Once you have clicked on "save page" they are no longer your edits. They are Wikipedia content.

Regarding your intense hostility to Hrafn; consider this a warning: avoid personal attacks, which are a blockable offense. This is the wrong venue for discussing your personal dislike for, and poor opinion of, Hrafn. If you believe Hrafn is violating guidelines and policies there are other methods for discussing that and for dispute resolution. This is not one of them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua seems to be a close friend of Hrafn and it's getting in the way of wikipedia neutrality. I think this admin killer should not be dealing with this case, it is breaking WP:NPOV. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note this is in response to a final NPA warning; Live has continued his attacks on Hfran, and incidentally also removed two Afd templates (which I restored.) Live, you may wish to consider that if I were friends with Hfran, and if that were influencing my judgement, that would constitute a violation of COI, not NPOV. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(many ecs) A final warning for this seems like overkill. I think taking this to the article talk pages and user talk would offer a much better solution than continuing on ANI. -Atmoz (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wonderful. I welcome your assistance. Please do try to explain to Liveintheforests that you cannot revert good-faith edits with which you disagree as Vandalism, and repeatedly accuse an editor you disagree with of being a vandal, and as we can see below, a Jewish vandal, which is certainly much worse than an ordinary vandal. It would be nice if you could manage to get Liveintheforest to also listen to and learn how Consensus, Own, and Afd work, etc. /grumpypuppy KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I note that all three AfDs are now closed, one as 'withdrawn', the other two as 'keep'. This would appear to make any further discussion an academic exercise. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you suggest I start a new section for the personal attacks and harassment of Hfran which is ongoing, and for which I just gave this editor a final warning not even five minutes ago? This editor is becoming more combative, not less. IOW, I caution against closing this thread prematurely. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy about this, 100s of other editors have complained about Hrafn, the fact is he a wikipedia editor with biasness he only edits threads relating to evolution, problem with this which no admin is looking into, he has religious convictions of his jewish faith run into his wikipedia edits to make his edits not neutral, hes a big fan of darwin and any article who puts up an alternative theory to Darwin, hrafn either reverts, tags or deletes, Hes been doing this along time this is against wikipedia policy. Not neautral. Check his history he does not add to wikipedia only reverts peoples edits relating to evolution. apprently even by pointing this out, i am making a personal attack? This is nuts. Please just have alook at this i am not making personal attacks, i am stating facts. Liveintheforests (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, by bringing religion into the discussion, you just crossed the WP:NPA line. See WP:NPA#WHATIS. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see a WP:BOOMERANG in the future and why do they always use the term 100's (or 1000s eft) when what they actually mean is "one" MarnetteD | Talk 19:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Attacking editors on the basis of their religion is Not Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Good block. I was close to blocking myself per [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], and especially [99]. –MuZemike 19:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit-warring and tendentious editing across multiple articles

A few days ago, Seksen iki yüz kırk beş broke 3RR on Greek genocide. I filed a report at WP:AN3 [100], and though there was a clear cut vio, SIYKB got away without so much as a slap on the wrist due to the backlog on that page. Perhaps as a result, the reverting continues unabated. In the last 30 hours or so, he has already racked up 4 reverts [101] [102] [103] [104] at Occupation of Smyrna while concurrently edit-warring at Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) [105] [106]. Attempts at discussion are met with hostility [107]. This is blatant tendentious editing and needs to stop. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of Mindbunny

Resolved

 – No current consensus. Chester Markel (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to his block log[108], User:Mindbunny has been causing a lot of trouble. In response to his frivolous request for arbitration[109] a motion setting editing restrictions was proposed, but isn't receiving sufficient support, on the grounds that Mindbunny is likely to be blocked indefinitely soon. Recently, Mindbunny wrote the following: "This community is pathetic. Permanently ban me, you fuckheads."[110]. He also states that he "was trying to get banned."[111] Since he's intent on increasing the severity of his trolling until he's banned, he should be ejected from the community as soon as possible. Chester Markel (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Notified. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody, another forum for me! I can't get enough of the sound of my own typing. Can the world? Seriously, all these issues are currently in arbitration, and I've already presented my view there (too much so, the clerk asked me to reduce the word count by half). The topic of ME (such an awesome topic) is already being considered there. Am I really supposed to respond all over again here? Seems a bit harassing of me, and disruptive of everything else. Who is Chester Markel, anyway? Mindbunny (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban - disruptive contributor - contributions detrimental to the project - block at leisure. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. Just ignore Mindbunny on the isues we don't want to engage him on. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, which only works if we don't behave like crybabies here. Count Iblis (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. I've had a run in with MindBunny in the past so I'm definitely no fan. However, IMHO, this pursuit of MB is all rather self-defeating. MB appears to be mainly interested in WP for this kind of drama and seems to have a martyr complex or, in any event, a very great desire to be martyred for the "common people", the "truth", the "fight against admin abuse" etc etc. It's all very juvenile but making a big deal about it is, I believe, unnecessary. In her previous existence as Noloop she did actually do some good work on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Since her return in December 2010 as MB, however, she has almost exclusively been involved in drama. My view is ignore, leave alone, don't pander to the martyr complex and she may end up doing something useful again. DeCausa (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. "First they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew ...". Malleus Fatuorum 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• - Mind Bunny is a disruptive account that should be blocked as soon as possible. Ban him now or ban him later he will do nothing apart from disrupt the project. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• How are you defining "disruption"? Stuff I don't agree with? Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Defining disruptive is a simple eyes open common sense position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Common sense doesn't seem to be that common around here, as is evident with this ridiculous call for a ban. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ban , block , indef, whatever - that is the common sense here. If you support him you should go with him. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Support ban. Reduce the WP:DRAMA. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban for now, suggest user spend their time here being useful, as opposed to jamming their own foot down their throat. IE: Help out and leave your opinions in your other pants. HalfShadow 21:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh good god really. Mindbunny is being annoying, and refusing to back away from an issue. But really? We ban people for a few days of pointiness? --Errant ^(chat!) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment User has only made 98 edits (some 20% of their edits) to articles, and over half of these have been Undos and reverts. The improvements to the encyclopedia have not been anywhere near valuable enough to justify all this drama time-sink. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

20% percent of edits to articles is something that most administrators could only dream of. Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous generalisation. I bet that's not even true of the handful of dispute-resolution-active admins who cross your radar the most, never mind of the set of all admins. Rd232 ^talk 22:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, I work very hard: http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=diannaa&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to toot my own horn as well, but I've got 64% to articles. Connormah (talk) 22:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So back to the point, Mindbunny has only done 98 edits to articles since December; most of us do that many before lunch; and without all teh dramaz. The guy is a time-sink. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

...but does that translate into a support or oppose. You don't say. DeCausa (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous to you perhaps, but that just shows your prejudice. The overwhelming majority of administrators, more than 1000, haven't posted anywhere in the last three months. Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You have talk pages guys. Use 'em. We don't need another huge swollen argument. HalfShadow 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You "use 'em" if you feel it'll do any good. For myself I prefer to draw attention to dishonesty and idiocy wherever and whenever I see it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Try a mirror. Attempting to scare off your reflection should keep you occupied for hours. HalfShadow 23:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed by the incivility of you civility warriors, but never surprised by it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Any account that supports user M Bunny s continued ability to edit here should also be indefinitely restricted. Off2riorob (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In defiance of your radical order, I fully support MB's continued ability to edit his own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What??? That's just bonkers. DeCausa (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let me translate: "Anyone who disagrees with me should be eliminated". Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

User who supports disruptive user - support indefinite restriction on both - either you have common sense or you support disruption. If you support M Bunny and similar disruptive accounts then you are also disruptive, Off2riorob (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What? Sippenhaft now? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I will see your What? and raise you a Could you possibly be thinking? Rob, is this a horribly bad joke, or horribly bad judgment? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The bad judgment is you and your support of a disruptive account. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What support? I have not voiced any opinion in this thread except to express horror at your sweeping draconian condemnation of those who disagree with you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Get lost with your false support for this disruptive user. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

And again I ask, What support? Rob, I have not voiced ANY opinion regarding Mindbunny. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with you, Rob? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You are - watch out for the personal attacks. Off2riorob (talk)

I am wrong with you? you are really not making any sense right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Rob, seriously, take a breather. GiantSnowman 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe you should call it a day, Rob? You're starting to lose it. HalfShadow 00:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban at this time. I'm no fan of Mindbunny's content-to-drama ratio, though I admit that I haven't looked into the one article that they have taken an interest in. The RfC against Sandstein had little merit, and likewise with the Arbitration request. Now, I disagree with Mindbunny's implication that there is a cabal, a blue wall, of admins looking to do them in and then feasting each other with caviar, but a ban request at this time will only reinforce that opinion. They just came off a block for disruptive behavior and they made a couple of substantive edits (Women's rights in Saudi Arabia). I suggest we drop this for now and let Mindbunny do one of two things: stay away from drama (boards, arbitration requests, etc.) and contribute to content, or not--in which case this issue can be revisited in a week, or two, or whatever. They're not going to break the project in the meantime. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban There is not an adequate level or long enough history of disruption at this time to justify banning this editor. In my opinion, WP:BITE also applies here as the editor is still relatively new. VQuakr (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

BITE? You mean 6 months is not enough? –MuZemike 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This should be a warmup in a creative writing class. Complete the sentence. "Going to ANI to complain about drama is like...." Hm. I'll go first.

• "...swatting a wasp nest to punish their stinging." Not great, but perhaps not bad. Can you top it? Mindbunny (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wtf was that for? I suggest you strike this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support Ban Well, you ask, you get :P -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban - Mindbunny is rubbing a lot of people the wrong way this week but is nowhere near historical standards for exhaustion of community patience and banning. Really, this is not cool to have proposed this. Arbcom and senior admins and editors are aware and paying attention. There's no cause for community action at this time. I recommend that this be retracted by the filer and hatted. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban - Mindbunny/ Noloop has been disruptive since he reinvented himself as Mindbunny. Ban him, but chances are good that he'll just re-reinvent himself with a new name and start up trouble yet again. Erikeltic ^(Talk) 01:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban. The user could be blocked for a time, or they could find a mentor, or show to us in some way that they can be a more productive editor. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Everybody chill

This is starting to get heated, which is not good for any of the parties involved. Georgewilliamherbert has already advised Mindbunny to take a short break, something I agree with completely, and which is a much quicker + simpler solution than a ban, which is a bit of a strong move for me. We want to reduce the drama, not intensify it. GiantSnowman 23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harassment of Trumpkin by Snowded

I created a wikipedia account a while back in 2006, and only edited briefly again in 2008, until returning recently to discuss some minor issues and make minor grammatical edits and improve some pages from their foreign language pages. Almost immediately upon re-arrival I was faced by Snowded who has since attempted to intimidate me, wikihound me and make my general editing experience extremely unenjoyable. He has accused me of being a sockpuppet of Stellas4lunch, which I have been cleared of twice, and yet he keeps attempting to have me banned and making threats to this effect. Joining him in this effort he seems to have recruited his close friend Ghmyrtle who has been offensive and spurned my attempts to prove myself a responsible wikipedia edits. I accept that not all of my edits in the past have been of the highest importance and that I am not as well-skilled a wikipedia editor as I might like to be but I have never disrupted or vandalised a wikipedia page - and yet Snowded accused me of such on many occasion. I shall include the quotes I can find below and my comments afterwards:

From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stellas4lunch - where I was accused and exonerated:

"User:Trumpkin does not seem to have been blocked yet. Any reason? They are obviously linked. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)"

"It looks like only one checkuser has been done, we really need it on Trumpkin and Hellohenry57. The editing styles are identical, they tag team on the same pages, have the same idiosyncrasies. Even if not socks then we have clear disruptive behaviour. Best to have the SPI result complete, if that shows nothing then back to ANI on the behavioral issues --Snowded TALK 15:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)" - (n.b. I have no idea who this HelloHenry57 is and seeing as he only made 1 edit it is not fair to say that there is any instance of 'tag teaming'!)

From User_talk:Snowded:

In regards to User:Andyzb: "I think they are clearly linked. Same editing style, following each other to different articles, tag teaming attacks on specific editors ( the NLP talk page illustrated this. Gut feel says Trumkin is a sleeper account. The newby account created to support their position on th QEII visit to ireland is also now protesting innocence in the same way as the banned sock. It is behavioural though but remember that is how we finally got irvine22 who was using proxies and multiple IPs --Snowded TALK 12:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)" - (again I have no idea who this Andy editor is!)

"When accounts protest any movements towards SPIs & forcefully proclaim their innocences - that's usually signs of guilt. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)" - (GoodDay is another of their 'friends' and I have always said that an SPI will clear me and protested my innocence because that is what I am!)

"Carry on making nonsensical accusations, engaging in silly edits and refusing to work with other editors and sooner or later it will catch up with you. I think a wait and see approach is probably best, so lets see how you behave over the next few days. If you carry on in the current vein you will be back at ANI --Snowded TALK 18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)" - (where have I made accusations - I have merely tried to defend myself)

From User_talk:Ghmyrtle - here I asked him to stop harassing me where I was met with more insults - he also repeatedly attempted to reveal personal information about myself which I would rather was not.

It is quite clear that the accusations against me are unfounded and that any annoyance I have expressed is more than warranted. This experience has upset me more than a little and I would really rather that I could be finally absolved and Snowded and Ghmyrtle asked to desist their campaign.

Trumpkin Trumpkin (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Related thread above: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Earlymorningcans_.2F_User:Trumpkin.

Also related SPI investigation where some of the above comments were made: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stellas4lunch. --RA (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I've little interest in pursuing this any further, Trumpkin. My attentions are mostly bottled up elswhere. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Review of indefinite block sought

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, IP blocked for block evasion

Dear Wikipedia Administrators and Wikipedia Community. I am user BernieW650 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). I was told that posting here would be an appropriate way to have the indefinite block against me reviewed, as I believe an honest mistake has occurred. I've been linked to a notorious user because he frequently edited on an article I've been working, in a SPI case opened by an editor I was having some trouble with. here. I thought this would be carefully investigated and cleared up. I honestly did not take it seriously thought it would be dismissed.

Now, of course, I can't believe I've been blocked. Mistakes do happen so I don't take it personally. I have never used multiple accounts, but I have used multiple IP addresses, since I'm at various locations at Standford University often, esp. before I created an account. I've disclosed these when I forget to log in.

I examined the banned editor I'm suspected of being, Giovanni33, and the only commonality I had with Giovanni33 was one article/subject. It's my misfortune that I choose to edit that article first, but I would hope to have the benefit of the doubt. My editing history involves many other articles and interests that do not share any history with Giovanni33, and that appears to have been ignored. It's a bit far-fetched to assume that just because someone's from SF Bay Area, and edited an article 3 years after Giovanni was around, that I'm the same person.

It seems really unfair that I'm blocked based on mere suspicion. Can someone please take another closer look and reconsider this decision? I know you all have the best interest of the project in mind, and I would like to contribute further.

I wrote the blocking admin and gave as his reason that I had five articles in common with Giovanni using this link: Using fuzzy math

I call it fuzzy math because it only shows two articles, not five: 1. The US and State Terrorism article, and 2. Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and their respective talk pages--not separate articles). John is the admin who is actively moderating, and he is not an article, either. My message to John was only a response to a message he had left me. This has no real connection to the user Giovanni33 that I can tell.

Also, the two articles are linked/related with the same subject; the section I've been working on in one was Atomic Bombing section, and we were trimming it, and so I moved over material to it's related main article. This means its just one article/subject that I have in common with the banned user. Just one. Not Five.

Regarding the SPI case that was opened:

• A large amount of the links posted had nothing to do with me, and were simply posted as a means of making it look like there was evidence. Most of the links were just things that Giovanni33 had done, with no mention of why they were connected to me. Really they should be removed from the SPI case unless there is some specific reason that they indicate that I might be connected to Giovanni.

• The administrator did not specify exactly which "behavioral evidence" made him decide to block me, other than the 5 articles, which really turn out to be two of the same subject.

I've been editing collaboratively, and abiding by the rules, working with others in good faith. If I had known this article is a kind of "third rail" of Wikipedia, I'd have avoided it. If I had really been Giovanni, would I not have known that going back to the same article as my first article would be highly suspicious in the least? I find that highly unlikely.

Again, I respect the work all of you do, and do not take any decision you ultimately make against me personally, but it is a mistake. I'm wondering now if I should just give up on Wikipedia, accepting my fate at this time, or if one of you can maybe see some basis for reasonable doubt if not outright good reason why this indef block is invalid. I'd greatly appreciate an opportunity to continue editing peacefully.

Help, Bernard. 67.169.68.203 (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. BernieW650, if you wish to contest your block, do not evade it, but follow WP:GAB.  Sandstein  22:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mhmm, instead of moving this to the blocked user's talk page and placing it in an unblock request for him, you block the IP. Following the letter of the law when it makes users' lives more difficult needlessly is the whole reason IAR exists. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He can still make the request on his user talk page, as described in the guide. Making an unblock request is no reason to allow block evasion.  Sandstein  22:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Sven, this is a good time to ignore the rules; Bernard says that he was told that posting here was a good idea. Why punish the IP for doing what he thought was the right thing? Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

IP editor placing propaganda across several articles

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

This user is placing some kind of Armenian propaganda across a bunch of articles. My favorites were here and here. I think he wrote something along the lines that Jews are the biggest enemy of Armenians during WWII. Because, you know we Jews, ignoring the gas chambers and finding a way to screw with Armenians. Huge facepalm. Anyways, he recently had a two week block, so I'm assuming that it's time for another one. I also notice some edit warring at Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and Battle of the Caucasus. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Armenia, there's a line in Woody Allen's Love and Death in which the main character's wife says that he had "contemplated killing himself by inhaling next to an Armenian". I've always wondered just what that was supposed to mean.at about the 3:30 mark ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a boilerplate olfactory rib, I believe. I doubt they were sweating Zyklon B. Ocaasi ^c 22:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Orangemarlin I am not the writer of the book you mentioned. So before writing anything try to understand it. Those are referenced information that I thought would be added to artices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.194.102 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

OM, at least this is mostly about Jewish-Armenian tensions, and how there has been a trend of Armenian antisemitism. I don't see why the Holocaust's impact precludes either of those. Ocaasi ^c 22:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Context means everything Ocaasi. Please quit seeing the trees without appreciating the forest. You need to read all of his contributions, the fact he is edit-warring on several articles, and his recent 2-week block. That being said, if we wrote about every incidence of anti-semitism in every country, the article would be 4 billion pages long. Armenia, being a small country, is NOT the most relevant state with antisemitic activities. I doubt they rank in the top 100. Nevertheless, the anonymous IP editor was not accused of being a vandal or a troll. Just dropping propaganda across several pages. Original research. Synthesis. That's all. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Forests are made of trees. I've never found hyperbole or polemics to be compatible with proper flora-gazing. If this editor is tendentious and uncooperative that's one thing. And there's no need to repeat verbatim the claims of every Armenian antisemite. But noting that the tension exists is all part of being encyclopedic. I don't know what articles that is ideally suited for, but I don't see why a paragraph in Antisemitism or Antisemitism in the 20th century (or Antisemitism in Armenia in the last decade) would be out of place. I'd never heard of Armenian's antisemitism issues, but it apparently went up to the president of the country, which is a noteworthy controversy in some forum. The contributions of the ip are neutrally phrased and sourced, so the content if not the editor appears deserving of the benefit of the doubt. Ocaasi ^c 00:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked most of the relevant diffs in the contribution history and I don't see a pattern of POV pushing or antisemitism. There are notable few talk page entries, but that's not a mark against the material itself relating to Armenia and antisemitism. Maybe this editor is being targeted too severely. Ocaasi ^c 00:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Dcupdates11 editing disruptively

• Dcupdates11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dcupdates11 is a new user who is editing disruptively at several articles, particularly those related to Sonny with a Chance and So Random!. He has had numerous warnings for uploading images without copyright information etc but he has also been warned, mainly by me, for some of his other editing practices. I've tried to be patient, explaining why his edits are problematic but he simply isn't getting the picture. He's arguing about sources, even making outlandish claims and it's getting very frustrating trying to stop his disruptive editing. As a most recent example, he removed a {{citation needed}} from So Random! without adding a citation.[112] I explained why this was wrong in a warning and his eventual response was that he's added a reference to List of So Random! episodes.[113] Of course I can't find any such reference. Another editor has since removed the claim.[114] It was restored by an IP and then Dcupdates11 made an edit to So Random! that introduced a factual error.[115] Since I reverted these changes he's restored both of the changes twice, even after another editor removed them,[116][117] and despite me raising the matter on his talk page. He's now justifying the introduction of the factual error, which I've explained at length to him,[118] by arguing that disneychannelmedianet.com (Disney's media site) is not a reliable source but Disney TV is. He's even argued that disneychannelmedianet.com, which is registered to Disney Worldwide Services, Inc, is a fansite.[119] (You decide!)

This is not simply a content dispute, as this is not the limit of his disruptive editing. Many of his edits at different articles ignore one policy or another. Even after other editors have reverted his changes,[120] he simply reverts without discussion.[121] He's even changing episode titles[122] despite what the source says,[123] just because he doesn't like it. His disruptive editing is not limited to prose. At Phineas and Ferb he replaced a free image of a platypus (File:Platypus.jpg), with a non-free image that he'd uploaded as File:Perry the platypus.png.[124] When that was subsequently reverted (appropriately as it breached WP:NFCC 1 & 8) by another editor,[125] he reverted without discussion,[126] even though his reversion also re-introduced factual errors.

His final word on the disneychannelmedianet.com issue was "Say what you want, I've visited the site, and it is not an official site".[127] This is clearly a person who just can't be reasoned with but I'm hoping a push, by somebody other than me, to start collaborating with other editors and follow some policies, might have some positive effect. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Also, the WHOIS for the site reenforces the fact that it is a legitimate site. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

insulting comment

User:Chandrakantha.Mannadiar posted this personal attack in his own talk page in response to a message by another user, which the other user wisely striked out. it has to have been aimed at me or User:Sitush or User:MatthewVanitas whom he is debating in Talk:Nair. based on the context, i believe it was aimed at me. he has thrown insults in the article talk page before. --CarTick (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting anyone. I didn't even named anyone. It was a conversation between two people, which was removed immediately. And Cartick should stop spying and encroaching other people's privacy. Chandrakantha.Mannadiar (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oh please. Two editors are involved with each other, one of them says a mildly insulting thing (though if someone wished me multiple orgasms, I guess I should thank them) about an unnamed person, and the other person, instead of saying something on the talk page like "hey, please keep it clean" goes running to ANI. Chandrakantha, consider not writing "b*stard" again on your talk page. CarTick, surely you have better things to do than to go and complain here. No administrative action is needed here, just a closer. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)