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

MakeSense64 a disruptive editor who knows the rules well

MakeSense64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am used to intense debate, but MakeSense64 has an exceptional pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing and harassment. On 12 January 2009, he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [1] The account was reactivated on 27 May 2011. In two months and nearly 1000 edits over 90% have related to astrology, stars or biographies of astrologers.[2] In almost every case, his arguments and edits have been obstructive or destructive towards the field of western astrology. Though he appears to be a new editor, his detailed knowledge and use of WP rules suggests he is a highly experienced editor who has been reported on this page before.[3]

There is not space here to document the many specific examples:

• An example of how he disrupts and makes major edits in the face of consensus.
  • Discussions on the Astrology Talk page concerning one word were extended for a month, partly due to his intransigence. [4]
  • He ignored responses to his posts and repeatedly raised arguments that had been addressed. [5]line 612
  • He polarized the argument see here by repeatedly raising unrelated issues from a recent edit war.
  • To break the impasse, I proposed a 48 hour straw poll resulting in 5 in favour of the change and 1 against. MakeSense64 abstained. A few days after the changes were made, he undid the text. I reverted with a comment that this was disruptive. Next day, he edited the lede substantially with unsourced additions that were diametrically opposed to the spirit of the consensus. Another editor undid these edits and warned him to stop being so disruptive.[6]
  • Two days after a consensus had been reached, Makesense64 reopened the debate with a new section on the talk page. [7] Several new editors who were not involved in the debate or the straw poll argued against his rehashed points.
• Much of MakeSense64's editing involves tagging articles. [8][9][10] (approx 93 astrology sites between 9 June - 19 July) Some are valid, but very many are unjustified. His tagging is directed at schools, groups and biographies of astrologers, including my own. I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP, but consider it harassment that he put tags on my biography within 12 hours of me undoing his posts. [11] After another editor removing the tags, he reapplied them on 19 July after I undid his unauthorized edit for the second time.
• My record shows I only edit a controversial page after discussing it on the talk page and only with the support of the editors. But MakeSense64 is consistently partisan and driven by his own agenda. He admits to being an astrologer in the past [12] and his agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI (Conflict of Interest). His divisive style seeks to inflame edit war [13] and his frequent editing is disruptive and time-wasting to other editors [14]

I am asking administrators to look into this with the hope that you can block or ban him editing all astrology related pages and discussion pages. Robert Currey talk 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "His agenda appears to be to promote his Chinese branch of astrology by discrediting only Western Astrology under the pretence of being a sceptic to disguise his WP:COI". I hope Robert Currey has strong evidence to back that up, as otherwise a little star-gazing reveals that a large boomerang will be on its way... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Am I able to comment, even though I am not an administrator? I can give evidence to demonstrate that point, and a lot more besides to show how he has made my editing experience almost unbearable by his wilful obstruction and sinister agenda. Zac Δ talk 22:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  If I can close discussions and I'm no admin., surely you can also comment. =) CycloneGU (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator either - that isn't a requirement here. If you have evidence, I suggest you provide it (with diffs from Wikipedia - take note of our policy on outing if that is relevant) - though again, beware boomerangs: accusing someone of having a "sinister agenda" is rather risky if you can't back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can back this up – although I could add a lot more were it not for the outing policy. I can also provide numerous examples of where experienced and non-involved editors have criticized Makesense64 for non-constructive, disruptive and tendentious editing. I don’t know an adjective big enough to describe how glad I am that Robert Currey raised this complaint on a situation that has gone on for too long. I am putting some diffs together now and will comment again shortly. And yes, I’m aware of boomerangs but I’ll take the risk. I have come close to quitting WP altogether several times because of the harassment of this editor and don’t think I would want to hang around much longer if something isn’t done about this.Zac Δ talk 23:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be wise to wait for MakeSense64 to reply before going too far with this. He/she hasn't edited for over 7 hours, and is quite likely unaware of this thread. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

?? Am I to post the evidence you asked for or not? In defence of Robert's suggestion of an agenda I think I should, because Robert Currey has no idea what I know, since I am someone he has been haressing directly. I am able to show, without revealing his off-wiki identity, that he has definitely targeted the biography of an astrologer whilst simultaneously engaging in an off-wiki hate campaign against that person due to professional conflict regarding his preferred branch of astrology. (This is not normal BTW, most astrologers have healthy respect for other branches of astrology). Also that he has commercial interests in the sale of his own astrology software programs. I have raised this issue before and can point to the diffs, or at least what remains of what can be seen, following the censorship of some comments for the sake of the outing policy. For this he has complained about me officially twice, and that's why I have never instigated a complaint against him myself, for fear he will paint himself as the victim instead, (Both complaints were dismissed BTW, the only criticism being directed towards him for being uncivil - but still, instead of engaging with him further, I have adopted the policy of shunning him as much as I am able to. I am able to provide full verification of everything in private, if necessary. Indeed, in early June I asked the administrator AGK, who advertises help with arbitration issues, for assistance on how I could initiate a complaint myself, since I was inhibited by the outing policy - but although he initially offered to help, after several weeks he was still enmeshed in other wiki-things and couldn’t find time to look into it so I dropped it. I should also add that I changed my username from Clooneymark to Zachariel in the naive hope that it would detract Makesense64 from targeting my contributions so disruptively. Someone please confirm if I am to proceed with the details and provide the diffs or not. If not, then fine - I'll drop it. But the point is he acts from an agenda and his editing history is enough to show that he is deliberately disruptive, and not concerned about contributing productively or constructively to WP Zac Δ talk 00:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is up to you, obviously - it just seemed sensible to me to wait for a response before going too deeply into this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, have you looked at the edit history of Makesense64? Surely you must be aware of the disruptions. Don't act surprised, you have been following this long enough and you certainly know the rules well enough to know better. Ken McRitchie (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I've not really commented on Makesense64's editing history - I have however pointed out that before making allegations about him/her having a COI, and an "agenda" ("sinister" or otherwise) is likely to require strong evidence. As for the rest, as I've already stated, I think that we should wait from a response from him/her. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Before considering my experience, consider this in regard to tendentious, disruptive editing. Here's some of the comments addressed to Makesense64 from other editors (not Robert Currey / not me) about some of the disruption he causes:

“I find your discouragement of a new editor to be distinctly non-constructive. I find nothing even remotely constructive in your statement about "If other people insist on destroying the article" There has definitely been some non-constructive feedback provided”

All the previous edits were undertaken in good faith following extensive consultation amongst the editors. You have suddenly and without advance notice, consultation or any other reasonable notice made drastic changes to the topic. You are editing disruptively against consensus and against the interests of collaborative editing on Wikipedia.

(Three from the same editor - re issues raised on the NPOV noticeboard):

As to the actual dispute I believe you are wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring

Standing alone is against the basic principles of how Wikipedia works. The basis of decision making in Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. Warring to achieve aims is wholly wrong and can lead to administrative action.

What you are doing is removing information rather than linking to where there is extra information. I have reverted your deletion. Wikipedia is not a place for you to exercise your hangups about deleting everything that is not scientific. Plese try to improve the content and coverage rather than deleting well sourced information.

every single one of your edits was with the aim of degrading astrology and overly emphasizing it's pseudoscientific nature. Moreover, none of your edits had consensus, which would indicate POV pushing. I suggest that you work with the editors on this page before unilaterally making such one-sided changes

Your posting a spammer warning on their talk page was excessive.

Do you need more?

In regard to incivility, as an inexperienced editor the very first interaction I had with any wikipedian came from Makesense64 in May when he placed this final warning that if I “spammed again” I could be blocked from editing without further notice, and the website whose pages I had given as external links (because they offered interviews with the subjects of the biographies) - Skyscript.cok - could be blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites. The warning (the first of many I was to receive from him) specifically referred to links on the Deborah Houlding biography, who is the creator of the Skyscript website. See Makesense64's contribution history for how, when he resumed his editing activity at the end of May this year, (following a series of contributions to Chinese astrology pages in 2009) his first action was question the biography of Deborah Houlding on the notability noticeboard, here

In defense of the spamming accusation, I argued the links were relevant and helped establish notability – and tried to fix the problems on the pages but all my edits met with unreasonable obstruction by Makesense64, who resolutely maintained that there could be no link to the Skyscript website on the Deborah Houlding biography, even though she was the creator of that site, because it would be spam ..., it would break WP NPOV policy by promoting pseudoscience .., one excuse after another. A few days later Houlding gave a statement that this editor was someone who was engaging in a vendetta against her because a few days earlier (just before he resumed his WP activities) she had banned him from the forum of the Skyscript website. Houlding also gave links to his commercial astrology sites, where on one he had placed condemnatory remarks about the Skyscript site and how it had banned him - but all this was removed because the links revealed his identity. Makesense64 also removed other comments himself, such as the subsequent comment of another editor who acknowledged the statement. I let this roll because he initiated a complaint about the fact that I continued to refer to the situation (although not repeating the information about his identity) in arguing that because of his COI and vexatious attitude towards western astrologers, he should not be allowed to continue editing those kinds of pages. See the talk posts from here:

He never denied this BTW, simply maintained that he doesn't need to be a neutral editor since no one really is, and all that matters is that his editorial contributions are neutral. But the fact is that he is not a contributing editor, he very rarely adds anything to content and never makes attempts to resolve the problems that he tags (sometimes for no good reason at all, as I believe was the case when he tagged Robert Currey's biography). His editorial contributions are all about deleting content, reducing content, causing dissent and division on talk pages and proposing that anything related to western astrology or western astrologers is expressed in the most negative sense. He obstructs almost all of my Wikipedia contributions, using every way possible to twist WP policy. (Yes – he knows the rules far too well; does it sound feasible that an editor with only 9 days editing experience in his whole WP history, would be bold enough to place notices on boards, tag numerous pages, and place a “final warning” on my talkpage?).

Since my editorial interest is in a controversial subject, I frequently work with editors of different views, some highly skeptical; but I have not encountered anyone completely unreasonable as this editor is, or who I view to be editing WP from a wholly disruptive motive as I believe he is. I hope others will comment too because the problems he causes are widespread, although especially focussed on anything I try to contribute. He has a habit of deleting at least one of my contributions per day, for clinging to arguments and repeatingly asking for his questions to be answered again, and most definitely has caused me to abandon trying to contribute content on pages where he will not let the argument drop. He should not be allowed edit the astrology pages, but also consider that most of his disruption is about causing argument and uneccessary division on astrology talk pages, because that is where he seems to delight in baiting and proposing that his arguments are all backed by WP policy! Zac Δ talk 02:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

AndytheGrump you will admit, will you not, that this editor has definitely masqueraded under the pretence of being a sceptic, and that from the arguments he makes, you would never have considered that he makes a living from the sale of his own astrological software? Zac Δ talk 02:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you are asking me to 'admit' anything. I'm in no position (as someone involved in disputes over the Astrology article, and as a non-admin) to decide one way or another whether your claims are valid. As I've already stated, my input so far has been to point out that serious accusations need strong proof. I'll leave it to others to decide as to whether this has been provided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, on reflection, I accept your point about COI. I recognize that I have COI as my interests are on public record and you might if say you are an editor of a sceptical book or magazine etc. My complaint is about his disruptive behaviour on WP which is not in question. His/her motivations are background issues that may or may not account for the intense focus on tagging, deleting, marginalising, polarizing and disruptive editing in a particular field. Robert Currey talk 08:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If this story were to fully check out, it would be a pretty damning account of MakeSense64 not making sense, so to speak. Such an editor has no role on Wikipedia in my mind. Is there some way we can get in touch with Ms. Houlding (or the logs, etc.) to verify this? I'll ignore the sales of astrology software bit for the time being. CycloneGU (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 comments

In response to the complaints formulated by Robert Currey.

• It is true I went through a lot of astrologer pages on WP, checking all pages on List of astrologers, tagging those that have serious issues and cleaning up some spam where it was obvious. Later I did the same for the category 21st-century_astrologers. I went over them alphabetically, over the course of several days, something which can be easily seen in my edit history. If some articles were unfairly tagged, then Robert Currey is welcome to bring the diffs.
• He complained on my Talk page about harassment after I tagged his page Robert Currey, and subsequently two uninvolved editors have come in to remove the tags, without doing anything about the issues with the page. Just have a look at Robert Currey, some 'references' are nothing but pages that give the address of his shop in London. A 'selected books' section, and so on.. Tagging a page like that is harrasment?
• A group of editors have been on my neck since I started tagging astrology articles. The most vocal of them is User:Zachariel, and you will find his constant personal attacks and ad hominem comments about me on nearly every Talk page where he engaged me. I have told him many times that personal comments should go on my User_talk, but he doesn't care about WP guidelines. His actions started about here [15] and have continued ever since. If I need to bring more diffs, then tell me how many are needed. This editor has been on a mission to bring more astrology into astronomy articles, something he discussed with other editors on the WikiProject_Astrology Talk. I advised against that idea. While Robert Currey is more civil editor, he frequently came in to support Zachariel's efforts, and it was also Zachariel who went to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey page. The activity suggests a connection between these editors.
• On July 6-7 Zachariel reverted 3 or 4 times on the Algol page within 24 hours, and I gave a 3RR warning on his Talk page. He laughed in my face, saying that he was 'implementing overriding policies'. Since then a group of editors, Robert Currey being one of them, seems to be taking turns in reverting almost any edit I do on several pages. A coincidence? I do not object to editors reverting a bold edit, but they do not engage in discussion after doing it. My questions are either negated, or answers are not to the point. Recently the discussions have been on Talk:Astrology, where there is now a long list of unaddressed questions.
• Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?

I could go on about this, but then I would be writing a book. I think none of the above is a coincidence, and before I bring the diffs that admins may want me to bring I invite them to take a look at some other evidence. For more than a month Zachariel and Robertcurrey are contending that I am in a vendetta against astrology. But there is evidence that just the opposite is the case, this is their vendetta against any skeptics of astrology, whether they are working on BBC or on WP. Please have a look at this recent note on Facebook [16], where some Robert Currey is basically trying to recruit meatpuppets, asking for ideas on how to get around the WP rules, advising new editors to first work on 'other' articles before they go on to the 'real' work, asking them to contact him first, and so on..
Could it be that some of the new editors that came to the scene on Talk: Astrology and immediately criticized me, are some of these new recruits? Could it be that I am seen as a disruption for the plans they have on WP? Because I don't go away too easily, even in the face of ongoing ad hominem comments?

So, I ask some admin to take a look into the editors that have lined up to revert my edits in the recent days, without even making an attempt to engage in subsequent discussion on the Talk page. I also noticed yesterday that some of the new names that pop up are the same names that were involved in problems on the Astrology page before. E.g User:Petersburg and User:Aquirata, who came in to remove the tags I had put on the Robert Currey article.

MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to suggest about “very similar language to Zac”? Be clear about your arguments, as I have been, so that anything which needs to be looked into can be. You give a link to one comment from the many difficult situations you have dragged me into, and if that’s as bad as it gets in your criticism of me then it suggests that you can multiply examples but you can’t strengthen (or justify) your argument. I’ve already proven the motive of my involvement, which is self-evident in the contribution histories on record. I did very little on WP (beyond minor typos and links) until the day that you slapped a spamming warning on my user page, and that is when I started contributing to WP in earnest, to justify why I was not a spammer. Here is my contribution history to show how my only editing contributions since 2007 were 1 minor typo and three submissions of relevant links (the latter on 1st June)

Here is yours to show that (unknown to me then) you had reactivated your account by making a call to the notability noticeboards about one of those pages, saying “I came across this page Deborah Houlding and wonder if it passes the notability test ? …” (how disingenious) - and then you placed your spamming warning on my user page on 9:27 am June 2nd.

Admins here can easily see for themselves that my WP involvement got active, immediately, from that point onwards, and for no other reason than that. From a sense of moral outrage that you would accuse me of being a spammer and that my arguments that those pages I had placed links on should not be tagged as lacking notability – which I then offered to help fix to demonstrate my argument.

Houlding’s email address is on public record. Her statement said that she did not want to post herself because your attempts to undermine her character were widespread and she had drawn a line under her negative interraction with you when she banned you from her website. She also said that she had sent her statement and her own complaint to the WP helpdesk, offering more information if necessary.

(I see you have since removed the comment where your only defence was to say that what she wrote was irrelevant because it broke the outing policy and the only thing that mattered was that your published contributions adhered to WP policy, not your lack of personal involvment or neutrality.)

Her email address is advertised on her site: deb@skyscript.co.uk I am not going to email her myself about this because I have had too much trouble already on the backlash that came from her statement. Otherwise I would and it might be a good idea if someone else does.

You can try to suggest some conspiracy of you wish, you were obviously going to try to drag up something to obscure the facts. The facts are these – I post for myself, I became an active editor in direct response to the intimidating warning you placed on my user page – and since there have been so many of these, I routinely delete them and refuse to indulge your desire to bait me by entering into talk-page discussions with you on your talk-page.

When I first raised this issue it brought me nothing but aggravation, so I decided to remain quiet about this (until now), and have been trying to edit around your obstructions lately by shunning you as much as possible without failing to answer your arguments and questions when I need to. See WP:shun, for the recommended advice that I have been trying to follow lately. Don’t pretend to be a sceptic – you are not even a pseudosceptic, you are just a someone who uses WP to pursue your own personal vendettas.

To AndytheGrump, I wasn't suggesting you had anything to admit to, I was asking you to share your own experience, by which you can surely that this editor (who makes his living selling his own astrology software) has falsely presented himself as a sceptic who rejects astrology completely. (Note western astrology, he has contributed positively to Chinese astrology pages, including inserting links that go to his own Chinese astrology services - this was also demonstrated in the removed material, because by giving the link to his websites, his off-wiki identity is revealed)

Makesense64 - do you want to deny this? I am willing to give further accounts to admins privately if required Zac Δ talk 10:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there are a few independent and long-experienced editors, whose contribution histories show no involvement in astrology-related topics, who would be free of accusations of being involved in astrology-disputes, who could verify different aspects of what I have reported and/or give independent accounts of how obstructive and disruptive his editing has been. Would it be a good thing or a bad thing for me to contact these editors via their talk pages, and ask if they would be willing to comment here? I'm not sure whether this would be viewed as canvassing. Zac Δ talk 10:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Makesense64 (typo) Zac, if you wish to seek comment from other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, one must be careful not to make a comment in asking them to comment that would sound like Wikicanvassing. For that reason, having been suggested of it once before (I wasn't) and not wanting the same fate for you, please visit my talk page and give me the names of the people you want to ask to participate. I will notify them neutrally about this thread. CycloneGU (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It was me who asked that, not Makesense64. I'll do that. Zac Δ talk 13:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, twas a typo. Corrected and section on talk page noted. Give me a few. CycloneGU (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Neutral notifications sent. CycloneGU (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice about this discussion. The only experience I remember with MakeSense64 was working on the Deborah Houlding article. I came across it because I sometimes check out the "Notability" noticeboard and wanted to have a look. Generally I do not believe in astrology but at the same time I realize that others do, and my aim was to be fair to astrologers and the subject because some Wikipedia readers want to know about such stuff, so I try to help in keeping with Wikipedia's rules and not let my POV (not believing in astrology) affect my contributions. I have not read the previous discussion in detail on this ANI page and I will only comment on the Houlding article; so please only consider this one thing -- I am not qualified to make an overall assessment of someone's edits elsewhere. I went over key changes made by MakeSense64 in the past month or so on the Deborah Houlding article and examined them to see if they were within Wikipedia's rules. Here they go: (1) MakeSense64 tagged the Houlding article as unsourced; it was unsourced, so this was correct; so it's within the rules. (2) MakeSense64 added a "no more links" hidden editing warning in the external links; constructive in my view since this discourages spammers; within the rules. (3) MakeSense64 removed unsourced material; it was unsourced and yes, maybe it was a little rough, but it was unsourced stuff in a BLP (including unsourced stuff that DH had some kind of tumor); within the rules. (4) MakeSense64 added a "notability" tag; there were 3 references at that point, it was a rather bare bones article at that point, so the tag here was somewhat dubious possibly but one could argue that the quality of the references was substandard, possibly, because the topic of what constitutes a good reference in the astrological world -- well, I'm not sure; so I'm kind of extending the benefit of the doubt here: within the rules. (5) MakeSense64 did a copyedit changing "She has been" to "Sydney Omarr" said...; improvement, since it's more accurate; within the rules. So, trying to look at it impartially, my guess is that MakeSense64 was playing by the rules on this article. In this situation, MakeSense64 had to contend with me working to make the Deborah Houlding article into a competent one and I can be a rather persistent and stubborn type who usually gets my way since I really really try to work within Wikipedia's rules and I'm an adept researcher and competent copyeditor -- perhaps in some other situation, MakeSense64 could have whittled down articles which didn't have an adversary. I don't know. But overall in the Houlding instance, MakeSense64 was, in my view, while an adversary to me, working within Wikipedia's rules.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I got a notice for this as well, and I don't recall ever being involved with anyone in this dispute in the past (or astrology-related articles), but I believe that's why I was given the notice (sort of a WP:3O request). I looked at the complaints above and followed the links by Makesense64, and right now I just have one comment. MakeSense64, you said:

• "Robert Currey is right that more editors have come to the scene who argue against me. The strange thing is that almost immediately upon arrival these editors complain about me in very similar language as Zachariel has been using in his personal attacks against me. Also a coincidence?"

I don't think it's a coincidence, I think it's a case where Zachariel's complaints were valid, and so they were echoed by other editors. Maybe you should listen to the chorus of complaints against you and not dismiss them. Anytime I see a case where an editor accuses (or hints) of sock- or meatpuppetry when they receive consistent criticism of their actions, things don't end well. Also, just to point out, I see no personal attacks from Zachariel, a complaint about an editor's behavior is not a personal attack. -- Atama頭 16:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This complaint starts "he started editing over a 5 day period focussing by promoting Chinese Astrology. [17]". As far as I can tell, in that diff all he does is provide a ref for an unref'd statement: he adds no article text. A brief scan through the rest of your diffs didn't show anything particularly interesting, either. This isn't all a snit because he tagged your COI bio, is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64, you have cleverly turned the argument around to my bio. I have already written here “I accept that my biography is open to criticism since I do not disguise my identity on WP,” and I once suggested to User:Verbal (who loved to tag pages like you) that it was deleted. My complaint is that on the two occasions where I undid your posts on other pages, both times you responded by placing tags on my biography within 24 hours. Your claim that you were merely following the list of astrologers is false as I have never been on that list! This timing was ill-advised since it suggests that you were pursuing revenge (harassment) rather than good editing as you claim. This is just one small issue among many bigger complaints about your behaviour.

My public comments on Facebook took place in March and were not recent as you implied. At the time several editors who had expertise in astrology were banned from WP and I was the only editor permitted to remain. News of this was widely reported outside WP and this brought me a lot attention. At the time, there was a real possibility of a lot of angry astrologers reacting by piling into the Astrology Page and treating it like a forum without following the rules. If you read my comments, my advice was that they should not to get involved with the Astrology page and that if they wish to be an editor, they should adhere to the Wikipedia Rules. Otherwise we would have another edit war, which is not in anyone’s interest. And until you appeared on the scene stirring up trouble last month, I remained the only consistent editor on the astrology page with any knowledge of astrology.

If anyone has recruited astrologers to Wikipedia, it is your practice of tagging some 93 astrology biographies, schools and organizations. This has served to irritate a huge community and it may account for reactivation of old accounts and an influx of new editors who don’t understand the rules. At one point, I seriously considered that your obsession with tagging was to motivate disinterested parties into a crusade. Certainly, your actions and inflammatory comments on astronomy pages appear to be designed to ignite potential disputes. For example you wrote “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages with GA status, so more editor comments will be welcome.” on a WikiProject Astronomy page . In retrospect, I should have requested that you were barred from these astronomy pages as well.

I understand why editors prefer to remain anonymous. Both the above personal comments are based on the fact that I have not disguised my identity. I think that taking advantage of my openness and mining public information about everything that I have ever done or written is the equivalent of outing an anonymous editor and using their activities outside WP.

Rather than dig for dirt on my life outside Wikipedia and try to imply that everyone who disagrees with you has to be part of a conspiracy, you need to look in the mirror. Zac is one of several editors from all areas – many who have no history of editing astrology pages have found your activities disruptive. Incidentally, only two days ago one of the non-astrology editors who experienced the early disputes in March first hand, was kind enough to refer to both Zac and myself as being in a different category to those who were banned from WP in March, for having made sincere attempts to cover the subject while adhering to policy.

As you know when I first responded to you, I supported your request for solid verification. However, since then I have watched how extreme you activities are, but have resisted a strong urge to act like your personal cop. I have also tried to work with you on the Aries article and we even established a consensus on the talk page. However, I notice that yesterday you went back to that page and without discussion, deleted a section put in by an editor in good faith last month. This is typical of your policy to shoot first and only ask questions when it suits you later! You may not like the Western Signs of the Zodiac but continually trimming down these pages to a stub of an article does not serve the interests of 25% of the population who follow the subject.

No matter how clever your arguments, it’s obvious that you are a divisive force within a community that is seeking to build bridges. Though I have not requested a total ban from Wikipedia, I believe that wherever you go on WP, the same problems will come up. Robert Currey talk 16:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The March ban [18] looks to be relevant. For example, the editor who reverted the tags on Robert Currey, User:Aquirata, should not have done so, because he was banned. Unless someone has undone said ban? Note also the text of the ban: People may also want to keep an eye on Robertcurrey (talk · contribs), a professional astrologist, who, while he may not be a devoted SPA, has a definite conflict of interest in this matter William M. Connolley (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Tomsulcher doesn't realise, not having read the previous discussion, that one point he could help to clarify is that the Houlding statement was given, he saw it, acknowledged it, and so would be aware of what it reported (and that what I have described above is accurate). Zac Δ talk 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

What?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The posts have been removed from history, including your reply to Houlding. I recall that you acknowledged her statement, reassured her there there were editors on the page who would prevent innapropriate actions, and that you asked if she would submit a photo for the page. I remember because I was relieved that you at least had seen it before it was zapped from all record. Subsequently your post which responded to her has been zapped too. So now you understand why I am asking. Zac Δ talk 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And if I do not believe in astrology, I do favor assology (my POV) but again, I try to keep my POV out of my contributions here.Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well here's a wierd thing, although Tomwsulcer's reply to Houlding can no longer be viewed by the history diffs because it has been deleted (see here), as has Makesense64's reply to the statement, the posts that relate to those diffs are still visible on the talk page under the extended content tab. This the code I have, just now, copied from the page.

"

Hello, comments noted. The material in the article at present is all based on reliable references and contributors here are doing our best, by following Wikipedia's rules, to make sure we follow the guidelines. And we'll be keeping watch of the article to make sure it's fair. Ms. Houlding, please email a picture of yourself to me via email at thomaswrightsulcer (AT) yahoo (DOT) com. And give me permission to post it in Wikimedia Commons under license ccsa2.5. Say when the photo was taken approximately. That way, I can include your photo in this article, thanx."--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Contributors are not required to explain why they spend more or less time on WP, or why they are inactive for certain periods. There can be a myriad of reasons for that. Contributors are also not required to be neutral (usually they are not), they are only required to apply the WP guidelines and write from a NPOV, which is what we have been trying to do here. To bring challenge to an article WP:CHALLENGE is also part of what is being done here, and it is not rarely the quickest way to get an article improved ( as this case shows)

This article as I found it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deborah_Houlding&oldid=393392111 ) violated a lot of core WP principles, so I tagged it. I found similar problems on a number of astrology related articles and biographies and tagged or improved them as well. Fact is that Tomwsulcer has done most of the trimming and editing of this article here, and now added back some things for which some reference could be found. Ms. Houlding's complaint is thus nothing but an exagerated story, most of which cannot be verified, and interestingly she has nothing to say about Clooneymark, who woke up after a long period of inactivity, only to add more external links the day after Tomwsulcer had trimmed them to one. Ms. Houlding is asking to block me from abusing any WP page, without pointing out even a single WP page that has been abused by me.MakeSense64 (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the comment by Ms. Houlding based on WP:OUTING MakeSense64 (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)"

Obviously the statement by Houlding has been removed from all accesible records Zac Δ talk 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall the Houlding talk page stuff being of any importance. I looked over MakeSense64's contributions to the Astrology article hereon July 19th. The contributions seemed to me to be reasonable, referenced, fair, within Wikipedia's rules.Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal observation: my recent request to gain unqualified support for working within Wikipedia rules on the astrology pages is undersubscribed, and the relevance of asking for that support has been explicitly challenged. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 21:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Where you said "I ask for a simple show of hands – all who favour abiding by existing Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings, say yes, those opposed to these principles, guidelines and rulings, say no –" and several editors thought that was too silly to vote on? My comment "Peter let's just move forward. Commitment to Wikipedia principles, guidelines and rulings is surely self-evident by the collaborative effort to bring this page up to WP best standards. We don't need another time-diverting discussion when it's obvious that most editors here understand the issues involved and the necessity for consensus on how best to meet those policies and demonstrate their principles in every element of the page's content". Your response: "Gibber-jabber".

On the whole most editors are working collaboratively and productively on that page. Zac Δ talk 22:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Tomwsulcher, from not appearing to have any clue what I was talking about when I asked you to remember your post, to now (after I found your forgotten response) remembering the statement it referred to as not “being of any importance”, some details of what is fair and reasonable and important may need to be reconsidered. So let me recap on a couple of things.

This editor, whose edit you approved of, was insistent on making three references to pseudoscience in the lede of the astrology article – inserting an extra one into the first sentence, and then augmenting the one that already said “in its modern form astrology is a classic example of a pseudoscience” to read “In all its forms, astrology is a classic example of pseudoscience”. He removed citation requests on points editors were working collectively to substantiate and clarify, and removed the one positive point about astrology’s history from the lede, even though there had been a proposed structure to the lede that ran “outline introduction > historical outline > philosophical contradictions > pseudoscience status and scientific criticisms”.

The citation requests were not there to dispute the pseudoscience status but to find clear authoritative references to substantiate it. We have asked more sceptical editors to help us get this right and most are showing a very positive willingness to offer valuable and constructive criticisms. But Makesense64 redesigned the content in his own preferred image in flagrant disregard to the good team of editors who have discussed and worked hard to establish consensus for over a month, and are doing their level best to bring this struggling article up to featured article status. So no, Makesense64’s edits were not fair and reasonable. No editor should remove citation requests until suitable citations are found. No editor should bloody-mindedly and repetitively revert and disrupt, and badger and harass, and call for talk-page answers to questions that have been answered over and over, particularly not in an article that has a prominent tag at the top saying:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.

There seems to be a lot of willingness to look in other ways here, and I understand that astrology may not be a very popular or well liked topic for many reasons. Regardless, just like any other subject it requires thoughtful attention and a clear representation of facts and its notable points of interest. There is a good collaborative team working hard on getting the content of this controversial subject just right, and a lot of talk page discussion is analysing sensitive problems very critically. Against this we have one disruptive editor who delights in creating division, argument, annoyance and frustration. Good editors will leave this project if administrators don’t take their blinkers off when someone who is acting against WP interest is supported because their actions undermine a subject they dislike.

With regard to the statement Tomwsulcher doesn't remember so well. I remember it very well. This editor, who pretends to be a sceptic even though he makes his living from the sale of astrological software, was engaging in a malicious web-based off-wiki hate campaign about the subject of a biography page who at that time was being subjected to significant harassment and character assignation attempts by him. The reason was because his branch of astrological interest was different from hers. He was calling for the links to her website to be rejected as spam. He questioned her notability even though he was well aware of it. He reactivated his account two days after she had banned him for causing trouble in her forum. He was uncivil to me from the start because I sought to add content to her page. He initiated WP editing with a vexatious agenda and almost all of his edits have pursued this agenda one way or another. I have exaggerated nothing and could add more if it were not for the outing policy. I have offered to substantiate privately what I am not allowed to substantiate publicly here. If this is not a serious COI I don’t know what is. But regardless of all this, his contribution history speaks for itself and so I ask admins here to go back and consider Robert Cuerry's complaint more seriously, and keep in mind that this long-established editor (Robert Currey) has an excellent reputation for fairness and is not of a character to criticize anyone without strongly established good cause Zac Δ talk 23:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point that is missing is that MakeSense64 knows the rules and his actions cannot be judged on one edit but as part of a one month discussion involving at least 10 editors. How he deliberately and repeatedly asked the same questions, repeated the same arguments, didn't read other's posts, extended the debate, posted his edits without agreement in spite of 5 to 1 majority against in a straw poll and reopened the topic. His record has to be judged as a whole. Terry Macro (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Zac 22:50 21 July above: How do you know that there were a number of editors who thought my proposition was too silly to vote on? Up until the time I posted on this page, you were the only editor who expressed that point of view. Have you been canvassing or communicating with other editors somewhere I wasn't looking? Peter S Strempel | Talk 06:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check the page again and note the comment of 13:42 20 July, from the editor who whose comment began and ended: "This is beyond silly. All editors are in support of WP rules and guidelines by default... Please do not try to have editors conform to your ideal process of editing but follow WP rules and guidelines, as we all do (or strive for doing it anyway)"

It is silly to ask for a vote on who is going to agree to policy, when there has been no reason at all to question that. If you returned to the page more than periodically, you would have a better awareness of how all your previous posts are properly discussed and answered. But you never engage with those responses, you just keep raising the points anew every few days as if no one has taken the trouble to address them already. So you don't seem to have noticed how there has been collective agreement to work to best standards and practice by using WP policy as the guideline to follow.

You have been the only editor of the mindset of Makesense64, although until now you have not engaged in widescale destructive tagging which means that a group of editors working within the same subject interest are put under too much pressure to attend to too many articles at once. Yet within a few hours of my reply to you above, you raised an AdF request for three major articles on the history of Asrtrology: for Babylonian astrology, Hellenistic astrology and Horoscopic astrology and announced on the main History of astrology page that you would return to delete every unreferenced comment in the article. This is another example of the kind of unreasonable and disruptive behaviour being complained against here, which cultivates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation amongst those who are working on fixing the problems, to improve the content rather than delete all the hard work that previous WP editors have contributed.

Can an admin here tell me how these kinds of ANI requests for help get concluded? Do they all get resolved in one way or another, or can they drift off the page with nothing being done, after input which distracts the issue rather than focusses on the problem for which help has been requested? Zac Δ talk 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you, Zac, won’t allow me to discuss edits in the astrology page because I don’t have a local majority rule despite long established Wikipedia rules, and you won’t allow me to engage in the process of eliminating unverifiable content, which is Wikipedia policy, and you won’t allow me to argue a case about the article definition that doesn’t ignore article sub-pages, what exactly are you permitting me to do? When you take umbrage at ‘gibber-jabber’ characterising your posts, don’t make it true. Peter S Strempel | Talk 08:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is equally silly - I have never prevented you from doing anything. I have also never minded or took umbridge at your talk-page responses, but do mind when you propose the deletion of three valuable pages for dubious motives after I responded to your comment here - this ANI request was initiated to prevent such problems, not perpetuate them) Zac Δ talk 09:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into yet another long rambling discussion which is going nowhere. Its ben here several days and no admin has even sniffed at a block or ban - clearly you're not going to get admin action. So this should got to WP:DR or WP:RFCU if you want to take it further. I've boldly collapsed this, though I won't be surprised if someone uncollapses it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

My sense is that people are evaluating MakeSense64 by seeing editing choices and extrapolating from these a kind of hostile agenda (that is, an agenda different from others.) Well, guess what. All Wikipedia contributors have differing agendas on many things and, as a result, battling happens often here. The way to approach this is not to make inferences about a person's character because of their agenda, but rather to limit yourself to this test: are they working within Wikipedia's rules? And the two articles I looked at, Deborah Houlding and Astrology, suggest that rules are being followed. In the first article, MakeSense64 and I were somewhat adversaries, with him or her wanting to delete & trim, and with me wanting to reference and expand (I got Houlding to send me a picture which I put in the infobox). We battled. But we both played by the rules. And that's what's important here. We will not always get our way. That's life. About pseudoscience -- I bet there are numerous reliable sources which identify astrology with pseudoscience. But I agree with William M. Connolley that this is a "long rambling discussion which is going nowhere."Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As you anticipated, William M. Connolley, I have uncollapsed your bold collapse. However, before your comments, I had a chance to reflect on this. I didn't come to Wikipedia to restrict other users. This was never about my biography and I have no objection if you put it up for deletion. I should never have questioned MakeSense64's COI, but I stand by my other comments. The bottom-line is that it was not about adhering to the letter of Wikipedia rules, but about following the spirit of the rules and principles and accepting consensus. I have seen more constructive edits from MakeSense64 recently and if this is an indication of the future, I am happy not to take this any further. I want to thank everyone for their contribution, especially administrator, Atama, who showed insight into the issues and Zac. Robert Currey talk 16:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 comment 2

I don't know where you have seen my more constructive edits, since I have hardly had time to do anything in the recent days.

I think the problem was that you , and some other editors, didn't know the difference between bold editing and disruptive editing.

I have pointed you to WP:BRD before. Bold editing and reverting are not by definition 'disruptive', they can actually be very constructive. I never had the impression that that point was taken on board.

What is considered 'disruptive' is reverting an edit and then not properly engage in discussion, avoid questions , and so on.. Because that suggests editor is not willing to find concensus based on WP guidelines.

Anyway, I haven't seen you bring any example of what somebody referred to as 'destructive tagging'. And it was you who brought up your biography in your complaint, not me. Since you now suggest yourself that your article may be one for deletion, then isn't it clear that in my tagging it for 'primary sources' I was being rather mild and giving it a chance to be brought up to WP standards.

True, the subject of an article is not supposed to work on his own article for COI concerns, but it is allowed (even welcomed) for subject to bring suggestions and sources to the Talk page, where other independent editors can then decide to use it or not. So why didn't you try to help your article on the Talk page? Maybe because there are no independent quality sources to warrant an article? In that case you can ask an admin to remove your article, no need to wait for somebody else to nominate it. You are talking about following the rules and the spirit of WP, don't you? So, here is a great chance to show you mean it.

Admin Atama describes my actions as "a lof of good but some bad" on his User_talk, so you realize that your complaint was without merit. Editors, and even admins are also not supposed to be perfect.

Before we move on from this I have a few other questions for you, I think relevant in the context of working in rules and spirit of WP.

Taking some clues from your facebook article I came across this: http://www.astrologicalassociation.com/pages/bbc/petition.pdf

It looks like (mainly) British astrologers are involved in a rather emotional campaign against media like BBC, Guardian .. to demand for apologies and (in their eyes) 'more fair' coverage of astrology. Is that correct?

Given the description in your facebook article, how WP is the prime source of information for a lot of media and journalists... I am connecting some dots:

* Could it be that passionate astrologers are trying to change the WP coverage of astrology, in order to change the media coverage?

* Could it be that the influx of astrologer WP editors in March was directly related to this campaign and petition?

* How many people responded to your call for 'Help' and to your tips, and are now quietly correcting typos and other innocent tasks on WP, to prepare for "working" on pages like Astrology and History of astrology?

I also noticed commotion around the astrology of Ophiuchus in that petition article. Our friend Zac has not only been very busy trying to remove any reference to 'divination' or 'pseudoscience' on the Astrology page, he also nominated Ophiuchus (astrology) for AfD, while adding large chunks of astrology about it on Ophiuchus and Zodiac. And, even after Ophiuchus (astrology) was decided a Keep he went on insisting that the astrology should stay in the astronomy page Ophiuchus as well, giving this reason: the media and the public needs to know.

Why does his editing on WP reflect the agenda of that AA petition campaign so closely? With you and other editors coming in when it is convenient? Consistently reverting edits that do not suit this campaign agenda? Why did these editors get active on the articles about British astrologers I had tagged, but not on the others? Coincidence, or connections?

I hope you agree with the WP policies about advocacy: WP:ADVOCACY. So, "the public needs to know this" doesn't cook here.

We also know that WP is not a place for "righting great wrongs" WP: GREATWRONGS, but that's what that petition and your facebook article sound like.

Any comments on this?

I don't want to be accused of WP:CANVASSING, but why didn't you invite the admin who handled the problems in March to have a look at this? He has experience with the problems on astrology pages, and you are here to work fairly according the WP rules and spirit, don't you? MakeSense64 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear! MakeSense64 – why didn’t you have the grace to accept my proposal to close this down yesterday? It seems that I was wrong to expect you to work with me to build bridges. Clearly you mean to continue exactly as before, by repeating the same points and dragging them out ad infinitum. You are showing everyone here how you have made the life of other editors so exasperating. Almost, every point you have made has been dealt already in this lengthy post and you are still trying to mine and make something out of harmless stuff about my life outside Wikipedia. There is no a conspiracy out to get you or anyone else. People come to Wikipedia for lots of reasons and I have since made a point of not going into why you are here. Your example: the question of the removal of the Ophiuchus (astrology) page is a case where Zac proposed that the page be removed, you and I both argued to keep it!

I believe that you still don’t get it! – This was never about content nor my biography. I proposed that my bio was put up for deletion to make it clear that it was not an issue – not because the 10 references which you suggest are not good enough for a puny 4 line bio or that it is an advert which it clearly isn’t. I didn’t argue on the Talk Page on my bio because I did not feel it was my place to provide links to support my TV and radio work as this might be considered self-promotion.

Already, your supporter William Connelly, who is evidently well known here, has said “This is turning into yet another long rambling discussion which is going nowhere.” I think he is right. You are wasting everyone’s time and I believe you fully intend to continue to do that every day.

Now that you have re-opened your case, I request that an administrator makes a swift decision on my initial request. Robert Currey talk 19:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought that in the name of building bridges you wouldn't mind answering a few fair questions to rule out a possible COI on your side. Apparently not so.

I can't be blamed for this long rambling discussion, as I have only made two comments.

By the way, if you have put your bio up for deletion then why is it still there? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, this is just to note that MakeSense64 has opened a thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard which involves some of these issues. It is about the articles Ophiuchus and Ophiuchus (astrology) and whether the former should contain information on astrology. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Makesense64 has raised a complaint on the COI noticeboard, (without acknowledging this complaint, which concerns his COI). Zac Δ talk 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my final comment, because I want to spend my time working on content. But just to say that I am fully aware of the difference between bold editing and disruptive editing; and it is definitely the latter that Makesense64 employs. His latest post demonstrates how he draws upon policy references to make divisive rather than constructive contributions. His negative implications (that all efforts to substantiate content, establish consensus, or improve the reliability of the information given, must be driven by a prejudicial agenda that mirrors his own), supports his desire to draw every historical and cultural reference into an unnecessary pseudoscience dispute. This has been a problem throughout his discussion-contributions.

In biographies and articles with astrological content, he argues that independent astrological books and publications cannot constitute a ‘reliable source’ because this would be breaking WP:PSI. For example, in a small but interesting biography of a hugely influential astrologer (who is now in his 80s), which has 30 substantiating references, Makesense64's final comment (after a month of development) was to say “Yesterday I came upon this WP:PUSH. If true it would mean this article has few (if any) reliable sources.”

He attempted to fabricate (and then initiate) some kind of ‘war’ between astrologers and astronomers, following the contribution of some commentary on star lore which relates to the historical and cultural associations of the fixed star Algol. This diff which shows what he objected to, and what he wanted instead. In this he tried to instill in the minds of members of the astronomy project that “It is a questionable development when astrologers start taking over astronomy pages”; and then made inflammatory comments on the talk page with a remark which does nothing to build good spirit into this community effort’: “Please consider that it will not be helpful for astrology articles if you go to war with the astronomy community on WP”. He edit-reverted six times in his insistence that even well substantiated historical information would break WP:PSI policy, since this would give coverage to a ‘fringe theory’, before I raised the matter on the NPOV notice board, asking for clarification. Despite being told that he was “wrong in every respect and have in addition acted disruptively against consensus by edit warring” he persisted in his removal of the content, against all consensus (his further edits needing to be undone four times by multiple editors). He flat-out refused to accept consensus, and also refused the suggestion of another editor to propose his argument on the rational science notice board, declaring:

You can notify the Rational Skepticism Project if you want, but I am not going to do it. Because it is not the number of editors for or against that matters. What matters is how many valid arguments are brought. One editor may bring up 6 valid arguments that are not refuted, and on the other side you may have 6 editors all holding on to one and the same argument. The lone editor has the consensus, and all he needs to do is continue to ask the right questions. Over time he will prevail, because fair questions cannot be avoided forever.

.

And he has done this regularly in the discussion about the Astrology main page. A series of 8 anti-consensus edits he made to to the Astrology page a few days ago sought to place within the lede no less than three references to astrology being a pseudoscience, whilst simultaneously removing from the lede the content that outlined astrology’s historical significance, (in defiance of the discussed structure of the lede being 1) broad definition > 2) historical influence > 3) internal consistencies and criticisms > 4) modern rejection by science; and presumably only because he felt this diluted the impact of his favourite word). Please note, the lede already holds a perfectly clear and unambiguous statement about astrology being a pseudoscience, in a form which is stronger and more prominent than the pseudoscience policy requires, and no editor is arguing to remove this – in fact, research is being undertaken to substantiate the point more clearly, in order that this is established as an undeniable academic fact, and not made subject to further, ongoing dispute. But Makesense64 appears to want to turn the entire Astrology feature into nothing more than a statement about astrology's pseudoscientific standing. He frequently refers to WP:POV policy as reason why the 'Astrology and science' content must receive dominance at the expense of historical content (eg), refusing to accept talk-page explanations that in an article about astrology, even if it is a fringe subject, it is OK to cover the subject from all its relevant angles and not just the pseudoscience angle which is the only perspective he is interested in.

The time involved in dealing with an editor that is so unreasonable is endlessly disruptive. It has the effect of taking good time away from the work that needs to be done across a host of related pages that require attention regarding content structure and the need for better verification. Wikipedia would benefit tremendously if myself and others were allowed the opportunity to do this work without the hindrance that comes from personal agendas, since the editors working on the astrology-related material have mainly demonstrated keen awareness of the need to treat this controversial subject sensitively, to gain consensus for edits, and to scrutinise every comment made by reference to WP policy and independent sources. There is a declared objective to reach featured article status for this WP entry, and the contributing editors all know that it is not possible to achieve that unless the content is comprehensive, neutrally reported, strongly substantiated, and free of WP controversies. That is why your support is required here.

Every editor working on the Astrology pages knows that the eyes of sceptical editors are watching what is being done, and the importance of getting the tone and the neutrality of the article just right. As you will see from these comments other editors involved in previous disputes, and wary of them re-surfacing, have felt that the work being done is productive, and that the page will benefit from a good faith assumption that present editors are working in the right direction, and can be trusted to let the focus fall upon content revision for a reasonable period of time, free from the pseudoscience disputes that prevented the page contents getting properly attended to in the past. That is why your support would be so valuable in preventing one editor's personal agenda from single-handedly prohibiting that, by constantly acting against consensus and creating division where none need exist. I apologise that this post is quite long and demands your time and attention, but it will be my last, and I think the issues raised are important, and need proper consideration of Makesense64's motive for involvement, and the consequences of that motive. Zac Δ talk 13:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MakeSense64 comment3

In response to recent comments.
I took the Ophiuchus question to DR, because Robertcurrey indicated that he has nothing to do with it, so it doesn't need to be mixed up with his complaint here.
Robertcurrey indicated he was ready to drop his complaint a few days ago, so I took the COI question to the COI noticeboard after he declined to comment on the questions I asked here. I figured that ANI is maybe not the place for such questions, and COIN is more appropriate.
I have negated Zac's long rants, because they are WP:BAITING and only a constant rehashing of the same old irrelevant stuff. By the way, how does all that repetition fit in with WP policies and guidelines?
On the top of this noticeboard I read: "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page."
Well, the only thing Robertcurrey ever discussed on my user talk page was his question about my tagging his bio page, and I answered him.
And our friend Zac has never come to my user talk page to discuss anything, but here he is cluttering this entry with all kind of accusations and side-discussions.
All these accusations seemed to be geared towards gaining the upper hand in a content dispute they had with me on Talk:Astrology. Here is the diff where Robertcurrey announces this ANI complaint on the Astrology Talk page: [19]. Do the WP guidelines only apply for me, or are they also applied to Robertcurrey and Zac?
Are there any remaining questions I have left unaddressed? MakeSense64 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring

• Badugi
• Suited connectors
• Cardroom
• List of playing-card nicknames
• Shirley Rosario
• Proposition Player
• Jennifer Leigh

User:TheTakeover is edit warring on several poker articles. I removed a spammy self-published source (poker-babes.com) from numerous poker articles and he reverted my edits. I changed them back and made a note on his talk page, asking him to discuss this before changing them back. He gave a very short reply and instantly changed them all back again, including multiple edits I made to one article (Shirley Rosario) which had nothing to do with this issue.

A former employee of a cardroom is the author of 100% of the content on poker-babes.com and it is not a notable poker website other than the fact that it is used so heavily across Wikipedia. It is clear there has been an effort to include this source in as many Wikipedia articles as possible and this makes it meet my definition of spam.

I request all links to this site be removed from Wikipedia and it be banned from being a reference in the future as it is spammy and a self-published source. I also ask that user:TheTakeover be warned about reverting edits in the future with no discussion. DegenFarang (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked first at Jennifer Leigh; to be fair, it was her account of her entry in the tournament, so I can't really question that. I also went to the home page and clicked a random article on Jennifer Tilly, and I learned some things I did not know about her from that article. Now, perhaps I'm biased as a poker player myself (been a while since I last played, mind), and maybe I am not looking at the quality of the site correctly (the style indeed does suck, even if the content doesn't), but I don't have an issue with this site if used appropriately in the right articles. It's not used as a reference, but as a See Also; IMO it could be a reference when information is added to an article that is on that site. What do others think? It is clear that if the contributor in question is the publisher of the site, she cannot add it to articles without a COI, however.

(Degen, I changed your list of sites to a list and headed the topic post with them so it's clear what this post is about, and removed that paragraph putting your sig. at the end of the prior one. I hope you don't mind this change to your post.) CycloneGU (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, you never notified TheTakeover of this thread. I have now done so. CycloneGU (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If it had been used in one or two articles I wouldn't have an issue with it either. But before I started removing links to it there were more than 200 instances of this completely random and obscure self published source being used as a reference and/or external link on practically every notable BLP for professional poker players and tons of articles about poker, across many languages of Wikipedia. That is clear evidence either Rosario herself or somebody connected to the site made a prolonged effort to spam the site into as many Wikipedia articles as possible. I don't think such blatant spamming should be rewarded and I think this site should be punished for this conduct. Add to that there is simply no reason this site should be used over so many better alternatives for things such as the rules or strategy of poker. Perhaps the Leigh and Rosario articles can stand, but all the rest should be removed. DegenFarang (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

This of course not true and you know it, as anyone who uses the history function can see. Many editors added links to this site over the years, most by CryptoDerk, some by other admins. There are less than a dozen instances now; there never were 200. As for your assertion that Rosario somehow owns Pokerstars, really, get a grip. 2005 (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In case it is not completely obvious to you, user2005 is the one who has been responsible for the vast majority of the 200+ links added to Wikipedia from this "source", the vast majority of which have already been removed. DegenFarang (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

False, as anyone who actually edits the Wikipedia can see if they check. There were never 200 (lol) links to this site, and the big majority were added by other editors, about 30 by CrytoDerk in 2004 or so when he used the site as the main source of the player articles he created then when BLP rules were different, and there are only about 10 links now, and at least five editors have readded the links and reverted your disruptive edits. Instead of your your edit war against the world, find something else to do. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks no better than a fansite to me and should not be used as a reference on BLP articles. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur. It's a subsite of pokerstars.com and appears to be 100% promotional. Based on the pervasity of the editing as described above, perhaps both URLs should be added to the blacklist. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO (not an admin, just came accross this on my watchlist), this is a self-published source, but it's hardly spammy; no affiliate links etc. The problem with poker is that the few reliable sources out there are mostly magazines and poker room websites, both of which contain much more advertising and are more likely to have minor errors slip through. Although I agree that this is hardly a reliable source in the context of Leigh's or Rosario's wiki articles, I'd much rather trust someone from that site than a random CardPlayer magazine editor when it comes to rules or strategy of poker. AFAIK there are no PhD's being written about poker strategy or poker history yet so we'll have to settle for something. Rymatz (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are affiliate banners and links all over this site for pokerstars. Have another look. As for your opinion that a self published source is more reliable than CardPlayer, you are just wrong. They have the same profit motivation (advertising and affiliate links), but CardPlayer is run as a traditional media organization. This is like saying Glen Beck's blog is more reliable than the New York Times. DegenFarang (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one link to PokerStars in the bottom left corner and it is no more magnified than any of the other several dozen links on the page. Contrast that with e.g. CardPlayer main page where the first thing in the sidebar are affiliate links; thus I'm pretty sure non-intrusive advertising is not a big problem when it comes to determining reliable sources. Also, I'm not sure what viewpoint are you're trying to hold here: first you're trying to make this an advertising subsite of the world's biggest poker site (a site which BTW holds such a huge market share that it could be viewed as an authority on poker rules), and then you're saying that this is something a few non-notable poker players wrote on their own. Is this a PokerStars subsite or not? Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The site was bought by PokerStars and from the looks of it they haven't changed anything other than the advertising. And if you aren't seeing PokerStars banners and stuff you aren't clicking around on the site. CardPlayer is a much more reputable source than this site, there is absolutely no question of that. I don't even think user2005 who spammed this site all over wiikpedia would disagree with that. DegenFarang (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was apparently using adblock, but what's the harm if we're using pokerstars.com itself as a WP:RS on many of these articles? Rymatz (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

PokerStars didn't write these articles, they were written by Shirley Rosario and PokerStars acquired the site along with several others and from the looks of it have made no changes to the site. Given that this random obscure site has been spammed hard on Wikipedia by user:2005, I think it should be blacklisted. Spamming should not be rewarded. DegenFarang (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It was never spammed. A couple dozen editors have added it, including several admins, as edit histories show. They were added by a variety of editors including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and again and again and [20], as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them. You are making up nonsense just because I removed your factually untrue spam link two years ago. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The website in question owned by Pokerstars, the largest poker site in the world. The face of the site is an expert player who has won several poker tournaments in different game variations and has been quoted as an expert on poker in The New York Times, The Times of London, the Associated Press and other reliable sources. The links he is removing are unquestionably valid links, and they aren't even reverenceing anything controversial. For example, User:Rymatz added references to the Razz article saying how many cards each player gets in the game. In contrast, User:DegenFarang has a long history of tendetious editing. He has been reverted by at least five editors in the past few days. He previously has vandalized other articles in extremely tendetious ways where he makes nonsense claims against many editors. He has stated he will ignore any rule he wants. He has been give at least one, two, three, four "final warnings" to stop his disruptive behavior, and even a double final warning. He has called administrators incompetent... etc etc etc. Whether it is this issue, or a Supreme Justice, or any of several other issues which I am too tired to continue to list, he needs to finally be banned for disruption and blatant dishonesty. That is the issue. This user needs to finally banned and his IP blocked permanently. No more "final warnings". he is long past that. (Finally as his lie of "heavily" linked, the site he is attacking is linked in eleven articles in the wikipedia. he is fanatical about eleven links from a site owned by the billion dollar, industry-leading company. It's just incredible how he is allowed to continue to disrupt the work of multiple good faith editors. 2005 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like it meets the threshold of an reliable source to me. Self-published sources are allowed when the author is a recognized expert in the field.--Crossmr (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, only two of the above articles are BLPs. One is the article about the face of the site, the other are articles written by the subject of a different article. Those are certainly valid ABOUTSELF links. The site is used as a refernce for game concepts, rules, stuff like that, not BLPs. Many editors have added links to the site because it is authority/player site for game stuff, but it is not being added now to BLP articles -- even though back in 2003-2004 when former admin User:CryptoDerk created the oringal poker player content in the Wikipedia he used this site for the basis of his articles because there was no other bio-type site online at the time. So again, the issue here isn not BLPs. The articles are too personal and subjective for that. The issue is that it is plainly obvious that it is an expert site that is a far better source than most for game basic practices and so on. (Actually the real issue is DegenFarang's long history of tendatious editing for which he has been warned over and over and over again.) 2005 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I found this page because I was wondering why a perfectly good reference on the "List of playing--card nicknames" was removed. While poker-babes.com might not be the most visually attractive site, it certainly seems like a valid source for a wide variety of poker information. Also, there are clearly multiple writers who have contributed to the site, not just Shirley Rosario. This is not spam but rather a valid and well-written source of poker information. Paige Barbeau (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't edit here that often and part of the reason is because of people like DegenFarang. Just a quick look at the PokerBabes site shows that 7 or 8 other people have written articles, and that the copyright is to PokerStars, the biggest online poker room there is. Reading the comments above, it's obvious this editor has been disruptive elsewhere too. I don't appreciate him saying that I am edit warring when I see at least four other editors have reverted him in the past three days. TheTakeover (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You repeatedly reverted my edits with no discussion including one article where I made 5+ edits, several of which had nothing to do with this source. That is the definition of edit warring. Next time discuss and reach consensus before overriding somebody else's work. DegenFarang (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

No offense to anyone involved, but maybe a better way to approach this situation would have been to discuss the source on WP:POKER or WP:RS/N before engaging in an edit war and labelling the source as spam (which is something we don't all agree on) in edit summaries. Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not "repeatedly" revert your edits. You removed about 20-25 links, and I undid only 9. And I even gave you the courtesy of replying to your post before editing them the second time. However, you got reverted by 2 other editors on the same links after that. Obviously, you are the only one that can't see that the site is a valid source of information. I looked up the writers for the site and they are professionals; ex prop-player who continues to work in the industry and has successfully played poker for 10+ years, a writing major who writes content for PokerStars, an online grinder who is highly respected on PocketFives and was the commentator for their radio broadcast, a poker businessman who has been everything from a prop-player to a casino manager. They obviously can be considered reliable sources. You are the only one who thinks differently. TheTakeover (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to compromise and leave Jennifer Leigh and Shirley Rosario as they are with regard to this source along with the nicknames article, so long as it is removed from Omaha, Razz and Suited connectors and any other general poker article. That is information that can be found in every poker book ever written and on any reputable poker information website. There is no need to use this questionable, self-published, obscure, spammy source DegenFarang (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in compromising. It is either a reliable source for poker rules & strategy, for player biographies or both. Also leaving the page as a source at the pages of the two site owners is the last thing that makes sense to me with respect to WP:RS and WP:SPS. Rymatz (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Please take note that User:DegenFarang removed references to poker-babes.com from about 10-20 more pages since this discussion started, using, amongst other, edit summaries suggesting that WP:AN/I has already ruled against this site being a reliable source ([21] [22] [23] [24]). Rymatz (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought I had found them all, I found some more. DegenFarang (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that a ruling is not finalized yet. CycloneGU (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

More tendatious, threatening, misrepresentations and factually incorrect editing from DegenFarang, even though now he's been reverted by at least five other editors. It would just be sad if every time he appeared he didn't waste many other editor's time. 2005 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for resolution/action - I started this to put an end to the edit war but it continues. Can somebody make a ruling on this site please? I think it is clear the site has been spammed aggressively across Wikipedia and it should be blacklisted. DegenFarang (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you point some evidence (diffs) towards the site being "spammed aggressively"? Also you're the only one removing the references since this discussion started on WP:ANI (with exception of User:2005, who reverted your edits a couple of hours later because he wasn't yet informed of this discussion). No one has been adding new references since then as far as I can see. Rymatz (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The mere presence of the site in so many articles is evidence of aggressive spamming. This is not a well known or reputable poker resource. Much of the spamming was done long ago and over the last year or two I have personally removed well over 100 links to the site on many languages of Wikipedia. It was originally used as an external link on practically every notable professional poker player. I went through this process before to remove those and user:2005 finally gave up. Now I'd like to finish the job and remove what is left. DegenFarang (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is clear to me is that nobody considers the site spam except you. I spent the better part of yesterday morning reading through the site to see if I could see your side of the argument. The only thing I concluded is that the content is even BETTER than I originally thought and I already thought it was great. Although at first glance, it looks like all of the articles are written by one person, there are a wide variety of writers who are experts in the field. TheTakeover (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am certainly not the only one. I was able to remove all of the external links because they were deemed questionable/spammy. DegenFarang (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a previous reliable source discussion on this where no one agreed with you. Everyone agrees it should not be used as a reference for people articles, which is why you could remove some links from bio articles. The ironic thing in your obsession that only you are right and the New York Times, Times of London and Associated Press are wrong is that in all your disruptive actions you have never once even said any information is wrong. Instead you make yourself look foolish by making up stuff that anyone can check in edit histories, and assert that all these other editor's opinions don't matter. We already know no matter what any admin says you do not believe you are bound by any rules of the Wikipedia. And you will just insult the intelligence of any admin who doesn't do exactly what you want. 2005 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, I will weigh in here just to say that I find this site to be a reliable and trusted source for poker information. In fact, the glossary on this site is the most comprehensive and detailed dictionary of poker terms I've seen on the web. I just don't see how this site can be challenged here. Paige Barbeau (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Previous history

When I first saw DegenFarang's name here I couldn't quite remember why it rang a bell but it did and with a quick bit of digging I found out why.
In January 2010 I warned Degen with regard to having an apparent conflict of interest vis-a-vis internet poker. His response to being made aware of this site's core policies was this[25]. Today DegenFarang made the same edit[26]. While it is absolutely fine for users to blank their talk pages they must also abide by site policy in full.
This user was also previously warned for add unreferenced material to BLPs in May 2011[27] and has been warned repeatedly for disruptive edits to BLPs for a long time[28][29].
Furthermore as noted above DegenFarang has proceeded to remove references (while this thread is open) using the edit summary: "admin noticeboard recommended this site[Poker babes] be blocked"[30]. This has not happened, as yet.
These comments, to User:2005, are also deeply problematic and displays a battleground mentality on DegenFarang's part[31][32] and may indeed constitute harassment--Cailil ^talk 16:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If that stuff hasn't happened for a long time I think that is evidence I have learned from my mistakes. I don't think it is fair to shout down anything I ever say because of something I did when I was brand new here and didn't know the rules. User:2005 for example simply issues a bunch of vague character assassinations whenever reverting my edits instead of examining them on their merits. Isn't there some kind of policy about attacking the argument not the person making it? If there isn't, there should be. DegenFarang (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not really "bringing up beefs from 2 years ago" if you've just blanked your talk page [33] to reinstate your statement about ignoring all of Wikipedia's rules. Whether you choose to acknowledge them or not, you do have to work within their framework here at Wikipedia. Making that statement on your talk page doesn't exactly endear a lot of good faith. Dayewalker (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no discussion taking place on my talk page and there hasn't been for a long time - and that statement has always been there. All I did was remove a bunch of random notices that have been there for ages. DegenFarang (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The only lesson DegenFarang has learned is he can get multiple final warnings for his behavoir and then just continue to act disruptively, most specifically by blatantly not telling the truth to mislead both other editors and administrators. The sensible resolution here is to finally permanently ban him and his IP, as should have been done three years ago when he repeatedly vandalized the John Roberts article. Bullying, misrepresentation, threats, stalking, spamming, he's covered all the bases to get banned many times. No more "final warnings" or one day bannings. It's time to block his IP. 2005 (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

DegenFarang blocked

After attempting to "out" another editor in breach of the guidelines of accusing other editors of conflicts for interest DegenFarang has been blocked indefinitely and the edit has been rev deleted--Cailil ^talk 12:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Camelbinky

This obnoxious personal attack on me by User:Camelbinky has just been posted at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [34]

"...you have an unhealthy obsession with race/religion discussions and always seem to be against any mentioning of minorities for the reason that white's arent mentioned in their articles".

I consider the suggestion that I am a pro-white racist abhorrent - as anyone familiar with my editing history will be aware, I have consistently opposed racism in any form. I call on Camelbinky to either provide evidence to the contrary (which he/she will not of course be able to do), or to apologise unreservedly, refrain from making any further attacks on me, and agree to observe WP:NPOV in regard to articles regarding race, religion and ethnicity. Failing that, I ask for a substantial block to be enacted. Such malicious and unfounded attacks have no place on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Weeeelll, it's a bit rude but I think "obnoxious personal attack" is a bit of an overstatement. ╟─TreasuryTag►Clerk of the Parliaments─╢ 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, I brought Andy to this forum about a week ago and he received a FINAL WARNING regarding insulting other users and since then Andy insulted User:Busstop and then took Busstop to the WQA to intimidate him, where user's told Andy there was not only no actionable issue by Bus but ALSO that Andy had been insulting and needed to cool it during that discussion. I pointed out that Andy had a FINAL WARNING and should get a block. Andy decided to bring me here. I would like to see Andy get a 24 hour block with the warning that a 3 day is next if this continues with his insulting manner. As for my words–I apologize for stating my personal opinion. But will NEVER back down to bullies who insult, degrade, and push around other user's to push their own point of view. Busstop has valid concerns and should not be insulted whereever he goes. And he is not the only one that Andy pushes. This ends now or I'll continue to point out every single time he bullies.Camelbinky (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want WP:CIVIL issues to be a blockable concern or not? I myself wish they were. You both have certainly got away with breaking that "policy" quite a few times. I don't see anything here that should be at a forum other than the toothless WQA. Sorry for the derail, but WP:CIVIL needs to be downgraded to a guideline. It's not enforced as a policy, and hasn't been for years. This is not a civil complaint, but it's not an issue for AN/I. --Onorem♠Dil 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I don't see any implication that you are a pro-white racist. If anything, it accuses you of advocating for a policy of deliberate colorblindness on Wikipedia. Given your long history of telling the community that Wikipedia has no business reporting that a Jewish person (for example) is Jewish, I don't think this is an entirely unreasonable description of your views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

In response I'd point out this previous comment by Camelbinky: "Your unhealthy obsession with Jews and any discussion regarding race, religion, etc and having to declare that things have to be "fair" for whites and "no special treatment for other groups" is getting annoying" [35]. That doesn't read to me as anything other than an accusation of racism. I'd also ask you not to misrepresent my views. I have stated that I consider the use of categories, lists etc to label people by ethnicity/religion etc is misguided, and that such issues should only be discussed in articles where it is of relevance to the notability of the person concerned - the latter of which is entirely in accord with current Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that in context, it actually looks like you're being accused of not being a racist. At least the latter half of the comment is, the only part that's a bit dodgy is saying that you have an "unhealthy obsession with Jews". I would say that "fair" and "no special treatment" is the same thing, so you're accused of wanting to be fair to whites and everyone else. Why that should annoy Camelbinky is beyond my understanding. -- Atama頭 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

He/she also suggests that I'm a "conservative", while lacking "deference to those who've been here longer"! [36]. Evidently, logic and consistency aren't Camelbinky's strong points (incidentally, I only consider the 'conservative' part of this to be a personal attack ;-). ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Observation Having seen several posts and threads lately where both Camelblinkey and Andy have been involved, it appears that the tone and language has continued to rise to a rather strident and combative level. I'd suggest (strongly in fact) that the two of you might benefit from an extended break from one another. If the language continues at this rate, it's likely to result in difficulties for both editors. Please back away, and regain some composure before that happens. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The fish market is open... Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I think there is hinting involved here...you'd like some seafood, Alan? ...what? (Yes, I know. =P) CycloneGU (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I'd concur with Ched here. I think the best solution is a voluntary, bilateral, self-imposed interaction ban by the two of you. That is, what would be best for all is if you two each agree to just stop interacting with each other. The other solution is to force you both to do that. I'd like to avoid having to get to that point. --Jayron32 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment  diff It seems that Camelbinky considers the defying of WP:NPA to be a Wikitactic.  The tactic is disruptive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right- Andy consistently insults other users, is given a FINAL WARNING, and then CONTINUES to do so and not only does no one see this as a problem, they then say I should simply not interact with him. Instead of realizing the reason I'm getting more and more testy and upset in regards to Andy is his continued insistence on being a bully towards Busstop and others. Are we in high school? This charge was attempted to be leveled at me at Noleander's ArbCom case and it was completely dismissed as childish there and eventually the same vindication will come my way with this user too. I am not in the wrong in my analysis of the manner in which Andy is "editing" and if admins at AN/I wont do it eventually ArbCom will.Camelbinky (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If you provide the diffs in which you say Andy recently insulted and bullied Busstop, that might help the responders here. Cla68 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I add here that I consider Camelbinky's repeated comparisons between Noleander and myself to be further evidence of his/her 'guilt by (imagined) association' tactics - totally unsupported by evidence, as usual. See for example here [37] (where incidentally, I note that Camelbinky has never retracted an entirely unsupported allegation of antisemitism on my part), or here [38] where Camelbinky also makes insinuations about other contributors - commenting on the Noleander ArbCom case he/she notes that "Some names here seem awfully familar btw, gee wonder why". So much for WP:AGF there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Cb's gratuitous misuse of apostrophes is certainly an abuse of English grammar William M. Connolley (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have much time today to deal with this and find the particular diff on Andy's latest Busstop insult, but more information on it can be found at the WQA that he himself brought against Busstop, where incidentially they decided Andy had no case or legitimate complaint. And yes I have compared him to Noleander and I will because no one listened to me the multiple times I complained about what Noleander was doing, and in the end I was right and it took ArbCom to do it. Why do we allow those that are anti-whoever complains, to come to AN/I and trash the complainer? (something that wasnt allowed at ArbCom's Noleander case) Unscitilating is still upset that I called him/her out for intentionally removing a wikiproject's banner and then after I am the one that reverted and brought it back, Unsc removed it again and replaced it with a generic look alike then claimed to have put the original banner back on his own "out of good faith since people complained", and then WhatAmIdoing called him out on the fact that it wasnt the correct banner and he changed it. I pointed out to everyone what Unsc did since he/she was claiming to have done something that is not what he/she did. Sorry I have to defend myself on such a thing, back to Andy. As for Andy claiming that calling him a conservative is an insult–isn't that in itself an insult on our conservative and Conservative users, to claim being called one is an insult? Perhaps because I have a degree in political science I know the difference between Conservative and conservative in a way I did not realize Andy did not. Small-c conservative does not mean anything about the political party. In regards to editing Wikipedia it refer's to the literal interpretation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and the viewpoint of believing they must be applied strictly as they are written. Due to Andy's comments at multiple places in my opinion he IS a Wikipedia conservative. As for his Jewish/racial editing, he does in fact go around trying to make Wikipedia color blind, what is his motive? I dont know, but color blind editing is not always the work of those who have the best interests of minorities in mind, Andy needs to realize that if he wants to concentrate so strongly and forcefully on such editing and continue to tell Jewish editors they are wrong about their religion and continue in discussions with them confusing the difference of the religion from the culture and ethnic group (and in at least one case say there was no Jewish ethnic group); then yes, minority editors will not only get offended but will consider Andy's motives to be the same as Noleander's to not let Jews or minorities to be mentioned in Wikipedia in any way. If your end goal is the same as someone who gets a topic ban, even if your motives may be different, others from past experience may not realize your motives are different. Especially if you are rude, "grumpy" (they are quotations, not apostrophes btw), and insulting. I would be willing to back off if Andy apologizes (even though he did already last week and supposedly learned his lesson, but already unlearned it) and agrees that if he insults again he will not fight against a 3 day block, and Andy agrees to lay off Jewish/racial editing. I'm willing to compromise on the last part, but not on the part where if he insults again there are not SEVERE consequences. All he's learning from this is "I can insult and be grumpy and rude all I want, because whoever complains about me has skeletons in their own closet. I can just turn it on them".Camelbinky (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So once again I am subject to be subject to insinuations of antisemitism, entirely unsupported by evidence. Camelbinky, either provide such evidence, or retract your malicious and unjustified attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: would just like to say that I find the above diatribe against Andy to be unjustified, this debate is raging all over the place with a lot of the usual suspects continually reiterating positions that fall foul of WP:BLPCAT, in the discussions I have seen so far Andy is just trying to point out what BLPCAT says, as can be seen here at the BLPN. Okay so sometimes he's rude and probably oversteps WP:CIVIL but then again, having to deal with the same editors over and over, who jump all over the place and start the same conversations on AN/I, BLPN and numerous TPs, and who ignore all attempts to reason with them about WP's take on ethnicity and religion and it's inclusion as relevant or not to someone's BLP is debilitating. Oh, and also, trying to defend one's interpretations of WP guidelines/policies and avoiding WP becoming an ethnic database, only to be called racist, conservative or anti-semite is rather a kick in the teeth, methinks. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment It is true that there is a certain blurring of the difference, though I am sure it is only in a minority of cases? I tried to differentiate between ethnic and religious on an atheist persons article and I received a veiled accusation of anti-semitism "I even checked your recent edits to see if you were an anti-semite".

I wanted the sentence to read "ethnic Jew" rather than "non-observant Jew" as non-observant is a religious reference, akin to non-practising Catholic/Protestant. In fact, as Catholics and Protestants do not see themselves as an ethnicity per se it would not even arise as a problem.

It is distasteful that these sort of accusations go on around an encyclopaedia. I have no problem with saying someone is of Jewish, or Chinese or Martian descent, but this refusal to allow non-Jewish editors to clarify between ethnicity and religion has, on occasion, been taken a little too far. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be best to avoid bringing in the broader questions into this debate. Unless it was Camelbinky who made that particular comment (and I've no reason to assume it was), it isn't really an issue for this AN/I discussion. What is an issue is that Camelbinky persists in making insinuations about the motivations of those that disagree with him/her, and then not providing any evidence whatsoever to back it up. I'll not deny that on occasion I've let my temper get the better of me, but I think most people can tell the difference between a short-term lack of judgement/civility and a persistent pattern of unsubstantiated weasel-worded insinuations. Camelbinky basically needs to understand that (a) Wikipedia has, by necessity to use words like 'religion', 'ethnicity' etc in their general sense, even if this isn't in accord with his/her understanding of how his/her ethnic/religious/cultural group would like them used, and (b) that disagreeing with someone who happens to be Jewish, even over issues concerning the usage of such terms in relation to 'Jewish' issues, doesn't necessarily constitute antisemitism. If an argument is valid, its validity doesn't depend on who is doing the arguing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

In my experience with Camelbinky, Camelbinky's participation in the encyclopedia goes beyond incivility to disruption.  (Please see comments at here in the section "Essay wikiproject" for a diff reference that includes personal attacks against me by Camelbinky.)  (1) I see that Camelbinky reverted me once, but I am not aware of any other preceding interactions between myself and Camelbinky.  (2) Camelbinky asserts that the trigger for his/her subsequent comments are the words "not an essay" in an edit comment (ref).  (3) Camelbinky asserts that he/she lacks choice, "No choice but to bring it up" (ref).  (4) An example of the sphere of Camelbinky's influence are the associated comments at WT:5 of another editor on the contributor, not the content:  one diff.  (5) When two other editors intervened at WT:5, I do not feel that Camelbinky responded as a constructive member of the community.  Replies to one editor: "is simply a jerky jackass comment", "caustic unhelpful comments", "topic banned".  Replies to another editor: "you obviously havent been following", "I'm surprised you didnt know", "Apparently you", "I dont have to answer to you".  (6) dmcq writes at WT:5 about Camelbinky, and IMO constructively, "even if you were correct you cause Wikipedia to be a nasty place to edit in with that sort of name calling and so are acting against the interest of Wikipedia.  (7) The discussion at WT:5 has been shut down, which I believe to be evidence of disruption.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating is not saying that User:WhatamIdoing is under my "influence" and I some how control that user's comments... In fact of matter my views on the 5P and most other broad ideas regarding how policy should be implemented were formed over the many years of learning from users such as WhatamIdoing and Blueboar and other long time users who knew more than me when I started as an IP over 5 years ago and went on to make this name 4 years ago. So I highly doubt that WhatamIdoing says ANYTHING because of MY influence, as What is more highly regarded and has a better known reputation than I. I find Unscintillating's insult towards What and myself disruptive. The discussion Unsc speaks of fizzled because as I pointed out and can be seen from the history of the talk page that my description of what happened is factual. Unsc got caught by What and I doing something, once it was fixed the discussion did not need to go further and there was no "shut down" of it, there was simply nothing else to discuss. It was not about the status of the 5P as an essay, if it was it wouldnt have even lasted that long because that is a perennial discussion that has been found a compromise consensus of basically "it's not anything at all" as codified in the "FAQ" section header. Unsc is new, but did bring up that question prior to his removal of the tag and was informed by What, me, Dmcq, and many others regarding why the 5P is not labeled as policy and is not. I am sorry if newbies have to question everything because they werent a party to the earlier discussions, but that's what archives and asking older editors come in to play. Yes, deference to your elders would do some good. I learned from What, Daniel Case, Blueboar, Kim Bruning, and many others alot. I never claimed to know the Truth better than they just because I can read the literal word of a policy. Andy in particular in his disruptive grumpiness makes "proclamations" regarding what MUST be done.Camelbinky (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Since when has 'reputation' been relevant in Wikipedia discussions? What happened to 'comment on the edit, not the editor'? So no, I'm not going to start showing "deference to [my] elders" if their argument comes down to "I've been here longer than you, so I'm right". I note too that Camelbinky's voluminous screed (on a debate I wasn't part of, I'm glad to say) is long on assertions, and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious! "comment on the edit, not the editor" and yet all you and Unsc have done here is comment on me and insult me "is long on assertions and devoid of evidence for anything. No change there." Insult me some more. You'll end up here EACH TIME you insult ANYONE, ANYWHERE. Keep trying to attack me. I dont have to provide "evidence" it is clear what you do, you smear and take diffs out of context. I provide background of what you are doing, if someone wants diffs they can look them up themselves. Stay away from any of my comments or activities PLEASE, a voluntary ban on contact is best I agree with those above who recommended that. So I'll be looking forward to NOT seeing you at places. Back away thanks. Any interaction on commenting on where I comment and in particular ON my comment or ON me I will consider an intentional wiki-stalking and harrassment. Best to just not come around me. Thank you in advance, and Ill give you AGF that you'll not be around me.Camelbinky (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I dont have to provide "evidence": Yes you do. Except you don't, because there isn't any. Regarding 'Wikistalking', I'll point out that it was you who seem to have the stalking agenda. You didn't have to go crying to Jimbo when I didn't get blocked for swearing, you didn't have to comment in the Wikquette alerts thread, and you didn't need to bring up your usual nonsense about Noleander and ArbCom. But you did. You even seem to bring me into debates where I've had no involvement at all: "You've been here only one year, obviously have not gone through the archives of different policy pages and learned WHY things are the way things are (obvious to me from your comments at the 5P page and elsewhere)" [39]. I've never edited either the Five Pillars article, nor contributed to the talk page discussion. [40],[41] It will be rather difficult to avoid 'interacting' with you if this involves not playing an entirely imaginary part in debates. Since you have provided no evidence whatsoever to justify anything you have said or done, I am going to carry on taking part in whatever discussions I choose, with the intention of seeing that Wikipedia policy is respected, and that those who wish to transform Wikipedia into an ethno-religious database against policy are prevented from doing so. I will clearly have to learn to control my temper, and be more civil on occasion, but otherwise, I see no reason to change my behaviour. If you insist on butting into a discussion on the appropriateness of a 'religion' field in infoboxes with a statement that starts off "Andy, what is your obsession with the Jewish people and your inability to understand that being a Jew and Jews identifying others as Jews has NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.." (so what has it got to do with the 'religion' field in the infobox then?), and then launch into a long personal attack on me, based on nothing other than your fevered imagination, you can expect me to 'interact' - here. Any more snide insinuations of racism, or off-topic garbage about Noleander and ArbCom, again entirely unsupported by evidence, will no doubt be treated with the contempt they deserve, so I'd suggest you think before you give vent again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Policies are respected you say? Oh, ok so next time you quote a policy in which I personally helped shape I'll remember to let you know, with diffs!, what exactly we meant and why you are interpreting it wrongly by taking it by the literal word. That is your problem, you come here with no information other than quoting policies. Respecting policy means knowing how it is USED, not what it SAYS. You cant proclaim to people "Policy says X, you have to do it, and you're wrong I'm right. No discussion. No compromise". Policy is nothing more than the description of past consensuses on how we have done things in the past and a guide to shaping future consensuses on similar problems. It is not proscriptive of what must be done for all time. And before you argue, this is a disagreement settled over 2 years ago at WP:Policies and guidelines, but I understand anything that happens before you were around and you werent a party too is irrelevant in your mind. Others have come and gone like you thinking policies are laws and must be strictly adhered to. Dont know where you get the idea seeing as how we've taken out anything that possibly gave that impression.Camelbinky (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Since that is not only entirely unsupported by evidence, but totally irrelevant to this discussion, which is about your repeated personal attacks on me, I have to ask why you bothered to post it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoping that feedback is useful, what I propose is that the subject of this ANI discussion ("the subject") be warned for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks.  Further, that going forward there will be a zero-tolerance policy in effect for new personal attacks by the subject, where the subject will be indef topic blocked on each Discussion/Project page on which it occurs.  Further, that the subject is not to use the words "you" or "your" in talk page discussion, as to do so will be automatic grounds for a new topic block.  Further, the subject is warned to provide evidence and avoid hyperbole.  Further, that the subject be blocked for one minute to post this warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Another comment I must say that the attitude "I've been here longer than you, so there (i.e. just shut it!)" is completely untenable on a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. Whether you have a gazillion barnstars or have been editing since the Big Bang, you are only human and to err is human, we can all get it wrong (policy, pov and so on) whether we have been on WP for 5 weeks or 5 years. So seniority on WP is not some sort of magic shield against being wrong, misinterpreting policy or suchlike.

From the same diff that Andy objects to about being jew-obsessed, [42], I quote:

• "You should really have some deference to those who've been here longer and have actually participated in many more discussions and know what was actually intended by the wording in specific policies and which policies are not used in the specific way in which they are written. There is a large amount of "oral law" in Wikipedia."

Well that's fine and dandy, but apart from lording it over (perceived) newbies, this is also plain daft - if a policy doesn't say what it's meant to say then it should be rewritten, what's all this crap about 'oral law'? "Well, yes the policy says that, but we decided this x years ago". Good way to encourage learner WP editors and kill rumours of cabals, methinks. Also, something decided two years ago, as mentioned above, is way out of date as opinions and povs change and policy and guidelines evolve (hopefully) to accommodate these changes.

Oh and there's a huge difference between 'you're a dick' (personal attack) and 'you're being a dick' (current behaviour/attitude), so for example 'your comments are meaningless or irrelevant or unsubstantiated' is not a personal attack but a comment on the comments.

Wikipedia:BITE, Wikipedia:NPA, Wikipedia:AGF CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is from Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

...

• gross incivility;

Unscintillating (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please look

Allegations of misconduct on Kurmi (an Indian caste)

User:Sitush has broken the 3RR [43][44][45][46]. But I have an admin warning me about edit warring on my talk page User talk:MangoWong. The admin who warned me has also reverted my edit,[47] which was to put a cn tag in the infobox on a claim which has been disputed for long. I do not see why a cn tag is not needed in an infobox(as claimed by the admin who reverted me and warned me), and why the admin would see a necessity to revert a cn tag. Could I request some fresh eyes here. Please also take a look at talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected.-MangoWong (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

As explained in the edit summary, a citation is not needed in an infobox or lead if it is summarising or quoting something that is cited in the body of the article. And Sitush is not guilty of 3RR, as they are four different edits he has reverted (if they're different edits, it's not even edit-warring, and he clearly explained the reasons why they were all inappropriate). Also, they are changes that have long been disputed on the Talk page and consensus is firmly against them, with nobody yet having been able to produce sources. I'm afraid we have yet another caste warrior here who just won't listen when we explain our policies on sourcing and consensus - I've tried explaining it all on the article Talk page, but as usual that gets nowhere -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, without examining the merits, but just on a technicality on first reading - is too a 3RR vio if there are more than 3 reverts. The policy is quite clear on "whether the same or different material each time" "on a single page". I've never particularly agreed with the brightness of that brightline rule, since I believe in defending the wiki, but my reading disagrees with yours. I did a 7RR once and came out OK due to the BLP shelter, and again, I;m not arguing the case. Your statement strikes me as odd though. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Outside comment. I don't see any 3RR violation in the article history; if there are 4 reverts, if I'm reading the article history right, they aren't within 24 hours. And I don't see removing edits that are against an expressed talk page consensus as, in most cases, edit warring. But I don't agree that 3RR wouldn't apply "as they are four different edits he has reverted." The 3RR policy says pretty clearly: whether involving the same or different material each time [it] counts as a revert. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, fair point, my mistake - but the repeated attempts to make clear anti-consensus changes without discussion and without providing sources is pretty close to vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: The warning I gave was for repeating the same anti-consensus edit after having had it reverted once -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just a caste warrior but one of a group of editors who have recently been tendentious across numerous India-related articles, eg: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Need_some_opinions_on_Talk:Kurmi.23Undue_weight_on_.27Shudra.27_varna, Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#Exceptions_to_national_varieties_of_English, Talk:Sudheendra_Kulkarni. There might be a boomerang to be caught here. - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it any surprise that folks with whom I have a dispute describe me as "caste warrior". I am hoping for fresh eyes here. And I also completely dispute the claims that citations are unnecessary in lead and infobox. Anyway, let's wait for some time?-MangoWong (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Individual cases of the need for citations are decided by consensus. So if you dispute it, which is your right, then you should discuss it on the Talk page and not edit war -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not see any point in discussing content issues with you. I also don't see why you would intervene by saying what needs a cite and what doesn't. You had claimed here that the lead and infobox do not need citations, that's why I had to dispute your claim here only. Can we wait for fresh eyes?-MangoWong (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are well aware that there are plenty of eyes on the article. There is a sort of debate brewing regarding whether the infobox would be better removed entirely, and certainly there is some agreement for removal of the specific field you refer to. However, while it exists it remains the case that the issue is cited in the body of the article and has been discussed at length on the talk page. Adding a cite to the infobox (which you could actually have done yourself instead of requesting one) is mere duplication and clutter. None of this is relevant to ANI. It is a content dispute issue. - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@MangoWong: Two of us opined in the edit summaries that duplicated cites were not needed, and I also explained my view on your Talk page. Now, the place to discuss content and citation of a specific article is on that article's Talk page - and if you refuse to discuss it there and seek consensus then you simply get no say in the matter. And no, you can't just keep getting your own word in and telling me to shut up and wait for someone else to come along - if you misrepresent what I have said and done and you make accusations against me, I will reply. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I will surely discuss the content issue at the article talk page. But violation of 3RR and undue admin intervention are legitimate matters for this noticeboard. Being one of the accused parties, you don't get to close this thread. Please note you may have a COI here. I request fresh eyes. You are not it.-MangoWong (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I haven't closed the thread, and I'm not stopping anyone else commenting on the 3RR accusation - in fact, don't you remember that I specifically suggested you should complain here if you had any issues with my conduct? Yes, of course it needs someone else to judge this, and I'm not for a moment trying to do it myself - but that does not mean I cannot defend myself against your complaints, and part of that was my explaining why I gave you that warning -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have notified user:Sitush at his talk page that I have reported him. He is confident that my report will fail. User talk:Sitush. I have also notified the admin who placed a warning on my talkpage and who also reverted my cn tag.-MangoWong (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This incident is regarding article Kurmi.-MangoWong (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The page is about Kurmi, a Hindu Jati. As such the article lacks sufficient religious understanding of Hinduism regarding the Jati. As already discussed, the varna system is not ironclad(unlike racism, where race can not be changed by religion), though several references that indicate approval of the Kshatriya status of Kurmis(from reliable sources) has been ignored. This acknowledgement is completely absent on the page, which is also against the 'generally recognized Shudra status' understanding too, & therefore disputed.

Comparing with pages like Catholic Church or Protestantism, it can be said that there should be no such aversion to religious sources and these shouldn't be ignored by giving excuses like "ancient"/"mythological"/"unreliable"/etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The above from Thisthat2011 is completely irrelevant to this forum, as indeed it was irrelevant in several other places where s/he tried to gain attention. This is exactly the sort of peppering of multiple forums that has been going on. The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is very relevant, considering that we are discussing notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' here as disputed. When in Hinduism at many places Kurmis are regarded as Kshatriya explicitly. The notion of 'generally regarded as Shudra' does not hold true. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But that's a content issue. And you know where content issues get discussed, don't you? You certainly should, because you've been told often enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's not try to explain content issues here. The main issue here is the 3RR vio by Sitush, (which Boing! said Zebedee claims is not even an edit war and did not even warn Sitush about, while he should have been blocked. And Boing! said Zebedee not only warned me for one revert, but also reverted) and undue admin interference by Boing! said Zebedee in content related editorial matters.-MangoWong (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're just mistaken, MangoWong. 3RR means no more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. The first revert occurred at 09:36 July 21 (UTC). The 24 hour mark from that first revert would have been at 09:36 July 22 (UTC), correct? Very simple. But the 4th revert didn't occur until 16:07 July 22 (UTC), almost 7 hours later than the 24 hour mark from the first revert. In other words, the 3RR limit was reached in that 24 hour period (and Sitush even acknowledged that in the edit summary of the 3rd revert), but was not breached. If you're asking for a block because the bright-line of 3RR was crossed, you either weren't aware that it had to be done in the same 24 hour period or simply misread the times that were logged with the edits. Either way you are mistaken. I don't see anything actionable, B!sZ made a good summation above as to what's going on, and I agree that all that needs to be addressed now is the dispute about content in the article, which isn't done here. -- Atama頭 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The 3RR is a non-issue. I found your comment on my talk page that reporting me here was a "morale boost" rather disturbing. Quite simply, aside from what BsZ has already said, the fourth revert was well over 24 hours after the first and I had already given warning on the article talk page that the changes being made were disruptive. You ignored that and umpteen other notices etc, which is why BsZ was right to jump in at your talk page and explain yet again. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, although I really do try to assume good faith, I really am starting to see what looks a lot like deliberate pushing at the boundaries, seeking to pressurise the people working on these articles, to trying to pounce on us for alleged procedural failures - while steadfastly refusing to discuss the actual desired content changes and provide reliable sources. If anyone has reliable sources, all they have to do is provide them and get a consensus and that will be sorted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atama. Thanks for your time and for clarifying my mistake to me. I agree that your interpretation of this being a non vio of 3RR is correct. I apologize to Sitush and Boing! said Zebedee for my misinterpretation of events/timestamps in this regard. However, I have one more important issue here. Do you think it is proper for Boing! said Zebedee to give no warning to Sitush while he performs three reverts within a 24 hour period. But places a warning on my talk page as soon as I make one revert (putting up a cn tag) and also makes me a revert warrior and also goes on to call me a "caste warrior" and what not, and expects me to provide sources for some abstract material which I have never desired to put up. He also claims that sourcing is unnecessary in the lead and infobox and has also reverted my edit even when it was explained in the edit summary and was only a (citation needed) tag. And is also now claiming on my talk page that I should discuss things before making edits. And has generally tried to poison the well against me without showing any wrongdoing on my part. Besides this mitake in reading timestamps, could he show how my edits are wrong (for the tirade which he has put up against me). He is also offering to support me if I discuss things first. Why should he participate in ed discussions? Why should I want his support in these discussions? Is he not behaving in an undue manner and taking an undue interest in content issues and is he not giving some appearance of showing partiality? I have also tried to explain some of the issues with him on the article talk page talk:Kurmi#Semi-protected. I would be grateful if you could take a look at that thread....I would ialso be grateful if you may keep a general eye on Hindu caste articles. I desperately feel they are in need of fresh eyes. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I gave you the warning (which I was not an automatic templated one, and I didn't think it was unfriendly) after you'd made the same change *twice*. Have a look at WP:BRD. It's an essay, but it is meant to supplement policy, and explains pretty well the way to avoid edit warring. By all means make a Bold change (the B), but if someone Reverts it (the R), don't do it again, because that's the start of edit warring (and that's what I was warning about - I didn't want you to end up blocked for edit warring). Instead, you should do the D - Discuss. Whether a {{cn}} tag is or is not appropriate is a question for Talk page discussion, not for ANI, but you wouldn't take it there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A Question

(ec) I'd like to ask for some feedback on one point, if I may. My contention is that my actions (in protecting Kurmi earlier after IPs once again made anti-consensus changes, in reverting the start of an edit war, etc) were procedural, and that acting as an admin to enforce a consensus decided by other people is not in violation of WP:INVOLVED - I wasn't acting to protect my preferred version, but the version hammered out (quite traumatically) by lengthy discussion and source-based consensus on the Talk page. I also contend that I have taken part in none of the actual content discussions, only in procedural discussions, and I have no idea myself what the classifications of the various castes should be. I'd appreciate your thoughts -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Counting this [48], you have personally reverted my edits twice. However, you have self-reverted. And the first edit which you reverted was a citation tag. You say it is somehow unnecessary. Why? Why do you interfere in these matters? You have also put up a message regarding this edit on my talk page, claiming that I should discuss before removing sourced content. Why? I think it is not part of your admin functions.-MangoWong (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See above - trying to make the same edit twice, after being reverted once (not by me), is a procedural issue and it is perfectly proper for an admin to take action to head it off - but please note that I did not actually take any admin actions in response to it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can address both of you at once. For MangoWong, I wouldn't have warned Sitush either after that third edit, because Sitush made it obvious in the edit summary that he knew he was at 3RR. As to what B!sZ left on your user talk page, I don't see it as a warning at all. B!sZ reverted you and then left a note on your user talk page that you should discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is exactly what people should do to avoid an edit war. It seemed to be more of an appeal than a warning. A warning typically cites a policy or guideline you're breaking, or cites what actions can be taken against you for taking a particular action. I see the note on your user talk page as just a request to bring the issue to the talk page to avoid an edit war and it was appropriate.

Now, as to whether or not B!sZ became involved by acting in the role of an editor rather than an administrator... That's a bit of a grey area. I do believe that the intention wasn't to try to change the article to a preferred version. But at the same time, I don't see that it's an administrator's role to enforce consensus, at least not in that manner. WP:CONADMIN explains how administrators get involved in consensus disputes, and our role is to enforce policy (such as WP:BLP) and otherwise try to keep things from getting out of hand. But trying to maintain the content of an article to reflect a local consensus seems to me the role of an editor, not an administrator. Admins who choose to get involved in that way have to take off the admin hat, and I think that in this case, B!sZ did make himself involved (if inadvertently). Since that wasn't his intention, he self-reverted before further edits were made, and I think that is a gesture that clearly shows his intention to not be involved. Any further administrator actions should be appropriate as long as he continues to maintain neutrality in regards to article content.

Anyway, those are just observations from an outside admin, anyone can feel free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate your thoughts. Any further thoughts regarding my semi-protection of the article to prevent IPs (who are probably blocked editors) repeating the same anti-consensus edits that have been going on for months? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC) (That had nothing to do with the MangoWong edits, btw - it happened earlier -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

Any advice about how to "deal with" (poor phrasing) tendentious commenting on the talk page would also be appreciated, especially since it often also gets moved onto other pages. - Sitush (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Atama for looking up my complaint and for your excellent and patient explanations. I certainly think that it should help in improving the situation. I again apologize to Boing! said Zebedee if I have been intemperate or rash or hurt his/her feelings in any way. Regards.-MangoWong (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no worries about feelings, I've been in this kind of business long enough to be immune to such considerations. But I'm happy to apologise for going a step too far with the reversions - I should not have done that last one -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

1) Semi-protection or other admin actions seem okay as long as you maintain that you're only acting as an administrator at the article. My advice though, and this is just personal advice (and may not even be good advice) would be that if too many people are uncomfortable with your acting as an administrator that you step back and ask someone else to do it. On the other hand, sometimes editors use WP:INVOLVED like a bludgeon to drive off a disagreeable admin, or play games (like insulting an admin then claiming any further actions are retaliation for the insult). I don't see anything like that happening here (MangoWong's questions about the matter are reasonable) but it can and does happen (I see it too often on ANI actually) so it can be a fine line between trying to be civil and fair, and giving in to an aggressive editor. I do think it's a good thing for an admin to keep an eye on things at that article while the dispute is ongoing, to keep the peace, and you have an interest in doing it, so I'd encourage you to continue.

2) Tendentious comments can be a trial because when people play WP:IDONTHEARTHAT or refuse to drop the stick nothing can get done. So just try to compromise, be patient and civil, and if you just can't get anywhere try various tools shown at WP:DR. Content disputes can drag on for months if people are completely opposed to one another and there is no real black-and-white answer. I wish I had a magic trick that would solve everything but I don't think such a thing exists (if it did then maybe I could get back into mediation again without having to give up hours of my schedule).

3) MangoWong, you're very welcome and I hope that you and everyone else at the article can find a peaceful solution to the conflict. -- Atama頭 22:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate those thoughts too. On this and other related articles, over the past few months there have been a lot of people making apparently coordinated attacks on everyone involved and trying to turn them into caste-glorification articles, with a lot of socks and meats, a good few of whom are now blocked (though I'm certainly not accusing MangoWong of being one of them). That's the only reason I became involved, to try to protect the editors working there from abuse. It's hard to steer a clear path between doing that, and leaving myself open to "involved" accusations, especially as very few admins want to work with these article disputes. Anyway, your advice will help me, so thanks again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, thank you. One final query if I may, Atama. You refer above to situations where there is no black-and-white answer. What about when there is a B&W answer (as in, no sources being found for the other POV or sources being found for it but which are not reliable etc) ? This is at the heart of some recent tendentiousness. Should such a situation be taken to DR and, if so, how does one judge when to do it? - Sitush (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has had a dispute with you and you have not described them as "tendentious"/"troll" etc. about a dozen and a score times. Why do you imagine you yourself are free from these characteristics?-MangoWong (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For me, "black and white" is a situation where we have a clear policy that is being violated and the policy needs to be enforced. WP:V is a policy but enforcing it isn't easy, neither is WP:UNDUE. In the most extreme cases, a person who insists on including unverifiable information can be accused of violating WP:OR, and a person who habitually does so can be blocked. But usually it's a case where people disagree on whether or not sources are reliable, in which case they can ask for help at WP:RSN or just try to find some way to agree. WP:POVN is another place where you might be able to ask for help. In the absolute worst cases, where multiple people disagree, an RFC can't come to a conclusion, and mediation is tried and fails, you could end up at ArbCom. And that's never good. ArbCom doesn't help people make content decisions, ArbCom for the most part hands out bans and blocks, or discretionary sanctions, and some people aren't going to be happy. At times it's necessary but try as best you can to avoid going that far.

Tendentiousness on Wikipedia has a particular definition, and there are signs when an editor is being tendentious. If someone is following that pattern of behavior, they should be encouraged to change, otherwise they may face sanctions if they continue. If they aren't following that pattern, it's best to avoid using that terminology. -- Atama頭 23:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I had read WP:TE and am not the only person to have pointed it out to this particular group of contributors. The NPOVN report is what caused the artiel to become fully protected for a week and, frankly, it has achieved nothing. I do realise that a week is not a long time but during it all that happened was mostly repetitive, irrelevant argument for a completely unsustainable POV (at least, unsustainable in the Wikipedia context). Almost as soon as the protection came off, IPs jumped in to make non-consensual edits, and then some registered users did the same. Then we ended up here. I will have a think about how to take this forward. Your comments are much appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding self-righteous, those of us involved in caste cleanup are seeing about 95% completely WP-inappropriate editing opposing us, and about 5% opposition which is both evidently well-meaning and following WP procedure. Setting aside specifics of individual content disputes, I tend to feel like I'm working hard to give a full story and I'm against human waves of (generally inexperienced and unwilling to learn) editors who are hellbent-for-leather to erase anything "negative" from an article, particularly the term Shudra. In the entire six months or so I've been covering that specific angle, at not a single point has an ANI, POV, or WPINDIA consensus come back to say "stop doing what you're doing" or even "modify what you're doing". Instead all we've gotten is neutral admins saying "keep up the good work." Behaviour-wise, we've had a few "don't get tetchy" or "don't fall into a revert war", but nobody outside the argument has ever told us "stop writing Shudra, stop questioning Kshatriya claims." Imagine that happening for 20 articles in a row, and every single time seeing the exact same arguments, ad hominem "you don't understand India!!!", veiled legal threats, and every single time an abject refusal to actually deal with sources that actually say Shudra. I'm not being cute here, it's pretty much the exact same argument in each article, but with different people.

At this point, either I and Sitush and the others are due for a massive admin action to target out blatant malfeasance all over India topics... or we're actually doing the right thing in the face of all kinds of emotional opposition. Again, I haven't seen a single editor who didn't appear to be emotionally involved take issue with these trends in caste article cleanups, so as far as I'm concerned we're on the right track. That's exactly why I'm glad whenever an ANI comes up, because aside from extremely small procedural slips from time to time, we are genuinely working hard to ensure caste articles are not used for caste glorification, or to whitewash the not-so-pretty side of history. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think MatthewVanitas has summed up the whole situation very well there. If we were to believe every unsourced or poorly sourced claim that castes are not Shudra but Kshatriya, we'd have to end up concluding that everyone in India was a warrior or a king, and there was nobody doing all the ordinary jobs. I have no idea which castes were what, and what proportion of castes are Shudra, but the logical conclusion of the totality of the claims the editors here are facing is clearly ludicrous -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's generally what ArbCom is meant to fix. If consistently disruptive behavior comes from multiple people at articles that are related to a particular subject, ArbCom can hand down a discretionary sanction that says that anyone who repeats that behavior at those articles can be blocked by administrators if they persist after warnings. WP:AE is set up to assist with such enforcement. It's a long road to get there though, as I said they generally won't accept a case unless (1) all other options are exhausted (see WP:DR for a list of other options), (2) there is sufficient disruption that a remedy needs to be brought, and (3) they feel that they actually can do something to help. If all 3 of those prerequisites aren't met, it's unlikely that ArbCom will accept the case. -- Atama頭 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. This is particularly worrying where nobody seems to know what s***** means or why it is inhuman and have no clue why or how this is a sensitive topic. NPOV is OK with me, but I do not think it should be allowed to become a cover for asserting inhuman descriptions to what are humans.-MangoWong (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And there ^ is the unsustainable POV again. Wikipedia is not censored. The present group have been informed of that (with the link), had it explained to them etc on umpteen occasions. It does not matter what the law of India says and it does not matter if the term offends particular individuals. It was and remains a widely used term and until recently was even so in India itself. The present deprecation of the term is made clear in the article, although it is noted on the talk page that in fact the Indian government seems still to use the term itself even though apparently it is banned. - Sitush (talk) 01:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I also find it a bit worrying that two eds who may not have familiarity with a particularly sensitive topic in some far off place should get to have an overbearing influence on a whole range of articles related to that subject. Counterpoint: two eds who have no emotional investment in this particularly sensitive topic. As noted above, it is significant that nobody with a self-declared detachment from the topic is on the anti-us "side". I hate to use the term "side", but that is unfortunately kind of what it's been the last few months. One of us gets to an article, sees a bunch of inflated claims to being "kings and warriors" and descent from Hindu gods, we do five minutes of gBook searches of actua academics, and lo and behold its a caste of bricklayers or oil pressers or chartered accountants or what have you. We find sources that say "claim to be Kshatriya warriors descended from God XYZ", so we duly note that legend/belief, add details on how the Fooian caste was registered in British censuses as Shudra and by the modern Indian government as "Backwards", and then out of the woodwork come literally dozens of new-regs, SPAs, IPs, and to be fair a handful of more experienced editors, and we're simply bombarded with endless posts of "YOU ARE WRONG THEY ARE WARRIORS NOT SHUDRA!!!! CORRECT YOUR GRIEVOUS ERROR OR I WILL CONTACT THE FOOIAN DEFENSE SOCIETY FOR LEGAL ACTION!!!" We ask for cites, we provide more of our own cites, we suggest POV/ANI/DR to every person who accuses us of horribly bias and malfeasance, we refer people to WP:INDIA, we link them to gBooks and WP:N and WP:V and every other applicable policy, but the arguments just go on, and on, and on, and on.

Not every single caste article, but I bet I can't go more than a few days of caste-cleanup without inadvertently hitting a "land mine" of dissent. There have been a very few cases of running across concientious editors who grasp that they can't exclude things and that it's in everyone's best interest just to be straight-up (see the recent history of Reddy), but that is by far in the minority. I used to be able to get a lot of work done on all kinds of topics, but now the vast majority of my WP-time is in circular arguments about caste and getting accused of everything from being a Brahmin to a Muslim to a racist to (literally) a paid editor working to defame and libel the Fooian caste or what have you. So you understand why I've been a little sensitive about it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It makes no logic IMO whether or not it is sustainable/unsustainable. And like everything else, IMO "WP is not censored" too has its limits. We won't go about writing that people of X state in Ajekika are vermin, jiljsi people are vermin, sauggfu people are vermin. Would we? It is also interesting that you acknowledge that you do your "research" (not your word) on GBooks. And my concerns about two eds overbearing influence on a whole topic stand.-MangoWong (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If your position runs contrary to Wikipedia policies/guidelines and you cannot cause a change in those then your position on the POV is unsustainable here. I doubt that many university press publications etc say that "Ajekika are vermin", but there are plenty of reliable sources such as those which say that Kurmi are or were Shudra. It is/was a ritual "rank" in Hinduism: that is a fact and although I am not aware of any censorship limits to WP articles, this issue certainly would not fall into any such exceptions because the term is being used in an appropriate place and with an appropriate note for balance. - Sitush (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My concerns would cover a lot of articles besides Kurmi. But presently the India noticeboard has been declared out of bounds for any discussion. I do not see a better place than that to go about holding the discussion on this issue in a centralized way. I did not say that there is a source to say "Ajekika are vermin". I would have thought that it was clear that is was only a hypothetical example. Whether my position is in keeping or contrary to WP policy is not for you alone to determine. As Atama has been indicating, we may have a long way to go if we take an uncompromising stance. There certainly are proper and improper ways to apply the censorship policy. It is not a license to say obscene things. Is it? It should not also become a license to say obscene things about the "other". Should it? And how do you know that this word falls under the category of obscene/non obscene when you would not seem to have grasped its meaning? And I still find it interesting that you do not say anything when I note that you do your "research" on Gbooks. And my concern that two eds should be allowed to exercise an overbearing influence on a whole topic also remains.-MangoWong (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that your concerns extend well beyond Kurmi and indeed cover a swathe of India-related content, not even just caste/community articles. I was also aware that your vermin comment was hypothetical. Turning to your main point, I am afraid that you still seem not to be understanding. Wikipedia does indeed contain a lot of subject matter that various groups would consider to be obscene. There are articles on religion, on sex, on genocide etc which often give rise to some people wishing that the project was indeed censored. But it is not, or at least not in the way that you wish it to be. If something satisfies the standard requirements of WP:V, WP:RS etc and is not WP:FRINGE then it is valid content. One of the great things about having absolutely no connection to India is that I can see the wood for the trees and sometimes I feel that there is a massive COI issue here and perhaps some people would gain from doing a little work in an area from which they are equally detached: much can be learned from doing so. - Sitush (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

My concerns could take me to any article which I could expect myself to understand and improve. I do know that we have numerous articles which say obscene things. But still. There are encyclopedic needs which may have validity. But beyond the point of encyclopedic needs, when something begins to become license for malicious material, we have to put the foot down. Whether my/your point be correct or not cannot be determined here. There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content. Whether what you want to do / are doing would be in keeping with these policies may also be debatable. I know why you bring up COI. I have known for some time that you want folks from my demographic pattern only to be prevented from editing articles related to them. Get that policy in place first. And I certainly would not go about editing articles about things like Haiku or calligraphy unless I knew something about them. Even if I did, I would not start dominating "History of Madagascar" on the basis of my Gbooks research. Maybe I could see through the spelling or check the references (to some extent) etc. But beyond that is not wise.-MangoWong (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please retract your comment about me wanting to prevent people from your demographic ... etc. Or show me the diff. It is another gross slur from you. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sitush has not said that Indians should not edit India articles; I said that people who cannot edit a topic close to them but are overall well-intentioned, like some editors we've encountered in these caste articles, should be required to edit topics emotionally unconnected to them until they learn neutrality. I also said that it would be a very positive development if more non-Indians (like myself and Sitush) would work on India articles so that the "Fooian caste" article would not be 90% Fooians, 7% their enemy Gooians, and a few bewildered foreigners like me attempting to apply WP policies to the chaos. You fixate on gBooks: what of it? That's a place to find a lot of books in a searchable format. How on Earth does using gBooks negatively impact my credibility? Should I instead be pulling 19th century Gujarati history off the top of my head?

You say There are other policies too besides the ones you name, which have a crucial bearing on deciding article content; well, let's not be coy, explain to us which policies say "even if the Kurmi were Shudra, you shouldn't say it because it's not a nice word." I'd further argue that any visceral distaste for the term that you and others evince appears to be a somewhat modern trait, perhaps a result of the Indian government/society's stringent efforts to erase caste awareness in hopes of smoothing over long-standing grudges? I have had other editors literally tell me that I can't say X or Y about a caste (despite copious footnotes) because riots are caused over lesser arguments. I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How did this degenerate into discussion on behavior of the page when I was explicitly told "But that's a content issue.". Who is playing smart here?

Please focus on the topic and don't run off to unrelated propaganda. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TT, once again: ANI is about behaviour, articles Talk pages are for content, WP:INDIA is for either calling attention (in a neutral way) to ongoing discussions on articles, or for discussing overarching issues bigger than individual editors (ANI for that) or individual articles (at their own pages). For anyone unfamiliar with TT's discussion habits, see Talk:Kurmi. His are the sort of endless circular arguments which have been taking up vast amounts of our time, and we dare not simply drop out of the arguments since he'll lambast us for not replying to him (even if it's the same issue we've already answered him on 5 times and already addressed 20 times earlier on the page). I'm confident that a neutral editor reading Talk:Kurmi would agree that "tendentious" may well apply to his behaviour there. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are in direct contrast to what User:Sitush("The article talk page and the content dispute procedures above that are the correct places for this contribution") & Boing! said Zebedee("But that's a content issue") mentioned. You can't have different standards at different places. Anyways, I mentioned already that I had presented reliable sources regarding recognition of Hindu Kshatriya status to Kurmis in many regions and at different times, which was ignored completely. These content from reliable sources are ignored repeatedly. If ANI is about behavior, it is also not about lambasting others after rhetoric and assumptions of behavior by 'neutral editors'. I can put a dozen assumptions, too which I thankfully don't. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)Zeedee was wrong about 3R as pointed out by two editors above (2)Zeedee by his own admission was actively editing and then using admin tools in an article which should not be done, he should not use admin tools in an article he is involved. (3)Zeedee is wrong about citations in the lead, Manual of Style (lead section) The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." (4)He uses words like caste warriors, which are highly racist.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

sub-section

Yogesh Khandke named party's statement::(1)Sitush: above dropped an intimation on my talk page that brought me here. (2)Sitush has called me a tendentious editor above, (linked diffs involving me), which cuts both ways. (3)(a)Actually he hounded me and reached Sudheendra Kulkarni, by his own admission, he played tag, and got along a friend of his along. (b)On Kurmi he thinks that he has taken a copyright on facts, and he puts his head in the sand, which is a pity (c)The GangaxGanges dispute is going to be a classic long running play, I think, the wp:Article titles bit was just a small act. What about that Sitush?? Isn't bringing that up puerile? (3)Earlier he brought a sock investigation against me, just because we had a content dispute. (4)Admins: let us not discuss content, look at behaviour. Though because hanging a sock requires a machine, I came out of it unscathed, I am not so sure with humans, as Sitush rightly pointed out, user:Zuggernaut, was put in the freezer, when his RfC, bomeranged. (6)I wanted to discuss Sitush's behaviour on the India notice board, as a third party input before dispute resolution, but wasn't allowed to. I will provide diffs of each sentence, if anybody wishes. The problem is bigger than Sitush, he actually is much more benign than the other guys. (7)Today's a busy day for me and can't hang on. I just hope no action is taken without all parties given a decent hearing. (8)I had suggested a non-controversial way of dealing with caste see my Kurmi sandbox (9)Another thing mentioned above is that 3RR is ok if it is predeclared this came from an admin, is that a policy?? (10)On the Gandhi move argument someone just said that Indian editing is a plague hit on Wikipedia, what are you doing about that?? Or am I wasting my time here, just like someone said on the Gandhi page or in the context "Gandhi fight for justice was great becuuse he had to content with British police, British judges, British jury and British government" Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the other member of the alleged team. I invite everyone to read Talk:Sudheendra Kulkarni#Overlinking for one of the most ridiculous conversations in which I have participated ever. If there is anything remiss in my behavior, please, please trout me, or do whatever seems appropriate. LadyofShalott 05:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry LadyofShalott, I have nothing against you, nor do I have an axe to grind against Sitush, see this short thing on Sudheendra Kulkarni, comes across as ridiculous to you, perhaps because you know that there would be no confusion regarding Indian and Indian, why dont you folks follow the same logic with the Kurmi page, well we can have ghits and books and other things but that makes one only as good as a blind man of Indostan, no one above says "sacrifice Wikipedia principles", but why do you assume plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals and the like?? Sitush/ and I had said the same thing to Zeedee, MangoWango is right with the Madagascar example, Sitush that prevents one from making mistakes like Other Backward Caste on Kurmi page, or implicating Kulkarni on his page. You were careless about a BLP, which is a display of incompetent editing.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Words like plague, caste warriors, pov warriors, hindu nationalist vandals are indeed reflected as uncivilized expression, regardless of who it is directed at. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one minds my dropping by. Just a friendly hello and a few observations. I am the one who is being quoted above about Gandhi. I do see a pattern when dealing with India related articles. India is a nation with more than 5000 years of history. It's highly complex and to understand it deep knowledge of topics is required. Just as I won't go on editing topics on rocket science, anyone who writes on this topics does need an understanding of issues at hand. I am sure that everyone involved here is trying to help wiki. There are some limitations due to knowledge and if someone more knowledgeable than us is speaking on topics then it's good to listen with open mind. I am very sad to see Gandhi termed as Racist due to his so called caste related ideas'. What can be far from truth. Gandhi was not assassinated by Godsey, I am seeing it happen now. The same is happening here. People are termed 'caste warriors' and what not. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, a lot of this "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" is pure red herring in my opinion. When I've written extensively on rather complicated but not unpalatable Indian topics, even caste issues like dress/cuisine/political-history, nobody bats an eye at the quality of my research. But yet when I have explicit academic references saying "Among the Shudra castes of this region are the Fooians", and a dozen other refs with similar or even more explicit statements, and I add and cite it, all of a sudden come the protests and "you don't understand India." Notice nobody objects to any "positive" material I add; never posts saying "Whoa, you called the Fooian caste major landowners who were very influential in Raj politics; you don't understand India!" Not that understanding India isn't important, but I think I'm doing a pretty solid job of summarising reliable secondary sources, and any slip-ups we make can of course be corrected by folks who notice a discrepancy ("hey, you wrote that the Fooians are vegetarian, but note [cite] that they also eat fish"). However, the massive POV issues which cause any "negative" content to be met with rage are far more troubling than a few non-Indian editors being slavish to gBooks resources because they're not long-term India hands.

So far as "rocket science": this isn't rocket science. Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere, and it's not like it's so complex that very basic historical statements can't be made from secondary sources. We've also been hearing the last few weeks accusations that we "don't understand what Shudra means", despite the fact that I'm actually doing cleanup on the Varna (Hinduism) and similar articles. And some of the editors here like to hammer the cuteness, so when we don't respond to that we get reams of "OMG!!! Did you see how he's tongue-tied when I said he doesn't even know what Shudra even means!?!?!" If by "don't know what it means" you mean "don't have a personal squeamishness about a historical term that prevents one from looking at it academically", sure feel free to call it that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering how "foreigners don't understand India so shouldn't write about it" could be a red harring, one should also consider assumptions like "more neutral than Indians", and "Indians should rather edit something else" the same. As far as I can see, on the topic Kurmi there is an emphasis on how Kurmis have went about for Kshatriya status, more than how Kurmis are considered Kshatriya etc., regardless of reliable sources.

As far as "Indian cultural history bear a resemblance to cultural history anywhere", kindly let us know what other places(& all other places) that show a marked resemblance in history like the Indian history? That you don't know something and therefore later learn it might as well is no excuse to keep on editing pages and then learn by mistake/debate/RFC/ANI etc. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fellow Contributor, A lot what we know today about ancient India is due to great travellers such as Fa Hien, who were foreigners. I have no qualms about anyone. Great historians from different times have written freely about India. India as we know today is due to everyone who came there and mixed in that melting pot. These historians wrote from what they saw and based on their knowledge.

Just because pediatrics and gynecology both deal with human body it doesn't mean one can be substituted for the other. I just checked your contributions and I am happy to see your contributions across hundreds of topics. I am slightly concerned as these topics are on so many unrelated fields. I welcome you to visit India. I am sure you may already have. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I say, if people can't discuss history without getting folks killed, that means they need to learn more history, not less. MatthewVanitas, if you want to perform experiments like these to find out whether what you say is correct or not, I would suggest that it is preferable that you invent your own human beings and do your experiments on them only. As for the limitations of GBooks, I think this is not the place to discuss it.-MangoWong (talk) 15:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No MV what was manifest on the Kurmi talk page, and later when my castexclass edit was reverted was sheer lack of competence.[49] The repeated reversions appear before the diff. And he had a friendly admin. Ugh.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not accuse someone of incompetence without checking around first. For example, I know that caste/class are interchangeable words in the context which you refer to. The govt of India use both, the articles at WP use both. I did say on the talk page that if you really, really wanted one word rather than the other than that was fine by me. It didn't mean that I was going to change it myself. You are making another false accusation about my contributions, just as you have done above with regards to my contributions on the Sudheendra Kulkarni article. - Sitush (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All talk and no diffs makes Jack a hot air balloon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The diff you requested. - Sitush (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any false accusations there.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No, but you never can, can you? Even when it stares you in the face, you find some absolutely ridiculous way to twist things. In recent days you have argued untenable points with BsZ about trivial stuff, with Salvio, with LadyofShallot, with me, MatthewVanitas and umpteen others. But you are never wrong, are you? You "win" (as you seem to see it) because you wear good contributors down. That is not what this place is supposed to be about. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You win Sitush. If that makes you feel better. Also [[50]]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Honestly, I need to find a way to get a hold on all of this disruptive activity, and I will sooner or later. - Sitush (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And I see that a sock/meat has been called into action again. Sitush, I agree that you seriously need to find some way to get your conspiracy theories out of your head. I have located the coordinators of these persistent attacks. If we keep inserting oceans of distasteful lies (please see my edit summaries in the diffs and see what its about)[51] and absurdities[52] and outrageously sick baseless falsities [53] in our articles, we are the ones who are coordinating those attacks. We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles. We tell lies and people object. And we also have a strong resistance to attempts to take our lies. (Please see the other edits around the diffs). So, why should these attacks not continue? So, who else is coordinating these attacks?-MangoWong (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The strong resistance to attempts to take down lies[54] still continues [55], even after this piece has been identified as a lie. The article has now been protected by Boing! said Zebedee.[56] And I have a thread on my talk page titled "Edit warring notice". I don't see why I should get such a section heading for performing one revert and for trying to tag a line which is a lie IMO. Is it wrong to try to take down what look like blatant lies, even when they are unsourced?-MangoWong (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush, I do sympathize with you. Let me check what this link means. I will get back on this in a few minutes or may be more. The text is in someother language that I don't understand. Let's see what google translate comes up with. Hang on tight soldier. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Google isn't of much help. It detects it as something else, but I do get the point raised there. I would have to give some points to the cleverness of that person whose post you pointed above. To test your knowledge about that topic, the person wrote something in Malyalam. You have no idea what those lines mean. But it does bring the same thought that these editors have been trying to communicate. Knowledge of a topic is important. Being neutral is what we must strive for, but it does require an understanding of the topic. I can see the same concers are being raised over and over again. I do hope that you do keep on contributing and try to be more accomodative. As Atama pointed out earlier admin MUST not get into content dispute. If that's what you wanted to point out earlier about the admins involved in this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Cleverness"? You think it's cute that IPs insult people in a language that don't know, and sagely opine that it highlights the supposedly vital point that we are not Indian? If anything, the example you cite shows that the people who "know about the subject" are often more interested in lambasting and arguing than making actual WP-relevant points. Again, I submit that any disadvantage arising from our non-Indianness is, per the vast evidence from many Talk pages, far outweighed by our neutrality on issues which evidently push many contributors into the realm of emotion vice fact.

We have given a big mass of people good reason to take exception to what we say in our articles - I don't care if 10,000 Indian IPs come in and object; if they don't bring in sources to support A, and can't contradict B, than B stays in. Being Indian gives them no intrinsic authority on the subject. For example, if there were a controversial and heavily-cited paragraph in Vietnam War and tons of self-declared American editors insisted on removing comments which reflected negatively on American's participation, would you say "oh, they must know more about American history, I must be wrong" or would you say "they are clearly refusing to face uncomfortable historical facts and thus are resorting to edit warring and ad hominem atacks" ? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If that paragraph had a potential to cause harm, I would object to that paragraph. And I have also provided some diffs in my above comment. I have no reason to think that the material in those articles is properly referenced.-MangoWong (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong is right in his comments. Guys here are trying to grope an elephant, and making a poor pie out of it. That is the consensus. Across a wide spectrum. Remarkable. Lack of competence. The C word. Ad hominem - Caste warriors, Hindu nationalists, pov warriors, plague, don't listen to them?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry for the late response; as the talk page was huge, it took me hours to go through. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear MatthewVanitas, I hear you. If by being neutral you mean fair and nonpartisan, then it's OK. It shouldn't be an excuse for ignorance or prejudice. I agree that what stays in wiki should be based on facts.It seems that you and Sitush have got fixated over the term Shudra. I saw the discussion over 'OBC' and 'they are considered Shudra' - OBC is category created by the GOI( Government of India). There is another category Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(SC/ST). The castes that were so called 'Shudra' are part of SC/ST category. For the list of castes that fall under the SC/ST category, check the GOI site - www.censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/SCST/SC%20Lists.pdf . I don't see Kurmis there. Yes, there is no denial that Casteism existed in India, and still there is caste based politics, but in our zeal to show this ugly face, we must not wrongly categorize castes. This wrong categorization can be the reason you may be facing thousands of people who are opposing you. The castes that fall under OBC list are not Shudra. OBC list is based on certain economic factors, but none being the historic Shudra categorization. I would advice you not to insist on the term Shudra, and to change it to SC/ST. That would be more appropriate. GOI has reservations for SC/ST category, and it has various other programs to uplift SC/ST. Let me know if you want to know more about what India is doing for the SC/ST. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 09:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclaimer - I personally have no interest to call anyone Shudra. The term was used to show the difference between SC/ST and OBC.

This is exactly the kind of logic that Sitush and MatthewVanitas have been working hard against. There are multiple, reliable, good quality sources indicating that Kurmi were classified as Shudra. Furthermore, your analysis that since Kurmi don't appear on one GOI list of SC/ST necessarily means they have never been classified as Shudra is your analysis (which Wikipedia calls original research). Kurmi, by the way, is one of the most balanced I've seen so far--it not only states that they're historically/academically classified as Shudra, but also what the GOI classifies them as, and adds in their own claims of Kshatriya status. What GOI says is not the be all and end all of anything. For example, if the US government tomorrow decided that all native Americans, regardless of tribe, should be called "Aboriginal Americans", that would not cause us (Wikipedia) to suddenly change all of our articles to that term and erase everything that's been said by thousands of reliable sources using other names. I've been lightly involved in a number of these articles, and so far have held off saying anything here because Sitush and MV have been saying it so well...but this is, in fact the problem. I want to add, though, that this is not any sort of criticism of you (Nameisnotimportant)--this is to point out that on many of these articles, people simply don't understand how Wikipedia decides what information to include, what is important, what verification means....And that wouldn't even be a problem, because educating new users is an important part of what all of us "experienced" editors do. The problem is really twofold: a number of editors, despite receiving this instruction, essentially stay in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory and continuing making unsourced assertions; the other problem is that it seems like every few days, another "new" editor comes by with the same concerns, same arguments, etc., and its very hard to change things, especially when the number of people trying to enforce WP:NPOV and WP:V is so low. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Explain the term 'historically' and 'experienced'? Let's not get into what American Govt does, we will deal with it when that happens. From your long talk I hardly find thing that adds any value. GOI list includes any caste that was SC/ST. If you don't understand that, then it will help you to do some search on this. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And if you don't understand why your point about GOI isn't relevant, then please read/re-read WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, which are our core policies which all articles must follow--not just what one government says or how one editor/group of editors interprets a specific government source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this, here you are talking about WP:OR and WP:V as our core policies. I think according to WP:V, any claim which is challanged should have an inline citation. I understand that this applies to the whole article. But on the Kurmi talk page, you are trying to explain to me why the cn tag was unnecessary in the infobox. Isn't there some contradiction in the concerns which you show here and what you say there?Talk:Kurmi#Fully protected. I have been describing the infobox material as false for quite some time now. And you don't think it even needs a cn tag, let alone a ref. You say that a ref can be provided to satisfy me, as if I am a stubborn kid adamant on some silly thing. Should it not need a cite after I challanged it and called it false. What is the problem if I put up a cite tag? Why should it be taken down and why would you defend the taking down of cite tag? I think according to WP:V, it should have had a cite tag and what you are saying is against WP:V. If your understanding of WP:V be poor, how could you explain things to newbies?-MangoWong (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)And looking at some of your previous comments at talk:Kurmi, I too had the impression that you say you say some quite stupefying and irrelevant things.-MangoWong (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article. If the Fooian caste has 45,000 people, we don't need to put the same footnote everywhere "45,000" is mentioned; we would footnote it under "Demographics" where we go into more detail as to which census, any caveats, etc. But in the lede and infobox we wouldn't have to redundantly cite it. How many times have you been told this exact thing? This is, again, why the word "tendentious" has appeared. How can it not be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for us to have "C is true [footnote]" and then you go on and on that the same page has "C is true" without a footnote? This is about as bad as the (many) other editors who post "WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???" on the Talk page despite having four footnotes appended to the very sentence they question. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

"MangoWong, it has been explained to you, explicity, multiple times that info need not be redundantly cited, and indeed its generally preferable not to use footnotes in the lede and infobox provided the exact statements made are covered and properly referenced in the body of the article." I fail to hear it because I fail to find the policy which says that. I interpret WP:V to mean that anything which is challanged or likely to be challanged needs a cite. Show me the policy which would say that info in the lead and infobox need no cite even when challanged, and you can easily have me hear it. Until then....And just having four footnotes appended to a sentence does not mean it can't be challanged. If all the footnotes are bad, the challange is valid and the sentence may need a reconsideration, despite fourteen footnotes.-MangoWong (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't challenge that by adding a "citation needed" template next to citations (like you did earlier today), as that doesn't even make sense. Instead, you discuss those specific citations on the talk page, and, if necessary, take them to the reliable sources noticeboard to determine what to do. Regarding the lead/infobox/body problem, how can you say "This statement is challenged" if it is accurately and well supported by reliable sources, just located at a different place in the article? However, because this is contentious, I think we've (almost) come to an agreement at the article talk page to duplicate the sources wherever they are needed; Sitush has kindly provided 15 sources with quotations, at least some of which are clearly good, meet WP:RS, and verify what the article states; let's discuss on the talk page which we will choose. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your first point, MW, is wikilawyering, and you know it. It is utterly specious argument. If the stuff is cited in a relevant section then it does not need citing in another section or in the infobox. Forget policy: it is plain common sense. Your second point is valid but is why consensus kicks in. _ Sitush (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a cn tag is a good way of signifying a challange and I believe it is against established norms of WP to take down cite tags without providing proper citations or reaching an agreement on talk. Its not my fault. And what would be the great problem if it remained? There are some benefits actually and I had explained them on the talk page. Why did you have to make it an issue at all? Only to prevent others from getting a toe in? If challanged, everything needs a cite. That's the policy. Saying anything against this is against WP:V, one of WP's core policies. It is nice that we have quotes on the talk page now. And acting in good faith according to policy is not wikilawyering. Quit the accusationavalanche and ad hominems. It was a valid request. And we don't forget policy. Common sense is good, but if I had been convinced that the material was accurate. You don't see me going into articles and putting up 50 tags among 25 sentences. Do you? I would just take down bad looking material, easily if it is OR, with some logical looking explanation if the ref looks bad.-MangoWong (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Misbehavior in a dark part of WP

I think I should explain what I see as the problem. The area is very dark. Yesterday, I was trying to put back the tags on the statement which I consider to be a lie. [57] [58] [59] And I get two warnings. [60]. Unfairly IMO. All my attempts to put up the tags have been reverted. [61][62][63][64]. The strong resistence to having anyone else except a particular group of eds edit the article continues. I would not mind my edits being reverted if there be some mistake or some good reason for a revert. But I could see nogood reasons only. What is the difficulty if a cn tag would stay. People seem to be misinterpreting policy, telling me repeatedly that lead need not have cites, infobox need not have cites…. How could they misinterpret wp:V Even when they seem to be well aware of most WP policies. Sitush suddenly started claiming that I had agreed to something on baseless grounds, even when I did not. [65] And even launched a tirade on me for disagreeing with what I did not agree in the first place [66] calling me vexatious, and what not, for no reason at all. All I am trying to do is take down some misleading info. But….people capable of sophisticated levels of thinking are saying and doing illogical things. I couldn’t help getting the feeling that people want to “contain” me and “other”s. [67][68] I feel that the atmosphere around the caste articles is not conducive to editing by “other”s. All this happened while this ANI is on. When it cloeses…. The situation is sure to deteriorate rapidly Either some fresh hands are going to take charge there… or the situation will continue… to remain dark. Some folks just can’t seem to talk to me without mentioning “Block” and “boomerang” (intimidation tactics?) or without giving a warning (attempts to discredit and demoralize?) veiled or otherwise. Here is another example of a warning avalanche, much of it undue IMO[69]. The expected or possible results of warningavalance are explained in the lower parts of this thread. The need for fresh hands becomes even more apparent that these goings on are even penetrating the blogosphere. I would not have introduced this here but Boing! Said Zebedee has been telling me that it has already been here. I don’t know whether this is important or not.-MangoWong (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to the blog post containing a personal attack removed. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MW, you insist on passive-aggressive measures like {cn}ing "Shudra" in the infobox when the statement is clearly referenced in the lede, and to humour you I pointlessly duplicated that footnote to the infobox. I do note as well that the word "Kshatriya", also in the infobox, is unfootnoted but you don't mind that since your "side" keeps pushing and pushing that term and working for the elimination of the term "Shudra". This is not, as TT2011 keeps implying, a case of "two sides behaving equally badly", this is a case of one "side" attempting to show all angles of an argument, and the other "side" endlessly repeating points, wikilawyering, tying up huge swaths of multiple Talk pages, and for what? Literally the only thing I'm seeing you and company do on caste pages is fight to remove anything "negative" while championing legend-based Kshatriya claims. This is exactly the kind of caste-glorification that Wiki needs to be shedding the light of academic discourse on, not promoting. And to top if off, you and company accuse others of anti-Indian bias, of ignorance of India, etc. Can you imagine how terrible Wikipedia would be if only Lutherans edited Lutheran, only Serbians edited Serbia, only Greens edited Green Party? You simply refuse to believe that anyone outside can bring neutrality, and rather than bring your personal familiarity to complement our neutrality, you attack and degrade while contributing almost no content.

Your position is well-explained by your phrase which I consider to be a lie; you don't say "I'm not convinced on this Shudra issue, I'd like to see more data." You know, I just glanced at Talk:Kurmi and did Ctrl-F to find each time your name came up, and practically every single post you've made there is simply complaining, accusing, and just generally dragging down the discourse. I would encourage any uninvolved person reading this to do the same, and by MWs contributions there you shall know him. I'm working hard to improve caste coverage, including near-total rewrites of Kayatha, Kurmi, Kunbi, Dhangar, Ahir, Yadav and dozens of smaller articles, and now huge amounts of my time are being taken up responding to emotional accusations. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with MatthewVanitas MV has brought out a very important and dark phase of history, in which people and whole communities were banished for something as simple as converting to another faith. For marrying outside the sects. I wish the debate could be as simple as calling Salmon a fish. This is bit more complicated. I would prefer to compare this to writing evolution of mankind, which went through different phases. Somewhere in between we were apes and somewhere we were tadpoles in the primordial earth. To sum it all, it isn't good to term shudra based on just gbboks powered scholars. If you want a neutral assessment, then people should stop searching with terms 'Kurmi Shudra' in gbooks. I am sure you get my point. Context is everything, just as Sitush said on Kurmi talk page. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that ANI is a nice place for playing the victim. There is a widespread consensus that the infobox doesn't necessarily require citations--I just pulled a random FA, Webley Revolver, and look at that infobox--nothing. If cn tags are applied selectively, as they seem to be here, then there's something rotten. Many of these articles indeed are in a dark part of Wikipedia, where the light of WP:V and WP:NPOV doesn't always shine very brightly. Indeed, this is taking up way too much time, and for what? Drmies (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, propagating a personal attack, as you have in reposting the blog link above despite various messages on various pages that you frequentd to point out that (a) it has been dealt with here before, & (b) it is incorrect, is not going to assist your already weak cause. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't even use the term "dark" here since POV-pushers will no doubt attempt to trick someone into using it and then accuse of racism/orientalism/systemic-bias, etc. But I do agree that Indian social issues suffer from a particularly extreme form of POV pushing. I sympathise to a degree that caste issues underly long-standing socio-economic grievances, and that people have been harmed or killed in such disputes in the real world even in modern times. I also sympathise that there may be "common knowledge" which is simply difficult to properly cite due to insufficient scanned documents online, language issues, academic bias/disinterest/failings. However, the solution to that is emphatically not to let people cite www.mycasteisawesome.com or add completely uncited cruft, nor is it setting a positive precedent to let editors like the above purge articles of their choice of any "negative" material, dump in poorly-sourced claims to milleniae of clear lineage and sharing bloodlines with gods. And rewarding them by backing down when they cry bias, orientalism, ignorance, discrimination, etc. will just encourage such behaviour. The last thing we need is a How-To guide on Orkut saying "if anyone removes claims that our caste is an ancient line of warriors and kings, make sure you accuse them of the following and they'll back down..." All we're dealing with his is a small but extremely vocal number of editors, several of whom do just about nothing but attack people on Talk pages. These editors are not like other editors, Indian and otherwise, who write and edit dozens of non-controversial articles and then just stumble across a land-mine, these are people who edit with an agenda. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note, since MangoWong keeps propagating a personal attack despite multiple warnings, I've just blocked them for 24 hours. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the same thing: By repeating that the entire world is against me as everyone is engaged in an off-wiki thing. By stating that Indian social issues are an example of extreme POV may look like the same attempt of playing the victim. Sometimes a little knowledge is very dangerous, and gravest injuries are made with best intentions. Who has got so much time to indulge in such things? I hope we are all trying to get involved in an engaging discussion. Your talk above may give an impression of having some sort of anti-india bias. I know that's not what you may have intended. I am happy to help if you need some help on India. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• As Drmies says, ANI is indeed a nice place for playing the victim - it's also a place where you can easily get hit by a boomerang. I'd invite anyone with an interest to have a look over Talk:Kurmi and decide for yourself who's trying to build a properly sourced and well written article and who's trying to protect those trying to do so, and who's disruptively throwing accusations around (including suggesting that I'm not fit to undertake admin work there because I've been accused by some liar on a blog of accepting bribes), wikilawyering at every possible opportunity, trying to whitewash the article of anything considered "negative", decrying content he doesn't like as "lies" despite multiple reliable sources, and openly advertising his agenda ("I may still object as long as a single instance of that word remains"). You can then decide if any admin or community action is needed, and if so, against whom -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I just read that blog. Wow. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yep, it's people who write and propagate that kind of venom that we're up against on these caste articles -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
      • The hilarious thing (among many) about the blog is that users (as I recall, not even just MW) try to use it as an example of why I and others shouldn't be given "free reign" to spread our "ignorance" on Wikipedia. So evidently the argument is that our editing per WP procedure is directly responsible for one banned editor with his tail between his legs putting a bunch of silliness on a blog (is it even getting any hits?), and thus we should desist editing because we're therefore hurting WP's credibility. I do note that the last is a popular line from those who are stopped from POV pushing: "I'm just trying to correct the lies and YOU are perpetuating them! This is $%*$)@*#)(! and that's why nobody believes anything on Wikipedia and it's stupid and dumb!!!" In any case, Drmies, you see the kind of folks we're dealing with here. And as noted, the blogger was involved with the huge knock-down drag-out at Nair, so probably totally unrelated to the current group of folks getting upset generally about Deccan (West-Central India) issues. Wherever we go to purge out caste-cruft and demand proper citations, we'll hit suchlike landmines of interested parties who rally to "defend" a caste from "attacks". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Addendum @ BsZ 18:22 and others: the fact that we run across suchlike people in multiple unrelated places on this topic indicates to me that, if we're serious about cleaning up caste articles (many of which get 4k, 10k, 15k hits per month, so not huge but big) then we need a coordinated method to prevent us being dragged down by every "land mine" of POV defenders we hit. We simply cannot afford to repeat what happened at Nair in 38 other pockets throughout India, as it took up massive amounts of time from serious editors who would otherwise be knocking out dozens of 1-para articles with cites per day, working on a GA, etc. We're burning hours and hours per week doing literally nothing but arguing circles as at Talk:Kurmi with people who have an abundantly clear aim to give one narrow depiction of a group, and whose "contribution" seems to almost never extend to actually writing a paragraph and putting in decent footnotes. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's a major part of the problem, that it's not just the same people at each article. The first bunch I encountered when I started trying to help have mostly been blocked, which was relatively easy because their personal attacks, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry, were severe and blatant. But at the next article it will be different people (while we still have to keep our eyes peeled on articles we've moved on from), and they're getting less directly offensive and more wikilawyerish, and engaging in what seems like a war of attrition against people genuinely trying to get these articles into decent well-sourced shape - and the possibility that there is some off-wiki coordination going on has been raised by a few people. So I think the usual DR process is not really going to work - partly because it will take ages for each one and drastically slow things down, and partly because as soon as we get sanctions on one problematic editor or group, new ones will pop up and start all the way back at the beginning again. If anyone can suggest a good way to get some sort of protection in place for a generic set of articles against certain types of behavior by unspecified editors, I'm all ears - but if not, more admin eyes on the affected articles would be very much appreciated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Not true, BsZ : I hope you are not worried if more people are engaging in a healthy discussion. This should be seen as a victory for Wikipedia that it is successful in attracting more users. If something so crucial is being discussed we are bound to attract a lot of interest. I hope you are not overly worried about not being able to prevent users from engaging in a fruitful discussion. Blocking may not work and it may give an indication of some sort of exerting control. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nameisnotimportant- this is not healthy or fruitful discussion. These people are just ruining the reputation of all indian editors in wikipedia - they are demanding special treatment because they are indians and are creating the image we are some sort of prima-donnas who whine, sock, troll and attack when we dont get our way. I am very happy someone got blocked finally for peddling that disgusting offwiki attack site all over wikipedia. Blocking and banning is the way to respond to any editor (irrespective of any ethnicity or nationality) who behaves in such a disgusting way. There are hundreds of Indian editors in en wiki and other indian language wikis, who are quietly going about building encyclopedias. Actions of these few who have an agenda (which is primarily concerned with glorifying their caste/group), is making all of us look like caste warrior douchebags. --Sodabottle (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle, that's what I have been saying all along. Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord!   I have my full sympathies with you that you think this way. I hope you do see the core issue. Let's consider a hypothetical situation:- Someone does a search in google with 'tamil terrorist' and comes up with hundreds of articles that specify Tamils are terrorists. you will be surprised how many books you will find such references. Let me know if you want a count, google came with actually 14,300 results. Surprised?

Anyways, the main point is context and knowledge of the issue are most important. I can find other ingenious searches 'Madurai dirty', 'Kasab is Indian', or anything under the sun that is very dear to someone. I am not sure how you will feel, but I will definitely we feeling very upset about that.

The MO here seems simple, the angry guys are blocked as they are too passionate and as such blurt something that goes against any of the WP principles. Anons are blocked along with their IP and that too 'indefinitely'. When some rational people refer to relaible sources, the sources are termed unreliable. People have gone to lenghts to tarnish the image of Great Kings such as Shivaji. Anyone who objects to such a claim is termed POV pusher or a sock farm, and if nothing else can be proven, they are definitely meat proxies. Sometimes the 'ducks quack' or else 'something is definitely wrong, i will get to the bottom of it' . I think we must leave such childish attitude at home. This is wiki, and it needs mature peole. Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment. I spent the entire weekend to get to the bottom of this and I can clearly see that everything that tells otherwise was discounted as unreliable. Such actions do lead people to think that something is definitely wrong. If by voicing real concerns to right people the entire band of editors from India come in bad light, then I would doubt the point in having forums to raise voice. The year is 2011 and not 19th century, and we all live in free socities.

I am very happy to see that you are very passionate about topics, and are equally passionate about things such as Kasab. I hope you understand the core issue these guys are trying to address. Nameisnotimportant (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Glorifying their caste? You have already served the verdict, My Lord! - Instead of being condescending to people who actually do work here to improve india related articles, why not work to improve some. Go ahead and maintain some caste related articles for a few months, you will know what goes on here. People who have been blocked and thrown out have been done so for the right reasons - operating sock farms, personal attacks, operating offwiki attack sites or publicising them here are against wikipedia rules. Any editor (irrespective of nationality or ethnicity) who socks or trolls should and will be blocked. This is exactly the attitude that is wrong here - "we are indians, our feelings are hurt, so we need special treatment". This is not maturity, this is pure childishness. I know exactly what these guys are trying to do - i have seen a hundred editors in different subjects do this exactly. But only these guys are trying to hide behind the whole Indian vs non-Indian thing. If reliable sources say "madurai is dirty", (or tomorrow it is established by reliable sources that Kasab is indeed indian or all Tamils are indeed terrorists) i have no qualms in adding it to the relevant articles. I can and do leave behind my personal preferences, "my upset feelings" when i edit wikipedia. My likes and dislikes have no role to play in adding content to wikipedia. If you feel you cannot abide by seeing anything negative added to a subject that is "dear to you" wikipedia is not the place for you. You are asking "Now how much sane can a person remain in such an environment." - i have given you the answer above. Hundreds of indian editors including me work here and in other Indian language wikiprojects abiding by the rules. We dont go around complaining about our hurt feelings and asking for special treatment. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:69.249.133.74, mostly at Louis Van Amstel

Resolved

 – 2 IP's and User:Jww047 all blocked for 1 month. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

On July 14, Floquenbeam blocked this IP for a week, citing "long term edit warring, BLP violations, silly threats, lack of discussion, and likely sockpuppetry." The editor involved apparently also has edited as User:Jww047. The user came off the block last night and promptly resumed edit warring on Louis Van Amstel, where most of the original problems seem to have started. The IP has already violated 3RR on that page and has ignored all warnings and comments from other editors, as is evidenced by their talk page. I've got little involvement in the page, but the problems are evident and the IP is unwilling to correct its behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've reblocked them, for a month. It's clear that they are continuing the exact same thing they were doing before. Hullaballoo, feel like starting an SPI? Is there one already? Drmies (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've had a lot of involvement with the article and, unfortunately, the IP. I've been the one who has reported the IP, and I appreciate the response and help. Despite the work I've already done on the article, it needs more, and it's hard to do in an environment of disputes that aren't even grounded in good faith. I was very close to too many revisions when Hullaballoo and another editor came to the rescue. Can someone please update this section if they open an SPI? If not, I can do it tomorrow. Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't see a formal SPI, but Floquenbeam identified the IP with Jww047; note their comments at User talk:Jww047#blocking. It looks like a clear case on behavioral evidence, with only the named account and the IP involved. I'm not really familiar with the details; if Bbb23 is willing to open the SPI, they'll likely do a better job than I would. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll do it tomorrow, although I don't think I'll do a better job. I'm familiar with the article and with the IP in the context of that article. Until I saw Floquenbeam's comments (after the last block), though, I had no idea any other account was involved. Still, I don't mind doing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And they're back, now editing as User:69.249.135.41. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll include that in the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Report filed here.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The second IP was blocked for a month. No action was taken against Jww047, perhaps because there's been no recent activity by the user, although the SPI admin doesn't say. The admin invites us to relist if there are more problems.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And Jww047 is now repeating the disruptive edits, in violation of the conditions Floquenbeam set for not imposing an indef-block on the account last week. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've relisted the SPI, but so far no result. I've also placed warnings on Jww047's Talk page, a lot of good it'll do.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The relisting was declined with the following reason: "as long as the master is editing from only one place, it's fine. I meant to relist if new accounts or other IPs show up." Not that I'm an expert on this subject, but I'm at a loss. The IPs are blocked as puppets, but the master is not, simply because they aren't editing simultaneously. Even if a check user can't connect the IPs to the master, isn't the behavioral evidence sufficient? In any event, I just reverted Jww047's last reversion and put a final warning on his/her Talk page. If they do it again, I suppose I'll go to AIV, but this is really tedious and a waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo has commented at the SPI report. So far, there's been no response to that comment. In the meantime, Jww047 continues to edit disruptively. I was about to report them at AIV when they reported both Hullaballoo and me at AIV. An admin has now fully protected the Louis Van Amstel article for one day and restored the article to its correct state. That may resolve the editing issue temporarily, but it doesn't go to the heart of the problem. This is an editor problem, not an article problem. Do we have to start another ANI report specifically about Jww047? What's the right action to take here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing at RfA

Resolved

 – Diligent007 blocked for one month by Courcelles and Glen Gale. Mathsci (talk) 08:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Diligent007 has a pretty big mad-on for is vigorously opposing Qwyrxian, who is running for admin here. This seems to go back to Diligent trying to edit war at the Cheney Mason article, which I was also involved with.

Diligent started yesterday by canvassing [70] [71] two other editors who had previous problems with Q, including one who is an admin. After Q and other editors (including the admin [72]) pointed out to him that it was clearly canvassing, he denied it and continued ranting on the RfA page. Now this morning, Diligent has returned and canvassed another 20+ editors, including two IP editors who've been in conflict with him before. It looks like the RfA will still pass, but the RfA and the editor don't deserve this disruption. More than half of Diligent007's edits have been in regards to tainting this RfA. Would an uninvolved admin mind stepping in? He doesn't seem to listen [73] [74] to anyone else. Thanks in advance for your attention. Dayewalker (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

---

First and foremost, Daywalker has a vested interests with Qwyrxian. Furthermore, what I was doing was not canvassing, per se. Merely, I was affording others, who have a link to Qwyrxian, to post their position--of either favoring or opposing--Qwyrxian's nomination. In NO way did I IMPLORE anyone to oppose Qwyrxian. In fact, this is taken from the view of another editor, to wit:

"WP:CANVASS is a real policy. If you were to persist in leaving messages for people saying 'go vote against Q now', you would find that you weren't able to do it, because you would have been blocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)"

What is important to take from the above of Elen of the Roads is that I was not blocked because, as she came to see, I did NOT tell anyone to vote a certain way.

I, in fact, have peformed a vital service, too. Bobthefish2, another editor, stated on my talk page that Qwyrxian failed to inform him of the opportunity to voice his opinion about Qwyrxian, to wit:

By the way, I feel offended that he [Qwyrxian] didn't invite me. I am a pretty harsh critic of Qwyrxian as well. In fact, I've just admonished Qwyrxian in some recent posts [2]. Way to slight your potential fellow opposers. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC). So, in this light, I helped fulfill the need of giving someone an opportunity to become involved in what should be an open and fair nomination process, and not one that is shuttered by a select-few colleagues of Qwyrxian (like Dayewalker) who want to wrap up this nomination without much discussion via denying others the opportunity to voice their position. Consequently, what I have done is in light with Wikipedia policy, to wit: "...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The addition of Bobthefish2 would improve the quality of the discussion given his real encounter with Qwyrxian, and this need not be belabored.

In fact, I feel that there's been a methodical attempt to stifle a full opportunity to voice opinions about Qwyrxian, as alluded to earlier by Bobthefish2. In this vein, is there a process to petition the invalidation of such a tainted nomination and the re-initiation of another one?

Thanks for your assistance! Diligent007 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been MIS-QUOTED. See [75][76]. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I hope I am not out of line here; I am not uninvolved, as I am the person who nominated Qwyrxian for adminship, but I have posted a further explanation of the canvassing policy on Diligent007's talk page, plus a warning for telling Qwyrxian to go fuck himself in Japanese. --Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment See also the message left me on my Talk page, here. As I stated there, it's quite clear there's "bad blood" between Diligent007 and Qwyrxian. If Diligent007 wishes to oppose the RfA based on that "bad blood", well and good, but WP:CANVASSING is quite clear in both letter and spirit. I've cautioned Diligent007 regarding WP:BATTLEGROUND, but his comments above lead me to believe that caution went unheard. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Only a slight issue, I know, but can the OP please change the wording of their initial complaint - suggesting somebody has a "pretty big mad-on" is not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination... GiantSnowman 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've warned Diligent007 and also banned him from further posting to Q's RfA space (he can appeal the latter here). If the canvassing seems to have swayed the outcome (though I think this is very unlikely to happen), perhaps a consensus here to delete posts made to the RfA by the canvassed editors, along with those made by Diligent, would be the answer. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I've said it somewhere else, but canvassing as a policy becomes weak due to uncertainty on how it can/should be enforced. It wasn't that long ago that some vested contributor was telling me something to the effect of 'editors are intelligent and can make their minds up for themselves so it doesn't matter'. It then became apparent that it's easier to cause the disruption than it is to undo it (or the full effects of it), if any. Hopefully if the Community comes to a consensus one way or another about that, policy can also be updated accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd support the striking of canvassed !votes if it comes to it. But before that might be needed, perhaps revert the canvassing on the mass of Talk pages where he's done it? (I won't take any action as I have been working with Q in some areas and have Supported, so I'm too involved) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2, among others, were deprived of the ability to be informed of their opportunity to voice their opinion about the nomination. Bobthefish2 said so himself because of Qwyrxian's sly attempts of manipulating the turnout. So, I won't make my reply long because it need not be belabored: The nomination process--certainly the process of voicing opposition or favoring--needs to start anew! My having been blocked from further addressing the nomination forum, I take it, as a sacrifice of mine in bringing attention to the fact that the process has been manipulated to disallow a fair and open process. A redo is needed---and this time, make sure all those who had involvement with Qwyrxian are invited to make their decision--let's try to make it look fair, at the very least! Diligent007 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• You are clearly unaware of how RfA works. Editors are expected to be aware of the existence of the page and therefore which editors are being nominated. Any other notification process could be taken to be canvassing, even if it wasn't. Your version, however, clearly was canvassing. No RfA will be re-started because of canvassing though; the offending votes will merely be struck or the closing bureaucrat will take the canvassing into account. . History has shown, however, that negative canvassing against an RfA candidate usually has the Streisand effect of attracting more support votes from editors keen to show that such tactics will not and should not work.Black Kite (t) (c) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
  • The way that RfA works is that all your enemies add a redlinked entry to their watchlists so that they can be alerted to a possible future nomination and get in quickly to sabotage it should it go live. Meanwhile any potential supporters or neutrals are left in the dark unless they happen upon it. The essence of RfA is that as far as possible things have to be done in secret, away from the light. Malleus Fatuorum 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• So let's make sure I have this straight, Diligent...because you don't like how this discussion, let alone your Oppose discussion at the RfA, is going, you're now asking that the entire RfA be thrown out and started fresh? Or are you in fact asking that the entire RfA process be thrown out and started anew? Either way (and take note, I am not an admin), I see your comments as an attempt to turn another discussion into a WP:BATTLEGROUND against an editor with whom you have had (to understate the case) less than favorable interaction with, and I'm calling it out as such. You've been cautioned by others regarding WP:CANVASSING, but you chose to ignore the cautions. This has progressed well into an area where a full WP:RFC/U would serve well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, Dayewalk, to say I have a pretty big "mad-on" concerning your beloved friend, Qwyrxian, seems to be very perverted and homosexual in nature. I consider that to be a sexual slur. I'm not a homo, so please refrain from using terms that can be interpreted as being derrogatory! Thanks a bunch! How do I go about reporting Daywalk for such a crass, derrogatory statement because I'm new here? Diligent007 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You're obviously unfamiliar with certain British colloquialisms, none of which are sexual in nature. This is an observation, not an accusation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, N5iLn, I'm having a HUGE mad-on you now doesn't sound sexual? Alright, you know it is, and the best thing you can do is not attempt to defend a crass statement that is untenable! Is there any administrator who will direct me to the right forum to address this complaint of mine as to the perverted statement made by Dayewalker, or is there just too much subjectivity on behalf of Qwyrxian and his posse for that to happen? Diligent007 (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, it doesn't sound sexual to me. But I've apparently been around enough Brits to recognize it for what it is. And at any rate, the comment has already been struck and replaced, so you hanging onto it is rather WP:POINTy at best, so your best course of action would be to just drop the stick. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor to me.[77] Mathsci (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mad-on is UK slang for very pissed off, angry (that's the only meaning I've heard it spoken with). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL, Wikipedia is a joke. This was my experience in the process, and I can see why it will never ever be accepted as an acceptable source by any educational institution or otherwise. I mean I knew this from the beginning, and just re-confirmed it now. It's made up of people who really don't have jobs (or neglect them to escape into a fantasy world in which they feel important via enforcing various Wiki policies and the sort--and then ther are those who so much absorb themselves in such policies that they start to unconsciously apply them in ever-expanding ways beyond what were intended by such policies in the very beginning). It's ridiculous. My daring approach to see how far I could lure the galvanizing subjectivity of Wikipedia editors for one particular editor--Qwyrxian--exhibits the fact that there is no independence in the sense that there seems to be a 'wolf pack' mentality. The wolf pack tightly controls what encompasses Wikipedia articles, and when a member of the wolf pack is questioned and called out for his censorship (i.e., Qwyrxian), surely enough the other members of the pack come to his aid. This ensures no outside, neutral diversity to provide for a free and meaningful media source. Yeah, so Wikipedia ia joke, and those are my findings I'll share with my colleagues.

So, lol, with that said, can someone ban me pronto so that I won't waste a scintilla of my time trying to delete my account on here? I kind of feel like saying, "Get me out of here! I'm a celebrity!" YAY Diligent007 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you royally f-up based on policy, and when you get called on it you attack, rather than smarten up. Welcome to the Darwin awards. Go ahead, WP:DISAPPEAR and someone who actually reads policy can take your place. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I note that one of the canvassed editors has now opposed the RfA, and managed to describe Qwyrxian as "simpleminded" in the process. I have asked them to refactor this. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say, posts from canvassed editors to the RfA should at least be tagged as such, or even blanked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Gale, lol, are you hearing yourself: blanked = censorship of what people think about some person who is about to be given enormous control over this site, which is already akin to online authoritarianism. Alright, someone ban me yet? Diligent007 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's replied and refused to refactor it, so I have given him another chance to do so or I will do so myself. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe this: You'll rewrite someone else's reasoning for opposing the nominee??? Diligent007 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I won't rewrite it, but I will remove the invective. I have given the user a chance to refactor it in case he is using the phrase to mean its less common usage of "unsubtle". Black Kite (t) (c) 21:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diligent blocked

Since as far as I remember, I'm not involved with Diligent or Qwyrxian, I have blocked Diligent for one week to prevent further disruption of the RfA process. Feel free to unblock without consultation if the consensus here is that it was inappropriate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, he DID ask for it...literally. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he did, but I think he made valid points. You all have to do some self-introspection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrismanUSA (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A sockpuppet? Mathsci (talk) 21:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not impossible...including the above, two edits total, and created within the hour. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much worth a WP:DUCK-block, wouldn't you say? LHM 21:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Check IP? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This "new" user has now continued Diligent's disruption at RFA. LHM 21:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I filed this checkuser request Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Diligent007. Mathsci (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. He has so far made a single post in the RfA. It does not amount to disruption (yet). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's quite obviously Diligent continuing his disruption. LHM 22:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Obvious sock is obvious. Diligent has now cast two votes at the RFA. Someone will need to clean up that page once the sockpuppet report has been dealt with. --Diannaa (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed as Diligent. Blocked indef - we only need one of him. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Diligent007 I have blocked ChrismanUSA (talk · contribs) indefinitely. — Scientizzle 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And Gwen Gale and Courcelles simultaneously have blocked Diligent007 for 1 month for block evasion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, uh....wow. I went to bed, thinking the there was a small problem but that it was basically handled, and I wake up today to find that my RfA has exploded in a paroxysm of technicolor hyper-drama (if I may coin a phrase). Thanks to everyone for helping sort this out. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just watching from the sidelines, it has all been quite entertaining, definitely technicolor, even 3D in fact. Btw, congrats on the adminship Qwyrx.

Fancy a game of chess anyone? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not in the mood to count, but how many "support" votes came in after the massive WP:BOOMERANG that brought Diligent's canvassing here? He's personally responsible for more eyes on that RFA, I would bet (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

24/3 if I have not miscounted Agathoclea (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

(Hopefully I am not premature on this.) If something like this happens in the future, where it has been evident that blatant and inappropriate canvassing has affected an RFA, then the bureaucrats need to be aware of this (if they already are not in this particular case), just as closing administrators of AFDs need to be aware when deletion discussions get inappropriately canvassed. The RFA would need to be weighted appropriately by the closing bureaucrat, just as would an AFD by the closing administrator. –MuZemike 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Articles like Science and Technology Center in Ukraine

I hope I am posting this in the correct space. But this issue concerns an issue that many persons have experienced (I have not but seen it happen). The article just serves to make the point I am trying to make. The subject of the article is notable, verifiable and cite-able by anyone. It is well documented by multilateral treaties at least 2). Organization has standing an International standing and is recognized by the UN and has observer status on UN committees. A Google search will immediately provide information regarding the treaties and other information (not just the official site of the org). Initiator of the article can be considered an expert in the field - International Law.
Another example in the same vein, lets say (just as an example) the article Elephant did not exist on the Wiki, and the Elephant is well known to most persons and an editor was to write an article on the elephant and post it on the Wikipedia however, it was not cited. The subject matter is verifiable and notable obviously - being about elephants. Lets say that is a given...
Obviously the criteria fits, overzealous patroller who lacks knowledge of the facts and who has very few edits at the time and had several cautions about his activities - but these are in the end besides the point I am trying to make in the end but highlights what happens sometimes.
I contend that articles such as this (notable, verifiable, cite-able) should not be tagged for deletion but rather only be tagged as not being cited when there are first created as was the case with the article in question (I want to use the article in question to make my point). Obviously categories make a difference or else all the several thousand articles that have not been cited which exist on the wiki that are less notable, but yet verifiable and cite-able could quickly be tagged for deletion because they lack cites. So the articles' lack of citations should not be a stand alone factor for consideration for deletion and should not be tagged as such. Oversight of patrolling activities may be necessary: allow for tagging for the first 500 edits but no permission to tag delete or speedy delete. Perhaps the tagger should take more time and do a search before tagging. Content editors do much more "substantial work" (new article) on the Wikipedia and anyone show wishes to tag for delete or speedy delete should just a moment and do a search for an independently verifiable source on the (first 3 links ) first page of a Google search lacking that fine tag as delete but if it is quickly apparent then it should not be tagged for deletion. Discussion is on here DeusImperator (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The answer is to add sources, not come to this board and moan about your article being nominated for deletion for lack of sources. Go...add some now. If it has sources, the closing admin won't delete it for lack of sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) get your facts straight before you spout off. This is not about the article - originated by somone else; it is not "mine" but rather one that is worth saving. Now go... do something useful... (Personal attack removed). Close the article if you wish yourself. I don't give a dame about that article, I do about the process itself. If the admin cannot be courteous in their posts do not expect anyone to be to you in turn. DeusImperator (talk) 00:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for twelve hours. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that a longer block would have been well justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm well conservative on the blocking: New-ish editor, no evidence from the talk page that this was typical behavior. No objection if someone wants to extend it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Which now I look back that's a 2010 welcome, not 2011. *facepalm*

Would have gone for 31 hours myself, but meh. T. Canens (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well well circling the wagons by the clique I see. Obviously a personal fiefdom where admins can launch a personal attack on and editor and suffer no repercussions. DeusImperator (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There's only one editor throwing around personal attacks here, and that's you ... we have a deltion policy. We have the assumption of good faith. We have a policy against personal attacks. You fail on all 3 so far, and if you cannot abide by community standards, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No. You are the one who is shoving your massive inferiority complex into everyone's face and are expecting them to put up with it. The problem is that we don't need to, nor do we want to. Here, it is critical that editors work with others instead of against them; editors will not be able to be productive or be an asset to the community if they cannot exercise the former. –MuZemike 22:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Starcade

User has been edit warned/vandalized warned in the past about edit to wrestling articles, user has clearly no understanding about WP:Crystal or WP:OR. A talk page discussion was opened on the wrestlemania 28 page and this user has called me and another user dense for quoting wikipedia policy about a potential match that clearly breaches wp:or and wp:crystal. Another user has agreed with my findings on the match which can be seen on the talk page. At this stage I think this user is trying to troll wikipedia wrestling articles. To make an admin aware as well, I reverted two of my own edits with my rollback tool because I made a mistake this was on the talk page. I understand this is one of the genuine uses for it. I had in error removed another users comment at the same time as adding my own hence the need to rollback so that users comment can be seen. I then reposted on the page afterwards. If you look at the edits I did not use this tool to further my possession in this mess and only used it because of accidentally removing another users comments, what this did was put that users comments back on the page which is from the user I have reported. The user has now added I am full of crap in his edit description. He is clearly not here to improve wikipedia. I would like to see this user banned due to lack of knowledge on wikipedia policies which I have asked him to read more then once and has still shown no understanding on them, his problematic edits and has name calling of other users. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC))

(Notified the user.) - SudoGhost 23:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's on. You want it to go this far, fine. You are openly asking people to accept inaccurate, prejudicially-biased and selective information, and this is NOT the first time I've been so accused, on not only wrestling sites, but on sites like BCS National Championship Game, where Wikipedia's practice of "no damnatio memoriae has now left some of the information on the page completely non-verifiable and, in fact, by the rules of the sanctioning bodies, FALSE! You are attempting, time and again, though I demonstrated your farcical use of WP:Crystal, to rewrite the storyline to suit that you do not wish to see Daniel Bryan placed in Wrestlemania for means which I can only believe are prejudicial to your views of Mr. Bryan as a character and a member of the WWE roster. I, likewise, then call for YOUR banishment from Wikipedia, Ruth-2013, because of your continued efforts to openly LIE to the community, and use the community's backing to force inaccurate, non-verifiable, and prejudicially-biased, misleading, and selective information to be on the site.

What I said to you stands. You no longer get the assumption of good faith in my eyes. --Starcade (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not lying to the community the information you want adding is a breach of WP:Crystal and WP:OR as the wwe has not offically announced the match, bryan comments of his INTENTION to cash in does not count because that all it is an intention. I am not the only one that thinks so either, I will repost comments from other users on the talk page who agree with me.

Reposting of comment by Dcheagle: The Bryan match fails WP:Crystal no matter what as its not officially announced by WWE to take place plus there also isn't any main stream media coverage, there's also no way it can be added as what you said Ruth is classified as Original research--Dcheagle 02:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You then called me and Dcheagle dense which is not on your supposed to remain civil at all times.

Reposting of comment by Evil Maldini: It makes no real sense to add the Bryan match right now. In addition to all that's been said here, we don't know anything about the nature of the match, who's to say the Royal Rumble winner might also compete for the World Title, making it a Triple Threat? Who's to say that Bryan might not change his mind (in story of course)? The only thing KNOWN at this point is the character of Daniel Bryan, in story, has announced his INTENTION to cash in at Wrestlemania 28. The difference with Rock-Cena, is that the WWE itself has announced the intention to have Rock-Cena happen at this event, OUT OF STORY and that is the difference here.--Evil Maldini (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Second comment by Dcheagle: I'm going to explain this as simple as I can, No match has been officially announced by the WWE between Bryan and who ever holds the WHC as such if the match is added again I and many others will remove it as it fails WP:Cyrstal--Dcheagle 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Link to all comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WrestleMania_XXVIII#If_Bryan.27s_cash-in_is_not_100.25.2C_then_neither_is_Rock-Cena.21

I have broken no rules here so there is no reason I should be banished. You in the past have been edit warned for disruptive editing of wikipedia which can be seen on your talk page. You information breaches wikipedia policy and even if policy was put to one side for a second there is a 3 to 1 consensus not to add this information and if admin will review the talk page they will see the issue is with you as I have tried loads of times to explain the policy, you don't listen to me. Another user Dcheagle has then said wp:crystal applies here as I have said. You don't listen. Then lastly a thrid user has also said the match should not be added as its not been advertised officially by wwe. Bryans comments do not count as wwe have not advertised it themselves officially. It has also been seen before that a superstar say he will cash in at wrestlemania, the superstar loses briefcase and lastly leaves the company before that years wrestlemania. Hence there is too many possible outcomes to make it pass wp:Crystal. The only one here that has caused trouble here is yourself. Even if policy did not apply there is clear consensus not to add the potential match and that all its is potential at this moment and time. You have shown no understanding of wikipedia polices or that you even know how the consensus system works here. And the long and short of it is even if there was no polices at play here there is a clear consensus on the talk page(Ruth-2013 (talk) 06:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

STOP. LYING. TO. ME. AND. STOP. LYING. TO. WIKIPEDIA.

That damned simple, Ruth. It's not just on this, it's on WWE Championship, BCS National Championship Game, the Final Fantasy preferred sites, etc. The only reason you may not have broken any rules is because of the fact that you have a consensus on your side. A consensus which is prejudicial, incorrect, and not verifiable. I have repeatedly stated (and you have repeatedly ignored) why, at this time, Bryan should be included. I even quoted your precious WP:Crystal baloney. You are, again and again and again, WRONG and having a consensus being just as wrong as you are makes it right as far as Wikipedia is concerned? Then cease my ability to edit. NOW.

You have also continually refused to reference the main "evidence" you claim to have to support your stand Rock-Cena is on the card and Bryan is not -- the "travel packages" you talked about on the Talk page (which almost certainly have the disclaimer "CARD SUBJECT TO CHANGE". Face it, Ruth: You don't want a 192-pound Vegan with no WWE-ish personality to soil Wrestlemania -- you were perfectly happy to watch his match be relegated off the PPV card to a dark match which was turned into a battle royal. It is prejudicially biased and not encyclopedically verifiable.

What you are effectively saying is that "I can make whatever I want to make WP:Crystal and have it removed because I have enough people behind me." If that's the case, I have no place editing Wikipedia anymore. Because, at that moment, I can tell you one more thing Wikipedia is not: A valid information source. If I want to be lied to, I don't need Wikipedia for that. I have the mainstream media! --Starcade (talk) 06:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have two things to say then I will refuse to comment any further till an admin reviews this case, WP:crystal and wp:or applies as well as the consensus on talk page. Second this user has called official wikipedia policy bullshit on there talk page when another user issued an edit warning, incase the user removed there comments I would advise you to check there edit history. I don't think official policy of wikipedia is what he called it and I am sure no one else on the talk page does either. I am not lying your edits breach policy and there is plenty of evidence of your disruptive behavior here. Please can an admin review an edit on his talk page that he has since removed, the edit version is Revision as of 06:30, 25 July 2011 he called me an inaccurate bitch. I will now be not responding to the discussion till an admin has reviewed all the evidence provided as this is just going round in circles I will be happy to respond once I hear from admin (Ruth-2013 (talk) 06:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

I don't agree with the match's inclusion on the page and I consider myself a huge fan of Daniel Bryan. So that argument is out the window. As somebody who recently had a brief disagreement with Ruth-2013 here on Wikipedia, I have to totally agree with her on this. Besides that Starcade, your frequent accusations and incivility toward Ruth, myself (in another article) and other users is unacceptable, no matter how correct you think you are. Disagreements on edits are one thing and can eventually be worked out but the incivility is totally uncalled for. NJZombie (talk) 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we have some admin attention on this please? I know nothing about wrestling, and could care less, so the content dispute here is not my concern -- but Starcade's behavior, both in this thread and throughout his talk page is pretty much a constant violation of civility policy and complete unwillingness to accept Wikipedia's process and policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to explain civility and NPA to this user. SQL^{Query me!} 07:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, there is an open report at WP:AIV that could probably use a second set of eyes, regarding this user. SQL^{Query me!} 07:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not really working though is it, if no one sees his POV he become hostile. I have attempted to talk to him on more then one occasion on this issue but he just don't listen. He has had ample talk page edit warnings on his page. As NJZombie said I have had a dispute with him also which we sorted out in an amicable fashion on his talk page without the need for admin involvement witch proves I am willing to discuss issues on here. I am recommending the user causing the disruption by put to a vote in the community banning system due to all the problems he has caused. He seams to target wrestling articles and all the edit warnings relate to that. In my opinion he is not here to improve wikipedia. I have been here a while and perfectly understand wp:crystal and another user who edit wrestling articles has mentioned Starcade's edit also don't meet wp:crystal. I am by no means a new editor here as mentiond on the users talk page.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Ruth, new or old, it doesn't warrant the behavior you and others have received in return. NJZombie (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I am more then happy for admin to look over my edits, not once have I been abusive or used bad language towards Starcade. I am recommending a community ban vote due to his bad attitude towards members. Also I will say I have watched wrestling for years and am also I fan of daniel bryan. I have followed his career for a wile I have based my comments on policy not my like or dislike of bryan(Ruth-2013 (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

I vote that we should ban him due to abusive language and false info --Christianandjericho (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have something to add on the discussion of wrestlemania, wwe's official site for factual information is wwe corporate here is a link to a press release about cena V rock which proves this should be on the article as it currently is http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2011/2011_04_04.jsp (Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

WWE.com has referenced a storyline only which of course is fake that says in the storylines of bryans intention to cash in, but that is all it is an intention. No opponent of the match is announced, in fact wwe have not officially confirmed it outside storylines and in the story lines there is only brayn saying he intends to cash in then. So this means wp:crystal is correct for the bryan match and not rock cena as per the link above (Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Also yet another user has posted on the wrestle mania 28 talk page supporting my position on wrestlemania 28(Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

Can we now have admin look at this issue please?(Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

• I have blocked Starcade for a week. There was a consensus against his edits, and his response was to go off on one, including some personal insults. He can reflect on his behaviour during his time off. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully it'll be nice weather. He can definitely wrestle with his behaviour. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for you response Elen of the Roads, however as there was a consensus against his edits to wrestlemania 28 page I have to say if he edits the page again with his edits upon his return I intend to use the edit warning system/report to admin if any of this editing behavior/personal attacks continue. Will let this be closed off for the time been though and see what things are like upon his return.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

If he keeps going after the block, that would be absolutely the right approach. This block wasn't longer only because he has never been blocked before. He won't have that get-out again, but hopefully he will be more willing to co-operate in future. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin may wish to take a look at this, I have provided a source on here for rock cena so please don't read too much into his posting saying its not valid, We also attempted to explain the bryan match is a breach of policy but he won't listen and now while he is banned he is posting on his own talk page and what is clear is his attitude will not change in my opinion link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Starcade#Then_the_ban_will_probably_have_to_be_made_permanent._Your_decision.2C_admins. From the way he is posting and his attitude I don't believe this will be the end of it once he comes back from his 1 week off(Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

Also the user personal attacked me on the post --Christianandjericho (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Look I consider it an insult to me to, it refers to us as the collective. However I try to keep a level head in these matters and this is from someone who has had the most abuse of this user in the past few days. I have been called dense and also a bitch in an edit he has since removed. I reverted the removal of the edits you did for two reasons 1 because if he sees them removed it may anger him some more, we can do without this and 2 because I really think the blocking admin from yesterday should see them. I have left a message on the talk page of the blocking admin so they can review this users talk page but as the blocking admin is not online at the minute my suggestion is to not approach the user no matter what is said by him on his talk page and let admin handle it. We don't want to make him more angry and that may be the best way for now. Just ignore what was said on talk page as from now and let admin deal with it when they are online. I know its tough but there is no point getting in a heated debate with this user as he don't listen to reason and policy based arguments. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC))

I have seen them. The user is trying the "it's your choice Wikipedia - do what I want (because I'm right) or ban me (and prove that you are (biased, corrupt or a dick is usually what goes in here)" move. Of course, it's actually his choice, he can edit according to the rules, or he can cease from editing (voluntary or otherwise). I have asked him to redact the personal attacks. If (as I sadly suspect) he does not, then I fear he will not have a long editing history. Given that he cannot understand the difference between something being voided and something not taking place at all, and is trying to use "the XYZ sports org have stripped Team Foo of the championship when it was found that they bribed the ref" to justify removing all record of the game from Wikipedia, and getting very very angry when anyone challenges this, I fear that he's not suited to editing here. WP:COMPETENCE is required for editing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Morocco article

Resolved

 – Reported user blocked by EdJohnston for edit warring based on report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• This user continueously edits sourced material, pushing Arab nationalistic ideas on the Morocco article. He removes information without any justification. He is unwilling to discuss anything nor to bother writing an edit summary. Now he's back at it with other accounts and Ips
• User:Ouail

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ouail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 09:50, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 09:59, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
3. 10:02, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
4. 10:04, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
5. 10:18, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
6. 10:33, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 440978899 by Materialscientist (talk)")
7. 18:19, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
8. 19:12, 23 July 2011 (edit summary: "")
9. 03:58, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

• User:128.12.214.56

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.12.214.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 18:15, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441171716 by Tachfin (talk)")

• User:Alphax26

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alphax26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 22:11, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 441216243 by Tachfin (talk)")

• User:128.12.221.41

Page: Morocco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.12.221.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 03:53, 24 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

—Tachfin (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you started a sockpuppet investigation report?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No i haven't. reporting here seems to get me no response. look at this again:

1. 05:09, 25 July 2011 (edit summary: "")

Tachfin (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "no response". It may not be the response you want, but there's always a response.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're right, he's been blocked for EW. I hope he'll be more open to discussion when he comes back. --Tachfin (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

One can always hope. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – I attempted to be lenient with a topic ban. Both users are now blocked. One indef, one for 24 hours Proposed topic ban from History of Islam for User:Misconceptions2 and User:Al-Andalusi I was asked by Misconceptions2 to mediate a dispute between themselves and user Al-andalusi. However, looking over their conduct on various talk pages (mine included) and the fact that they have been edit warring on at least five articles in the last week; I consider this problem to be intractable. However, rather than block either party for disruptive editing, I feel it would be a better solution to topic ban the both of them. Misconceptions2 has asked for a topic ban - and has asked the community to make it a year-long ban. I'm not sure about the feasibility of this but I promised I'd let people know. Al-Andalusi has said nothing either way. Full Disclosure: I have never done this before in my life. If I've handled the situation incorrectly please, please, please tell me how to do a better job next time. Evidence of edit warring within the last week: Revision history of Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) Revision history of Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) Revision history of Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar Revision history of Invasion of Banu Nadir PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by Misconceptions2 I was saying here that i dont mind if were both banned for a maximum of 1 year to calm us down (so long as were both banned for same length). But was not asking for a topic ban, rather an actual ban on all edits, except talk page.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oh! That's a block. I am actually trying to avoid that. And a year-long block, even for persistant edit-warring, seems a little missing the point. Can you honestly not trust yourself not to edit History of Islam articles? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Can you honestly not trust yourself not to edit History of Islam articles , i can trust myself. But when discussing in the talk page does not bring any resolution or compromise, i didnt know what to do and a lot happened before we got here. i did many things, first I opened an Admin incidents noticeboard against the user for help, and the admins told me to talk it out in the talk page. Then he opened an admin incident post against me, the admin said same thing. So we tried to come to a compromise on talk page, but nothing came of it. The user kept adding back tags at Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid)] and was reverted by me and another user. Thus, this is where we are now. P.S if possible, i prefer the block on both of us to be less than a year or exactly 9 months. Also, i dont want to be banned if al-Andalusi is not also banned.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by Al-Andalusi I'll have to disagree :) Afterall, I'm the one who created the talk pages of the first 3 articles: Talk:Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan) here Talk:Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) here Talk:Demolition Masjid al-Dirar here As for the last article, Invasion of Banu Nadir, I did explain in details the errors I saw in the article before adding the tags as seen Talk:Invasion of Banu Nadir#POV fork. Other editors have expressed similar problems with the article here. Misconceptions2 kept on removing the tags (disputed, POV and OR) claiming I did not understand what OR meant. I myself own a copy of the primary source, Al-Tabari, and I explained why it wasn't quoted accurately. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I have provided below a summary of my participation in each article: Invasion of Banu Nadir: I believe I made my case clear on the talk page here, but I will demonstrate here one of the many issues with Misconceptions2's article. He quotes the primary source by Al-Tabari (d. 923 CE), problem #3 on the talk page, as saying: "Abu Salmah gave the ultimatum to the Banu Nadir on the orders of Muhammad. Tabari claims that he (Abu Salmah) said: "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". This is understood as Muhammad betraying a previous treaty between him and Banu Nadir (alludes to the Constitution of Medina which Muhammad drafted to grant protection for the tribes and individuals present in Medina, including Muslims, Jews, Christians and pagans). That's not what the source states however. The source says that Abu Salmah was a member of a tribe with whom the Banu Nadir had formerly had a covenant with during the pre-Islamic era and when Abu Salmah went to Banu Nadir to deliver Muhammad's ultimatum to leave their territories within days for "treachery" (assasination attempt), the members of Banu Nadir were surprised that the ultimatum was delivered by Abu Salamah, who was a previous ally. That's where Abu Salmah replied: "Hearts have changed, and Islam has wiped out the old covenants". Expedition of Ali ibn Abi Talib (Hamdan): I removed the parent categories (Category:History of Islam and Category:7th-century conflicts) of the existing Category:Battles of Muhammad from the article. It seems that the lack of verification that it is indeed a parent (and perhaps AGF) by Misconceptions2 and William resulted in the dispute. On William's talk page, Misconceptions2 threatened to take the issue to ANI, while William insisted that my claim was "false" because I said "parent", and not "parent-of-parent..." ! So clearly no verification was made by the 2 editors. Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid): Misconceptions2 is opposed to the following guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Hadith regarding the inclusion of a hadith authenticity tag. He is not opposed to its application, but rather opposed to the guideline itself (in fact he has repeatedly suggested its deletion), so I didn't see any reason to follow his opinions when the guideline hasn't changed and is still valid. Demolition of Masjid al-Dirar: Removed 1850 antique reference (which was used heavily btw). That said, I admit that I was edit-warring and I believe that it was a mistake that I shouldn't have done, even when Misconceptions2 was refusing to listen. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You tried to delete the article (which angered me very much), and its still pending here. So far all users are against the deletion--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC) No WP policy was violated in proposing the article for deletion. But what is certainly wrong is your removal of the deletion tag 5 times within 15 minutes (here, here, here, here, here). I mistakenly used the speedy deletion tag with custom criteria instead of the AfD in the beginning, either case, the header clearly stated that the creator of the article should not remove the tag. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) What is also wrong is the mass tagging you did at all the "Expedition of Muhammad" articles. You added tags such as OR and POV without discussion first. At Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) you added it back despite the objection of me and William M. Connolley, and were reverted at a total of at least 10 times over a week.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2, the issue of tagging several articles (which I explained on the talk page here) was resolved by an admin who said that each article should be discussed individually, and I complied: I started with Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) and I raised my objections on the talk page here, from which I learned that you were opposed to the idea of "proving the authenticity" of what is being quoted. So I don't see why you're correlating the two events. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Also, dont you agree that if were both blocked for 9 months, it will help calm us down? i think you should support a 9 month ban on both of us. As by talking we did not reach anything--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Neither bans nor blocks are to be used for cooling down. That is what puppies and cold showers are for. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) puppies and cold showers are something i dont have :( If both of us are not going to be blocked at the end of this. i request some help in coming to a compromise with the user, as i am essentially invovled in a content disagreement which i dont want to discuss/argue here--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comments by others I've fell into the same trap before and I was blocked, for the first time, for edit-warring. I agree that both editors have badly mistaken. This DRN shows that User:Misconceptions2 doesn't listen to the community, where he still didn't get the point and took it to the RSN with his same denial. He did the same thing on this RSN, where he didn't get-it until RSN had to repeat the same statements again. I've finally pulled-out of articles he edits to save my life :p. Being a WikiWizard with no spells kinda sucks!!! These articles are related to WikiProject Islam but Misconceptions2 seems-to-be avoiding editing articles related to each tribe (having many watchers) and creates new separate articles with "invasion" or "expeditions" (having minimum watchers), where the project doesn't have enough editors to correct all that WP:OR. Something needs to be done, so I hope any solution can be given to save all of our time (for the benefit of Wikipedia). Good luck to you both. ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) sigh...i dont have time for this. you know when someone says something like "if you dont believe me, i can prove it" , then a person replies "no need" as they assume they are telling the truth , when they are actually not telling the truth. Well this is a case, people should check all the admin noticeboard and DRN links that the user above has provided, all are against him. He probably thinks no one will check the links. See also: Admin incident 1 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yep, anyone interested is welcome to take a look at the links. This is about you, not me. Good luck... ~ AdvertAdam talk 01:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) comment if you look at the talk pages surrounding this dispute - or at User_talk:Panyd#Demolition_of_Masjid_al-Dirar_edit_war - you'll see two editors who are really making no efforts at all to agree; they just talk past each other. But, they both make useful contributions. I would suggest some action against them, but a long topic ban doesn't seem at all helpful. Probably blocking them both for a while - 24h, a week - for edit warring would do; they have certainly justified that William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Yes but they're not currently edit warring as I've protected the pages. We'll see what happens when they become unprotected but any block at the moment would have be for long-term abuse, otherwise it would be punative, and we don't want that. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Comment If either or both of you are capable of contributing constructively eslewhere, then a block is not the way to go. You could both mutually agree to stay clear of this particular area for a certain amount of time, or this could be imposed via a topic ban if that's the way you want it. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) They don't want it, and as far as I can see neither will agree to stop editing these pages, but I'm still throwing in my support for a topic ban. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) In which case, I too support a topic ban on the pair of them. Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2 was blocked for an indefinite period for edit warring, block evasion and socking in January last year. In February this year they asked to have the block lifted, and it was granted following this discussion at WP:AN, though most of the reviewing admins noted that the unblock was conditional on Misconceptions2 behaving appropriately. As part of this process, Misconceptions2 gave this commitment to edit productively and avoid conflicts with others. Given that he or she has returned to edit warring, I see no reason to not reinstate their indefinite block. I don't have an opinion on Al-Andalusi. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I said If their is an argument with a wikipedia user, i will contact an admin to mediate. i will not use sock puppets, , this is what i did. I certainly did not say i will 100% stay out of conflicts per my unblocking, that could not be helped (i did not make such a commitment, please kindly understand that that would be almost impossible). I now request more mediation, if after the page protection is lifted and we both continue to edit war, then i request you ban us both for 9 months, but not indefinite as i have edited constructively on Wikipedia and created 4 DYK articles. Recently i have been fixing all the bare links in the "Expedition of Muhammad" articles, the edit war is related to tagging of articles.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with Nick-D on the point that it's not a new debate that's going on for the first time. According to what I've been through, and many many others (which I'm willing to list), the only solution to avoid a head-ache is to avoid editing something Misconceptions2 is involved in. Although, that ain't benefiting Wikipedia. Others told me it's just useless to file any claims, because he'll get unblocked just like the last time. Edit-warring is not the only problem, but endless discussions with POV-pushing and WP:DUE violations that mediators have a hard time to verify (caused by WP:Systemic bias). I gave above a tiny example, out of a history of many others. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Proposal I think a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should be opened to help facilitate a compromise, i would like the support of al-Andalusi on this. I also think that after the page protection is lifted, and we continue to edit war, i request that we both be blocked for 9 months to 1 year. Does anyone support this?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Given the length of the issue and the number of circular arguments (not to mention rhetoric like I will never accept x that dispute resolution will not work. You have quite obviously violated the terms of your unblock and although I still think that if you move on to other topics, you can be a constructive editor, I wouldn't be surprised if others disagree with me. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Given the length of the issue, what do you mean by that? Also, I have never tried Wikipedia:Dispute resolution with the user before. I should at least try. I also think i can make constructive edits, and i believe i have, that is why 4 articles i created where approved for "Did you know"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) You appear to have been engaging in this behaviour, with multiple editors, on similar topics for quite a few months. This particular issue has lastest at least a week, which is a completely unacceptable length to be edit-warring. And yes, that's exactly why I'm arguing for you to not be blocked. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 12:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) if you support a topic ban, rather than actual ban or block. Can you please kindly ban me and him if we edit war again, after the protection on the article expires. Rather than a immediate ban now. As i wanted to fix some ref format errors. Expedition of Ghalib ibn Abdullah al-Laithi (Al-Kadid) article and many others have lot of bare links, and i am trying to fix it.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Almost all the articles you created have the same problem, while many of them already have another article including the same topic neutrally. However, the community doesn't have enough experience in-the-field, so the duplicated articles fail deletions: like this one. ~ AdvertAdam talk 03:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Oppose: As some admins have pointed out, you've already violated the terms of your unblock and that means there is no guarantee you won't be doing it again and again. In fact, your "compromise" message on my talk page is very misleading and that's not a good sign. You claimed that you will permit the tags given that I discuss it first. You don't think the admins know that I created the talk pages of the first 3 disputed articles, and created a new talk page section on the 4th before tagging the articles ? In addition, your two-way-discussion-before-tagging proposal is even more restrictive than the existing guideline set by Template:POV where one tags the article and then immediately explains on the article's talk page why the tag was added. The removal of the tag needs concensus and that's where your problem is, you never resolved any of the addressed issues and instead resorted to reverting tag inclusion. In short, you haven't offered anything that can actually be called a proposal. You edit-warred claiming that I did not grasp what OR meant. So go ahead and explain to the admins why the above citation of Al-Tabari is not OR or misrepresented, this time without the disruptive canvassing you did @William's talk page with the 1st disputed article (here), 3rd disputed article (here and here), and 4th disputed article (here) and another here and here, to which William responded quickly, siding with you all the way. I'd like to say to the admins that my only work area in Wikipedia has been the History of Medieval Islamic civilization (culture, religion and science). A topic ban would essentially mean a ban for me, and I would find that to be unfair; I don't understand why I'm even considered to be in the same boat as another editor notorious for edit-warring and questionable editing ? Apparently, he has given up already and now asking for a ban. To him, WP has been a "gaming" experience where he could end it (or restart it ?) whenever he fails or gets caught. His insistence on getting himself banned is really bizarre, and I really don't see myself going down with him after all the time and effort I've spent here. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I find it disappointing that Al-A is unable to make any positive response to M2's attempt at compromise. The above says "No Compromise", and shows no acknowledgement of Al-A's part in the tagging mini-edit-war William M. Connolley (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC) I know no one else is interested in this, but could we try and reach consensus here soon? My talk page is becoming a quagmire and I really think a simple topic ban will fix it. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 10:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2's proposal can be hardly called a "compromise". He is suggesting that any OR, POV tag be added only after a concensus is reached on the talk page (my understanding of his "two-way discussion" statement) which not only violates that existing Template:OR and Template:POV policies that already allow one to tag as long as an explanation is provided immediately on the TP, but it also unrealistic and defeats the purpose of using those OR and POV tags; these tags were created to indicate DISAGREEMENT over content's accuracy, so how does it makes sense to add those "disagreement tags" only when an agreement is reached ! Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Misconceptions2 blocked I've just blocked Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs) for the reasons given on their talk page. In short, the decision to unblock Misconceptions2 was conditional on him or her not edit warring. They've obviously breached this condition and the above discussion seems to be an attempt to continue the dispute and set their own conditions for remaining unblocked while playing word games with the commitments they gave when asking to be unblocked. I'm (of course) happy for other admins to review this decision, but I think that it's pretty clear cut given the history and the way this discussion is going. I haven't examined the conduct of Al-Andalusi (talk · contribs), though they've obviously also been edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Another IP Editor changing hockey player stats

70.30.46.113 is the guilty party this time. I noticed edits to Nail Yakupov, which I created and thus have watchlisted, suggesting he's now 6'0" (still not confirmed) and changing the 101 points to 141 points (which another IP already changed back). I did not report on this sooner as I am returning from an extended power outage; there was a tornado not far from here and it knocked out some towers, rendering me unable to check anything for over a day. I just reversed the wrong height and weight.

NEway, back to the IP. On that contribution history I also noticed some other height and weight changes. I haven't bothered with warnings as I am tired ATM and will screw something up. Wonder if this is the same person as someone else we recently discussed. CycloneGU (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I find it troublesome when the IP has nothing on its talk page (and no edits were deleted). I wouldn't quite use warnings yet (yes, I AGF way too much). Besides, the IP has stopped for the last few hours, so I don't know if we need to block him. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This kinda of vandalism is pretty standard, although perhaps under recognized. I'm not sure whether or not this editor is one of those vandals, but the changing of birthdates and height/weight is pretty common... this is not a rare sort of vandalism, if that's what it is. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

...if any player agent is using Wikipedia stats as a reference for upcoming contract negotiations, fire'em! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, I agree. Changing Wikipedia to suit their needs and adding an extra inch just before going into s meeting, and when they bring up the player profile in the meeting..."Uh, that's not right, let me correct that information...why is it not staying, my info is right!"

Seriously, though, I have seen it a few times. I just wondered if there was a connection to another vandal and wanted to report it. I did see another IP changing information but that one only edited Nail Yakupov and nothing else, so I wasn't going to accuse it of vandalism. It did change to the same 6' however. CycloneGU (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That IS a standard / common type of vandalism. I suggest.....when in doubt, revert the changes as unsourced, and tell them to come to talk if they are serious. That usually resolves it either way. And if it is persistent, take it to a notice board to get a few weeks of protection for the article or for action against the IP. North8000 (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is common, we get it all the time. A tag was made so that we could easily identify it and revert. Just revert it when you see it and move on. If you want to verify just look at the nhl.com profile for the player. Sometimes there are legit changes as the players profile changes sometimes. -DJSasso (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In cases like Nail Yakupov that isn't an option yet. I don't doubt, however, that he'll have one in a year's time the way he's playing. But I don't have a crystal ball. The Sting have a new head coach who is signing new talent left and right; the team on the ice this year is going to be DRAMATICALLY different this year, and this new coach is basically trying to get new talent that can back up Yakupov, Ritchie (now a Dallas Star but sticking around another year), and Galchenyuk. This reminds me; I should update the Sting article if it isn't already with the new head coach. CycloneGU (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just recapping one point, you don't have to prove it wrong to revert it. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I know. I just have the information from a source that appears to be updated (after all, he was 5'10" last season, so 5'11" at another source is sensible). CycloneGU (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I love it, Bwilkins! That comment made me
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Report of Vandalism

Resolved

 – See below. --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian people is constantly vandalised by IP users. -- 7D HMS (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to report this at WP:RFPP. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking as resolved, page was protected by User:Favonian ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite)) --Taelus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rfellows

For several years, I've had a number of articles in the technology virtualization space on my watchlist. At one point, almost all of them were laden with spam and article spam. I've worked with WikiProject Spam and other users to try to clean as many of these up as was possible. Over the years, this has upset a number of single-purpose advertisers with blatant conflicts of interest. Some have been willing to recognize Wikipedia is not the place for their campaigns, while others have taken more convincing.

All that being said, for nearly the past two weeks, Rfellows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been on an all-too-familiar campaign to first try to convince me his spam is good and then to try to threaten me to accept his additions — or else. Based on the limited purpose of his editing for the past year, I believe he may be affiliated in some way with a storage industry association known as the Storage Performance Council. He has edited, on numerous occasions, to include various vendors associated with that organization in a number of articles (to varying degrees of success).

Today, he took his first "retaliatory" edit, reverting my removal of three non-notable products that do not have articles on Wikipedia (one deleted in the recent past as being part of an article spam campaign, as a matter of fact). He had never edited the article prior to today, and it was the most recent article in my contributions lists (which he has now taken to stalking).

I simply no longer have time to edit Wikipedia often enough to deal with persistent but subtle spammers like User:Rfellows. Drive-by-spam I can clean up, but this is a different situation entirely. The limited amount of time I have had to edit for the past few weeks has been taken up dealing with his threats on my talk page. I've seen the exact same behaviour from other subtle spammers in the past (User:Jcalamity being one of the most recent), and I doubt he will give up and move on to more productive editing voluntarily. Any assistance would be appreciated. I would bring this up at WikiProject Spam, but my past experience is that the talk page there gets too little traffic to be effective at dealing with these sorts of issues. jæs (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct link is actually Rfellows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) by the way... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, corrected above. I'm getting a little rusty. jæs (talk) 20:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

208.180.21.117

208.180.21.117 (talk · contribs) is engaged in on-and-off disruptive editing, which recently degraded further into edit warring. They account seems to be SPAs and frequent committee of vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonBolivar20112 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This IP has done similar things about 3 months ago. I know it's a bit harsh, but I have blocked the IP for 1 week on that premise. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't appear to be too harsh, I was just investigating - this IP consistently removes embarrassing material about Bill Flores, almost exclusively edits this article and deems other users referenced contributions to be "vandalism" as justification for removing them. Oh, and the IP traces back to near Wellborn, TX and guess what? Flores just happens to be the U.S. Representative for Texas's 17th congressional district. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

What about semi-protecting the article for a while? Mjroots (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Protection is normally only done if there are multiple parties causing disruption and block is ineffective as deterrence. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil es by IP 98.27.74.206

98.27.74.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has some nasty judgements on editors in edit summaries: [78], [79], [80] and [81]. After I pointed to this uncivilty at their talkpage, my rv in an article was reverted by the IP with this es: [82]. Could someone write some words to or a block for this person? And, rv the article to the original text? Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done Blocked 24 hourse for WP:NPA. Lets see what he decides to do tomorrow. --Jayron32 19:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The IP probably has a fair point in regards to the edit though. John lilburne (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevent to the block. People with fair points need to make them fairly if they wish to be heard. If he wants to make a point, he can do so without calling people scum. --Jayron32 19:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

incivility by User:Sahuagin at Talk:Unified Modeling Language‎

The 3RR noticeboard is this way, and the dispute resolution noticeboard is that way. AN/I is not an appropriate venue to discuss content issues.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not assuming good faith here and has called two other editors liars here and here while pushing opinion on a recently added phrase. I requested a retraction but none was given. I'm afraid that this will just escalate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I can't see why he thinks he's being lied to, but User:Ottomachin's contributions look distinctly dodgy to me [83]. He is indeed adding unsourced criticism and personal opinion - that statement "...cannot be taken seriously" appears to be nothing but personal opinion. If this was about a person, not a very obscure technical artefact, the whole lot would have been out long ago. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Having studied UML for a time in the past, I'll second the personal-opinion statement. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bully tactics by User:Debresser

Resolved

 – No need for admin action, parties just needed a little bit of informal mediation. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I recently created a maintenance category Category:All pages with excessive dablinks. User:Debresser apparently disapproves, and came to my page demanding an explanation. Here's the discussion, I'll let it speak for itself. Personally, I consider his behavior uncivil and bullying, and would like to get some opinions here. Thanks, --JaGa^talk 22:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in your opinions on this matter. Was surprised to see the WP:ANI-notice appear on my talkpage over such a thing. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd opinion(s):

• JaGa, I think you might have read an attitude into Debresser's original query that wasn't there. If I had received a question worded like that, I would have just answered it; taking offense wouldn't have occured to me. Is there a past history between you two I don't know about?
• Debresser, it would have been nice to see you turn the other cheek, and say something along the lines of "I'm not criticising, I'm asking" instead of reverting the addition. Is there a past history between you two I don't know about?
• Like so many conflicts that arise here, this seems to have started out as a misunderstanding caught in a negative feedback loop.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No history. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Post #1 by Debresser was fine.

Post #2 by JaGa was... acceptable but not the best choice.

Post #3 by Debresser did not help the situation.

Post #4 by JaGa was needless escalation, could have been handled better.

Post #5 by Debresser was needless escalation, could have been handled better.

Posts #6 and #7 by JaGa and Debrasser in that order are kinda ironic, kinda silly, and not all that helpful in resolving the now mildly heated dispute.

Both of you go to the fishmarker, pick up a fish larger than a minnow, smaller than a trout, and hit yourselves with said fish. Then go back and calmly restart the conversation by starting over at Post #2.

No admin action is needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Will see on talkpage if other reply to my initial question will be forthcoming. Debresser (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

JaGa seems to have a hard time just answering the question. His reaction was no better the second time around, just a little more politely worded. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Faking smiles for the sake of not killing each other is always a good thing.

As to my thoughts on the issue at hand, as someone who does a lot of backlog work, I tend to like to have backlog trees available (i.e. a Category:XXXs needing YYYs, with subcategories Category:XXXs needing YYYs from July 2011) because a) it makes it easier to prioritize on the oldest issues, and b) looking at a backlog page of 30 items is less daunting than looking at one with 2000 items. At the same time, I know people that like having huge lists, so they can pick items that interest them. There's no reason not to have both, assuming both are kept equally populated, and both link to one another.

Therefore I declare you both right, (but also both wrong for letting it get to this state), and recommend that you continue to at least fake smiles towards one another. Also, if you two can manage not to come across each other for a week, that always helps. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

GNAA COI, OWNing and votestacking

Hello folks. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar. Anyway, yesterday, I stumbled across the article at Gay Niggers Association of America while reading up on the old Scientology ArbCom case, and noticed it seemed a little - biased. As such, I drive-by-tagged it (apologies), and after the tag was removed, attempted to make a few changes myself. I made one (admittedly incomplete) content edit, trying to swing the article back to a more neutral state. Another user, LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again. So, I looked through the edit history and associated contributions, as one does. I noted that LiteralKa almost exclusively edits articles related to GNAA et al., and so I Googled the username. Not at all to my surprise, 'LiteralKa' is 'Director of Public Relations' for the GNAA group. I didn't think that LiteralKa's editing of the article was in the least bit appropriate, so I dropped him a note about COI. LiteralKa and I had a brief talk page discussion, and we left the matter at that. However, I also had a quick look at his contributions, and spotted a few AFDs LiteralKa had been involved in, as well as a history of 'owning' the GNAA and related articles. I'm going to make the following claims, therefore:

• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) is the Director of Public Relations at GNAA.
• Therefore, LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regards to the GNAA and related organisations, and is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect.
• LiteralKa (talk · contribs) has recently created some particularly pointy AFDs, both of which have the acronym 'GNAA':

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilford Native American Association (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry
• I wanted to close these as 'disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point', but I think it'd be best to let them run. There's also Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica, which LiteralKa has shown an interest in.

• There seem to be a host of SPAs, meatpuppets and potential GNAA members who edit GNAA articles, for example:

• Prozak (talk · contribs)
• 24.57.119.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• TrollHistorian (talk · contribs)
• NPrice (talk · contribs)
• Murdox (talk · contribs)

In short, then, I'm asking what we can do about this. Ideally, I'd like to get editors with a COI, like LiteralKa, to leave the GNAA article alone so that sensible, uninvolved folk can work on it. Some sort of topic ban? Community-endorsed? The Cavalry (Message me) 22:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ban all forever. Don't forget snaphat (talk · contribs). See also this after I opposed the recreation of the GNAA article in February.  Diego  talk  22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That LiteralKa is associated with GNAA is not at all news to anyone who spends time at #wikipedia-en, where LiteralKa is a regular. As far as IRC members go, he has recently ranged from mildly constructive to mildly disruptive, but has previously had a history of being banned from that channel and socking to get around that ban, and spent a few days as the single most disruptive troll that I've seen in IRC space in the time I've spent there, which is nearly a year.

What does this mean for actual Wikipedia? It means that LiteralKa has proven that he has access to effective proxy services and is more than willing to sock. I would not be surprised to find that those SPIs are his sockpuppets, although it is likely that they are untraceable. At the very least, Murdox is also on IRC from time to time, so the two are either socks or meats. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the logical extension of that argument is that everyone on Wikipedia is secretly a sockpuppet of one dude with a lot of time and proxies. This is less of a matter of Wikipedia Administration and more of a witchhunt. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you just accused snaphat (talk · contribs) of being a sockpuppet when all he has done is vote against one of your articles. LiteralKa (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The vote is perfectly fine, and I'll leave it clear to you: I did not know of the existence of an article on mixed-breed dogs at the time I created the quiltro article, so I created it, believing it was some kind of "different" race when it is not. Snaphat's vote there is perfectly fine, yours is too; however, it is obvious you both are part of that so-called, racist organization I won't bother to spell.  Diego  talk  04:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, you're going to have to provide evidence that he is a member of the Gay Nigger Association of America before throwing accusations around. We've been over this before. LiteralKa (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Quite simple, user that edits very, very sparsely from 2005 votes in an AfD shortly after the director of public relations of the troll organization votes, too. Since there are no public records of who the members of the organizations are, I have no more proof than this.  Diego  talk  05:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Diego, that is the flimsiest argument I have seen from you yet. Why would that have anything to do with the GNAA except for the fact that I happened to vote a little before him? If that's what you see as justification for banning, I sincerely hope that you never get the power to ban here. You should notify someone when you're accusing them on ANI, BTW. You're grasping at straws here, Diego. Give it a rest. LiteralKa (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and because you wouldn't notify him, I did. LiteralKa (talk) 05:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not related to GNAA. I didn't know it existed until the accusation. It is actually pretty clear who I am if you google my username. I'm not making an attempt to hide this information. snaphat (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Ignore conflicts of interest exist everywhere because every single Wikipedia editor is involved with some other organization or interest, and they frequently edit topics of that nature. It's total hypocrisy for you to single out some who may be fans of the GNAA. death metal maniac (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Note above user is User:Prozak. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm tempted to say the AfDs should be procedurally closed. The ones that need deleting can be restarted with a nominator who isn't being obviously pointy. The AfDs weren't started in good faith, we should do the equivalent of order a mistrial. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I would let the AfDs run. If the subjects were obviously notable, then speedy close would be reasonable, but they're not. Also, even if the nominations are pointy, the nomination statements themselves are reasonable in pointing out the deficiencies of the articles.. I don't see the point in policy-wonking this for the sake of it. Obviously if there is a sock issue on the AfD that needs to be sorted, though. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, the yearly GNAA infestation <yawn>. SOP as follows:

  Congratulate them on another successful op. Then nuke from orbit, salt the earth, close any procedures or related procedures started by GNAA puppets, Checkuser the bad guys, Get steward cover if necessary. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC) it's the only way to be sure!

• Blocks all round, then? The Cavalry (Message me) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • They're not here to help build an encyclopedia. They're here for giggles. So yes, blocks all around. Let them get their kicks somewhere else. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Get rid of the problem; yes.  Diego  talk  23:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• This is ridiculous. You're not assuming good faith on *ANY* of these accounts, and this really seems like a campaign against anyone who's commented in an anything-less-than-negative light on a GNAA-related article. I don't feel I've done anything wrong, and while I cannot account for other users, what's mentioned here hardly seems to warrant a permanent ban. If you look at past votes, they are clearly two-sided, and those who "lost" are now just trying to execute a vendetta against those who "won". Many of the accounts that have been listed are legitimate editors who edit on a number of subjects, and have participated in GNAA votes... Light-editing does not make a user a SPA or sockpuppet. nprice (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh! I didn't realize this was a topic ban, and after a discussion on IRC, not everyone who's put in their input seems aware of that either. If we do this, we should at least do it by each "suspected" user account, based on its own merits. You can't just do a blanket-ban on a group of people you've arbitrarily grouped together because of a perceived connection. Each user should have the right to contest any actions done to their account, by their own merits. What's happened here is that a list of editors has been compiled who have legitimate edits, but few enough of them that SPA can be cited the moment they do something pro-GNAA. In the last DrV, there were plenty of "keep deleted" votes from accounts with the same status. If this happens, the moment any sort of block is placed, a certain editor who's pretty vehemently commented in this "incident", and HIS group are going to take advantage of the situation they've orchestrated to get the GNAA article VfD'd again. nprice (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
  • One more comment - if you block any supposedly pro-GNAA people from editing, as well as their detractors, who does that *LEAVE* to actually edit the article? Admittedly, it is very polarizing, and this would just arbitrarily unbalance things one way or another. nprice (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It leaves neutral editors to edit it, who edit for a hobby, rather than for a cause. Some people are interested in organisations like this without being a part of them - I studied sociology at university, as well as computer science, so I actually find it rather enthralling. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It also leaves the multitude of editors who are forever biased against GNAA as a result of the many deletion debates. You know this. LiteralKa (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "[literalka] is completely ignoring the COI policy in every respect." I'd like to see evidence of this instead of accusations being thrown around. I have attempted to follow the COI guideline to the best of my ability. "LiteralKa (talk · contribs), stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" I'd also like to see evidence of how I made it pro GNAA. As for trollhistorian (talk · contribs), he hasn't edited since 2007, calling into question the amount of research that Cavalry actually did. LiteralKa (talk) 23:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're the PR man from GNAA. Editing in the interests of public relations is frowned upon. Why don't you follow Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance, for example? Why do you consistently remove the 'COI' tage from the article, rather than waiting for a neutral editor to come along? It's all a bit fishy, if you ask me, and you're damned close to being blocked for being a single-purpose account. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Single purpose account? I have been editing for years across a wide variety of subjects. I find such accusations baseless, offensive, and childish. Coming from an arbitrator, no less. I removed the COI tag because no specific issue was taken with the article, aside from "LiteralKa edited it" (see WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits (mainly no. 6).) Additionally, you're going to have to prove that I'm "editing in the interests of public relations," instead of just claiming that I am. I have worked to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the article. LiteralKa (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• IDGI Firstly, the implication that TheCavalry has "never been involved in any 'GNAA' debates before, or similar." is a pretty false statement considering that's he's commented upon it multiple times in the IRC. Secondly, I'd like to further understand why I'm not a "sensible" editor considering that outside of attempting to reboot the GNAA article in my own userspace (which earned me a quickly overturned block) I've never made anything approaching unsensible edits on-wiki. That said, I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of wikipedia's version of due process and most of my knowledge of wikipedia's various bureaucratic branches comes from being referred to them continually. I understand ignorantia juris non excusat, but I'd appreciate it if you made it a little clearer what I'm being accused of. TIA. Murdox (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• NB: If anyone feels I closed this inappropriately, feel free to open it again. The Cavalry (Message me) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I would rather see this section closed by an administrator, considering the seriousness of the charges you brought. Closing because there is "too much drama here" is bogus; what did you expect? You can't just open up a huge can of worms and then just say "Nevermind!" FYI, I am a totally disinterested party who has never edited or even read the article in question and has never had any dealings whatsoever with any of the parties involved, nor do I particulary care about the outcome of this incident, except that it be resolved properly and competently. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any problem with someone who originally brought an issue to ANI deciding to withdraw it, whether they're an admin or not. Sometimes one realizes that a particular issue is generating a great deal of noise, and not enough signal to bother with. I'll leave it as an exercise for the student to determine if that's the case here, but in the meantime, if Cavalry wants to close out what he opened, far be it from me to stand in his way. (Sidenote, I'm using the pronoun "he" in the non-gender-specific manner.) --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry is an admin. LiteralKa (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and have been since 2007, so I thought it perfectly acceptable to close it myself - but I digress. I think we all dislike it when this becomes a drama-board, and the last thing I want to invoke is drama. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm strongly tempted to close the AfDs summarily, as their intent is intentionally disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it really disruptive to put articles that were created with the clear intention of "diluting" the GNAA disambig page up for deletion? I figured I would leave it up to the community to decide if they were notable for this very reason. LiteralKa (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to say that yours is the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate "dilution". The other articles, whether their subjects are notable or not (and that's still arguable...elsewhere), all bear legitimately-named organizations which just happen to bear the same initials. I'm not an attorney, but this strikes me as a prime example of scenes á faire. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Created by the same editor during one of many GNAA arguments, one of which was mentioned in an academic paper once and another had nothing but passing mentions in sources. LiteralKa (talk) 02:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I took a quick look at the histories of these articles and was going to snappishly post a response to LiteralKa along the lines of "these articles have nothing to do with the 'GNAA' controversy; they were created in 2005." But I looked a little deeper (after noticing that both articles on completely unrelated topics were created around the same time by the same user), and I now see the point LiteralKa is making. (Geez, I hadn't realized that GNAA has been a topic of discussion here since 2005!) I still think it would be better if these AfDs hadn't been created or had been created by someone else, but for what it is worth, I now see a somewhat greater substance to them than I might have initially. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we please start assuming good faith on my GNAA-related edits now instead of just assuming the worst? I try to follow the rules as closely as possible when editing related pages. Also, I created {{GNAA History}} so that people could read up on the GNAA-Wikipedia relationship in as much detail as possible. LiteralKa (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to be fair to you. In fairness to me and others, you didn't make this point anywhere that I've noticed either in the AfDs or in this discussion, though it is one strongly in your favor insofar as the issue of intent is concerned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That was because the point was made already by someone else. (In hindsight, though, I probably should have been clearer in the nominations for each.) LiteralKa (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I have a hard time assuming good faith based on the comments contained in the very diff you link above. And I'm still going to have to hold by my earlier comment: because the articles at AfD appear to name valid, albeit arguably notable, organizations or entities that just happen to bear the same initials as yours, you will have the WP:BURDEN of showing the articles were created specifically for (to use a marketing term) brand dilution. And having said that, I'll now step back and watch. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As LiteralKa has noted, those claims are also my own, so the WP:BURDEN falls upon my shoulders as well. The fact that many find the GNAA distasteful isn't a secret, and years ago, those who found it distasteful sought to push the Gay Nigger Association of America to the back of the bus disambiguation page. One of these users was Astronautics (formerly known as Silsor). On December 7, 2004, Astronautics expanded the disambiguation page with three entries that didn't have articles at the time. On April 2, 2005, an anon removed the articleless entries from the page, and Astronautics's immediate reaction was to create articles on the Guilford Native American Association and the Gridless Narrow-Angle Astrometry in order to ensure that entries couldn't be removed from the page ever again. Astronautics then decided to belittle the Gay Nigger Association of America by having it listed last: [84]. Astronautics even tried to push GNAA as an acronym for the Great North Air Ambulance Service. Another user involved in similar activities was Brian0918. Brian0918 supported the idea of listing disambiguation page's entries by their perceived significance. When the tables turned on him, he pointedly added an articleless entry listed alphabetically over Gay Nigger and made an equally pointy comment: "alright, then, alphabetical order is fine." When Sam Hocevar removed those articleless entries, Brian0918 took a page out of Astronautics's book and created a Galleria Nazionale d'Arte Antica article. Those articles weren't created out of good faith; they were created solely to belittle the GNAA on a disambiguation page. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the most flattering description I've recently heard of Wikipedia is "the place people go to win bar bets", and that Wikipedia itself won't allow Wikipedia articles to be used as reliable sources, I'm fairly well convinced that no one is going to take ANY article found on Wikipedia as God's Own Truth™, so an argument regarding irreparable harm to ANY of the article topics under consideration here is, in my mind, laughable at best. And now that I've said all that, here's what I see as the acid test for this case. Are the editors in question willing to accept a keep outcome on any or all of the AfDs in question? And what, if any, would the overall effect be on GNAA, other than having to share space on a disambiguation page? Yes, this is a serious question, and I'd appreciate a serious answer. And on a sidenote, I'd like to thank Michaeldsuarez for taking the time to lay out a clear, concise argument supporting his position...even though there are some who won't agree with it, it's a refreshing change from the dramatics I've seen lately on various noticeboards. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and to address the issue of OWNership, I'm pretty sure that I have abstained from editing the GNAA article as much as I used to once it passed the deletion review (ie. entered mainspace.) Before that, my intention was (and still is) to help develop a genuinely acceptable Wikipedia article. LiteralKa (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As an experienced editor entirely uninvolved with any disputes about the other GNAA, I think that this tempest-in-a-teapot is exceptionally unfair to the Guilford Native American Association. This is a solid, worthy organization that has existed for decades, and reasonable people may well disagree about its notability by Wikipedia standards. However, the Guilford group has done nothing that justifies its online reputation being dragged into this "inside baseball" dispute on Wikipedia. It is unjust and distasteful. They've had an article here for 5-1/2 years. Consider the impact on uninvolved people who stumble into this debate while looking for information about a group that was founded 25 years before Wikipedia was. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on the view stats, I'd reckon that doesn't happen much, if at all. LiteralKa (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So, if its only three parents of Native American kids with problems, rather than 20, that's OK with you? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as how one of them is me, and the other two are related to the page deletion, yes. LiteralKa (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google reports that there are an average of 36 searches per month for "guilford native american association". Our article shows up at the top of that search. The potential for collateral embarrassment to this group is real.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The "collateral embarrassment" you mention would be made no worse: its "relationship" to the GNAA would be no more apparent than it already is. LiteralKa (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'd like it to be known that I am not any way related to GNAA. I simply voted once on some article AfD of diegos. Since it is very easy to look up who I am, so there is absolutely no reason why this accusation should have occurred in the first place. What can be done about this? snaphat (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree here. I don't see that you're a part of GNAA in the same way as LiteralKa, and it's LiteralKa's conduct I have an issue with in any case - everyone else seems tangentially related, and I'm not 'anti-' or 'pro-' GNAA. The only reason I've issued a block so far is that NPrice (talk · contribs) turned out to be a reincarnation of a blocked user. The Cavalry (Message me) 12:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks you! I'm not concerned with what is going on here beyond making sure I don't wrongfully get banned or sanctions against me as I've done nothing wrong. snaphat (talk) 13:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cavalry, can you please provide diffs of LiteralKa's alleged meddling in the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's revisions after your own revisions appears fine to me, and LiteralKa provide clear edit summaries. Can you please back your "[LiteralKa] stepped in and re-worded the article to be pro-GNAA again" comment? Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not specific edits, because the edits themselves are individually small and apparently harmless - but they add up to have a cumulative effect. I find it amazing that he's removing COI tags added by neutral editors - and bizarrely citing Wikipedia:COI#Non-controversial_edits as a reason for doing so. Ask yourself this: Why is the Head of PR, and the 'Head of Wikipedia editing' (easily accessible through Google searches, seeing as 'LiteralKa' is the username he uses all over the internet, for everything), for GNAA, editing the article at all? This is a man who wrote - just four months ago - Jimmy "Babyrapist" Wales... convicted sex offenders known on Wikipedia as "Sysops"... forcefully ejaculating into MuZemike's pedophile mouth.... And let's not forget the wonderful quote that The Wikimedia Foundation refused to return our requests for comment. Saying only that "those dumb niggers" do not "deserve a fucking article". The man who wrote this is apparently an editor without a COI? Would we allow this from the Head of PR for any other organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a COI to me. Given his background, LiteralKa should not be editing the article at all. snaphat (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

When LiteralKa removed that COI tag, there hasn't been any discussion about COI since the previous discussion on COI and neutrality concerns was settled several days earlier. Cavalry didn't make any attempt to re-initiate that discussion, and there wasn't any answer to my call for evidence. Silver_seren also noted the lack of further discussion. There isn't anyone who takes anything say on the GNAA website at face value. It's unlikely that anything said on that website will harm the Wikipedians mentioned. LiteralKa uses the GNAA website in the same way I use Encyclpedia Dramatica: To be funny and entertain visitors. LiteralKa didn't use those press releases to out anyone. Should we ban anyone who mocks Wikipedia on Encyclopedia Dramatica or the Wikipedia Review? Only one thing matters here: How does LiteralKa influence the Gay Nigger Association of America article? LiteralKa's offsite activity doesn't have any effect on that article, so that activity is irrelevant. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest of respect, I disagree, and I do not have to cite specific edits, because the conflict of interest is plainly obvious. Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article. This isn't about WR, or ED - bringing those sites in is a fallacious argument, and a rather obvious attempt to obfuscate the issue with drama. The only thing that matters here is: should the Head of PR of an organisation be the main editor of the article for that organisation? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by, "Your diffs above are from several weeks before I even came across the article"? I'm seeing a revision by you from July 8, 2011. You added the COI tag on July 14, 2011, and that talk page I had mentioned had only ended the day before. As the PR Head, LiteralKa has the best motivation to keep the article neutral and free of crud from those who despise the group. Why don't you point out how LiteralKa made the article less than neutral? Can you? You haven't done so so far. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? You're talking about allowing PR reps to be the main editors for articles because you think they're neutral? The Cavalry (Message me) 16:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I have to counter Michaeldsuarez' argument. As the self-styled PR man for GNAA, how can LiteralKa not have a COI when editing the GNAA article? I will stipulate that WP:COI specifically states that a voluntarily-disclosed conflict of interest should not be used as a weapon against the editor. However, WP:COI is also quite clear that an editor should avoid making changes to an article unless it helps the project as a whole, and given both the size and the heat emanating from this discussion, I can't see any help to the project as a whole. In fact, based on what I'm seeing, his editing is damaging not only the GNAA article (due to inherent bias) but several other articles as well, simply because the names of the articles have the unmitigated bad fortune to create acronyms of "GNAA". Add to that the comments from the GNAA Web site quoted above, and to me it adds up to a fairly damning case, very little of which is circumstantial. And before I go any farther, I'm also going to stipulate that I do NOT have a dog in this hunt. I have no association with GNAA (in any of the incarnations under discussion...hells, in at least two cases I couldn't even pass the physical!), I have not edited any of the articles, and I have not participated in any of the AfD discussions. My focus here is to examine the core issue and see if there's any sort of mutually-agreeable solution that won't wind up involving significant admin (or higher) action. Sadly, I fear it may be too late for that last, but that won't stop me from giving it a go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI - "Adding citations, especially when another editor has requested them." LiteralKa (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User: Dzlinker/Omar2788

Resolved

Dzlinker (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of Omar2788 (talk · contribs). In a previous AN/I discussion he claimed to have "abandoned" Omar2788, but a quick look at his contributions shows he's still using both. I suggest both should be blocked, allowing one to be unblocked when he decides which account he will use. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Sounds like a fair and eminently non-punitive resolution.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Since he said he had abandoned the Omar2788 account, I have blocked that one, with a tweaked boilerplate explaining that if he would like that one unblocked, the other must be blocked instead. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User ClaudioSantos (again), personal attacks

Disruptive user ClaudioSantos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is making numerous personal attacks against other editors, likening them to "buffoons" and "donkies". When reproached for this, he simply claims, in broken English, that this is how people interact in Spanish (namely, with insulting epithets and pejorative metaphors).

I quote him here:

"Your last comment is what we call here "un ladrón bufón" (a burglar playing also as a buffoon)." [85]

"[In referring to another editor] We say "un burro hablando de orejas ("a donky speaking about ears")." [86]

I will not go into his extensive history of disruption, right from when he was an IP-hopping editor. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You state he's using multiple accounts. Have you opened a sockpuppetry investigation? That seems to me the next logical step to take. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

No, AFAIK he is only using the ClaudioSantos account now. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter if he's socking or not? Uncivil editor is uncivil. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. So this didn't go to WP:WQA...why, exactly? That seems a much more apropos venue for the issue. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I brought it here because of exasperation with this user. He started off editing as an IP on Action T4 and reduce the pace to a shambles, despite the repeated intervention of admin TeaDrinker, who could not control him. He posted messages in ALL CAPS AND BOLD again and again on the Talk page, claiming that wikipedia was conspiring to murder people. Eventually he registered an account, which was blocked, and now another account, ClaudioSantos. As ClaudioSantos he is engaged in numerous edit wars on euthanasia-related pages, for instance:

1. Trying to insert the word "murder" onto Dr Jack Kevorkian's page
2. Trying to put an Infobox Criminal on Kevorkian's page
3. Trying to delete nearly all of the content on the pages Suicide bag and Exit International
4. Trying to slant the whole page on Euthanasia to say that the Nazi WW2 extermination program, which used the euphemism "euthanasia" to camouflage outright murder, is akin to modern euthanasia.
5. Etc etc .. too much to go into here.

Bottom line is that this is a highly disruptive, bafflegab-generating, intensely POV editor who is harming the project in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. His egregious insults were the final straw. So I guess this is more, in the end, than an etiquette issue, and I should have said so in the beginning. This is really an extension of a previous incident on this noticeboard → here A search for "claudiosantos" on this board raises several other incidents on this editor, lodged by other editors (not me). Jabbsworth (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Jabbsworth, who reported me here becasue alleged PA, he is currently being involved in a WP:WQA as another user feels Jabbsworth has been personally attacking him[87]. Few days ago Jabbsworth was unblocked after being permanently blocked due 6-sockpuppets. His 6 sockpuppets has also a long record of edit wars. Just one day after being unblocked Jabbsworth got another block due edit warring. I have also felt rude his comments remarking the users' religion[88][[89] and language[90][91]. And more than one user expresively asked to stop that sort of comments. It seems that as he is against my position on euthanasia then he encourages other users to report me to the ANI. Ironically the above user who complaint about Jabbsworth rude behaviour was in the past encouraged by Jabbsworth to report me to the ANI to get a block for me ate the euhtanasia articles. For my comments: the above comments were clearly explained in the respective talk page of that article, those are spanish expressions, adages, proverbs used to explain certain situations, and I expressively said that I was not referring to the users but to the situation, precisely "a donkey speaking about ears" is a proverb used when someone accuses or remarks faults allegedely commited by another people while he himself is commiting those faults, it is like a donkey speaking about other's ears. I do not know what is the respective english expresion. But after all I know why Jabbsworth did intrud in a conversation between me and another user just to encourage the other user to report me to the ANI because of my proverbs. Look my last editions on Euthanasia or in Richard Jenne and in the respective talk pages, to realize what are my real edits, all well sourced and all my efforts to argue in the dispute resolution there using reliable, verifiable references, etc (See for example this or this). For a change, it seems Jabbsworht is just trying to resolve the dispute through eliminating me out of the field. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

1. My own etiquette case involves a user who cannot produce any evidence of a PA, other than that I quoted his misspelled word with a (sic) next to it,
2. My recent unblock and puppet case involved me using multiple accounts to try to avoid persistent wikistalking and even real life stalking, and the evidence was accepted by Arbcom, so do not raise it again.
3. I have made no rude comments on anyone's religion, merely highlighted that some of the POV edits on euthanasia are coming from the religiously motivated (which everyone knows is true),
4. Likening people to "buffoons" and "donkeys" is not excused by claiming cultural differences. Perhaps, since you are a native Spanish speaker, you should take your insults to the Spanish version of wikipedia where nobody will take exception? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The correct link to that earlier IP-case mentioned is this one. It is a case out of 2009, so I have no idea what is the worth of it in 2011.

Secondly, Jabbsworth a.k.a. Ratel a.k.a. TickleMeister has a particular disrespect for people who's first language is not English. Referring to other peoples spelling mistakes is extremely annoying and, to my opinion, a PA. By the way: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Jabbsworth. There Jabbsworth disruptive and annoying style of editing is discussed. No matter what happens, he claims to be the innocent victim and the other guys is the bad boy.

Thirdly: it is just a content dispute. To my opinion ClaudioSantos is strongly against euthanasia, while Jabbsworth is strongly in favour of it (to the extent sometimes that he is promoting it).

In my opinion, the only way to solve this dispute is giving a topic ban to euthanasia related articles to both Jabbsworth and ClaudioSantos. (And I would accept one too, if necessary) Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The comment above comes from someone who believes I am "promoting" a non-profit by adding the number of staff and names of key directors to the organisation's infobox on the organisation's wikipage. Is this a sane viewpoint? You do the math, dear reader! Jabbsworth (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User Tarc and WP:BATTLEGROUND

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Normally, this would just be something for WP:WQA, if not for the fact that Tarc has explicitly stated that he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in terms of this subject. The AfD for Marcus Bachmann closed as Delete not too long ago. A few users, including myself, were discussing on the talk page improvements that could be made to a userspace draft on the subject by focusing on sources that are separate from his wife. Then Tarc went and created a section here at the bottom. Statements he made include, "I will do my damn best to ensure that this sham of an article never again sees the light of day. You want a war? Game on." After A Quest for Knowledge pointed out the BATTLEGROUND policy, Tarc's response included, "The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife. I didn't create it." You can read his full comments by going to the link I gave above. Tarc then hatted the discussion, saying, "Y'know, you're right, this serves no purpose. Actions will speak louder than words in the end. Mea culpa", but I don't believe this non-apology apology is rather sincere and it is likely he still plans on going on with his Battleground actions.

If I may quote something from offsite, from Wikipedia Review specifically, Tarc made a comment to me a few minutes ago here, after he made the comments above, where he said,

"I just put ta note on the AfD talk page, but here I can be a little more..colorful.

I will pull out as many stops as I need to to prevent you and your miserable cocksucking little cohorts from getting Bachmann back into article-space.

If this is the war you want to hang your little ARS beret on, then I guess we'll see which side has more clout. Maybe you will come out in the end, maybe not.

Either way, it will be costly.

You can interpret that however you like."

I think this shows quite clearly that he is intending to continue working in a Battleground manner. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here, perhaps a topic ban from the Marcus Bachmann and Michelle Bachmann articles? Silverseren^C 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have taken screenshots of Tarc's statements on WR, so that the originals are available if he attempts to edit and change his comments. Silverseren^C 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Both users notified. Silverseren^C 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this an etiquette issue? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It normally would be, but not when a user expresses a WP:BATTLEGROUND issue. Silverseren^C 03:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. "Miserable cocksucking little cohorts"? It sounds like Tarc is unfit to edit on all gay-related articles; not just Bachmann articles. Quigley (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, wow. When I first saw that quote I was certainly ready to say Tarc crossed a big line. But apparently it's on another site. And regardless how I feel about the content of the statement, we really can't be making judgements based on what people say outside of Wikipedia (unless it's canvassing or something). If someone's choosing to watch or use another site, that's their choice, but we really can't be policing it here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Expressing an intent to push a battleground mentality though, which he also did on-wiki, is what i'm bringing this here to discuss. Silverseren^C 03:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just addressing that quote there. I've gotta look more into everything else before I'd feel comfortable giving a view on it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley - Please don't make standard curses into "hate speech." It's going to take more than just the use of the word cocksucking to convince me that Tarc's got any biases there. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a single circumstance on-wiki that would justify talking to other editors like that. Way, way over the line if he brings it here. And I agree with him on the basic issue. RxS (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I ignore anything that happens at WR. Generally speaking if you're posting over there, you're obviously already a big fan of conflict. It's a big barrel of bad over there, and I don't hold anything that happens against anyone because I couldn't possibly care less what they say there. WP shouldn't be affected by side battles on other websites, especially a sinkhole that exists for internet fistfights. Not a fan.

If Tarc has done sufficient BATTLEGROUND activities on-wiki to justify this, so be it. Outside, no. Dayewalker (talk) 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UT:::C)

Tarc's on-wiki threats alone merit a block. "You want a war? Game on." and "The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife." are more than battleground mentality: they're harassment and threats of violence. Quigley (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I complained to Tarc about his incivility a few weeks ago. He was very dismisive, and engaged in more name calling and personal attacks.[92]   Will Beback  talk  04:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Review is a goldmine for "what people really think", particularly editors on this site. I'm often surprised at how many regular editors in good standing vent their frustrations over there and sit on both sides of the fence (CU's, admins, etc.). Of course, my mole over there is unconnected to me, but I'm just a small fry. If you're "bold" enough to use your real WP identity over there, and you know people are watching: tough crap if it comes back to haunt you. Yeah... Doc talk 04:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc's comments on WP Review were out of line, but so were his comments on wiki. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc thinks it's wrong for editors to use this project as a billboard for their political tendencies. "Defending" the project against "campaigners" is analogous to a battle. Personally, I think his language has been remarkably restrained, under the circumstances. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you accusing Silver seren of "using this project as a billboard for his political tendencies"? If so, you should provide some evidence. But even if you did, it wouldn't excuse Tarc's constant stream of threats and sexual invective. Maybe Tarc fancies himself a crusader for NPOV—just like every other POV warrior out there. To outsiders, though, his actions can look like thinly-veiled gay-bashing. Wikipedia's policies and code of conduct don't evaporate around contentious articles; they are more necessary in these places. Quigley (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Woah there, "constant stream" and 'thinly-veiled gay-bashing" seem over the top, and wildly so, based upon the evidence presented so far. Diffs or it didn't happen. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you been reading the discussion thus far? There are plenty of diffs and many more people than just me who are saying that Tarc has been extraordinarily uncivil and has made homophobic remarks. I don't believe you have any wiggle room to explain them away: as Tarc said about his own comments,

If this is the war you want to hang your little ARS beret on, then I guess we'll see which side has more clout. Maybe you will come out in the end, maybe not.

Either way, it will be costly.

You can interpret that however you like.

When something like "You can interpret that however you like" is said, the respondent is made to think of the most threatening interpretation of (Tarc's already threatening) messages. Quigley (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have indeed been reading the discussion so far, and (to date) I've not seen a "constant stream of threats and sexual invective." I've seen some fairly outragous statements, but this characterisation of homophobia I've seen zero evidence for. When someone insults us with "fucker" we don't think they are anti-sex, for instance. So far it seems to me that you're waving your arms a lot. that being said, David has provided some links below that I've not seen yet. I'm not defending anyone, just asking for better evidence than (had) been presented. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but "cocksucker" is nothing like "fucker". "Cocksucker" is well-attested to as an antigay slur,[93][94][95][96][97] and it cannot be taken in any other way in this context, given that (1) Tarc was accusing the Keep voters at the Bachmann AfD of being gay activists (2) Silver seren is openly gay (3) Tarc also called Silver seren a "furfag". All this in addition to what David Shankbone has said below shows a pattern of antigay animus that seems to be a bigger motivator for Tarc's recent Wikipedia actions than any other abstract ideal. Quigley (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I've also had a problem with User:Tarc on the Barbara Boxer article. He's been rude and dismissive. He also refuses to discuss his actions rationally. He seems to think all he needs to justify his actions is his own opinion. --BETA 05:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I too have had problems with Tarc, but I am going to try to put my statement impartially. One, I do believe the "cocksucking" comment to be homophobic, you cant go around on Wikipedia (and yes, I realize that the comment was not on Wikipedia) using the N**** word and say the person wasnt being racist; even if they had no intention of it being racist, a bigoted comment is a bigoted comment regardless of intent. Two- editing when you have shown you cant be impartial or compromise, you have lost all rights to be granted AGF by others and you should be treated as such and your edits under particular scrutiny. Three- kinda in defence of Tarc's attitude, regardless of what the literal word of policy is (which gets nullified by how Wikipedia actually WORKS), Wikipedia IS a battleground. There are two (or more) sides to every discussion and in some cases the outcome is very important (maybe not to YOU, but to someone yes, it can be the very heart and future of Wikipedia). Insults, rude comments, dismissive behavior is NOT acceptable under any circumstances, so dont get me wrong. BUT, this "battleground mentality" issue is a non-starter; it is a battleground and while Tarc should be blocked for alot of things, believing that Wikipedia is a battleground is not one of them.Camelbinky (talk) 05:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Tarc assumed from the get-go that because I am gay I created Marcus Bachmann with a political ax to grind. It was the basis of his nomination (and the basis of many deletes). He calls Wikipedia a cesspool[98] and his comments on WR and in the AfD show a real problem when it comes to gay-related topics[99][100]. He does not think gay people can be neutral on gay topics. It's the same argument that was raised by Christian fundamentalists in challenging Judge Vaughn Walker, who wrote a bulletproof legal opinion sinking Proposition 8, and happened to be gay. Their argument? You're gay, so you must have an agenda and can't be neutral and should excuse yourself. Without any evidence Tarc said I was agenda editing[101][102][103]. It's textbook homophobia, with a dash of 'I am the true Defender of the Wiki' thrown in (Tarc considers himself part of a revolution, he has declared war). After multiple requests[104][105] for him to name the slurs and bias in the article, the only thing he could come up with was: 'You wrote it'. The diffs--Tarc's own battlecry--speak for themselves. --David Shankbone 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Both Jimbo and ArbCom have stated that it is unacceptable to state that an editor of a certain group can not edit articles of that same group. ArbCom decided that and topic banned User:Noleander for, among other things, stating that (certain editors I wont mention, including myself) "are obviously Jewish and therefore have a COI in editing Jewish-related topics". Such language that Tarc has stated and are quoted above by David are reasons enough to not just block for a length of time Tarc for being uncivil but also to topic ban him from gay-related articles.Camelbinky (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• This appears to be tonight's topic of interest (well, the GNAA thing seems pretty popular too, but I ain't touchin' that one). Personally, I could care less about what people say on WR, and I don't find "incivility" to be particularly troublesome (unless is gets to absolutely ridiculous levels). However, I do think that the "battlefield mentality" issue is fairly serious, and worthy of consideration towards administrative action or community sanctions, unless and until the user (Tarc, in this case) renounces their desire to pick fights with people.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• Tarc's discourse during the AfD discussion was hostile and judgmental:

• to slur Bachmann's name,
• calling people supporting a keep "Dan Savage standard-bearers" and convinced that this is part of someone's personal crusade,
• judging everyone who votes to keep as acting in bad faith (summary reads: the BS continues), and
• failure to respond constructively to comments about the tone of his comments.
• a basic dismissal of WP:RS as not sufficient for keeping the article

Tarc also seemed to convince that people voting keep were united around some common cause of attacking a politician, and very much bludgeoned this accusation during the AfD. I have scarcely seen less appropriate behavior in an AfD. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc revels in his incivility. He highlights that the mainstream media talk about how uncivil he is. "[Tarc], whose combative tone is par for the course, draws on the conservative ideology..." - Columbia Journalism Review I'm not sure this picture of discourse serves wp:ENC well. --David Shankbone 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I interact regularly with the incorrigible $%#&, and I strongly support repeated whacking with an alderwood smoked trout, unless Wikipedia's esteemed administrators feel strongly about salmon, whitefish, or even pike. With appropriate condiments. I don't want to encourage this kind of thing but as provocative as it is, it's harmless. It would be far preferable if Tarc could tone it down a lot, as he tends to scare the pets, newbies, process wonks, and small children. There have been a few other sincere, well meaning, Wikipedia-loving editors who got banned from the encyclopedia because they had a showdown with the community over their refusal to back down on civility issues. I don't think Tarc will back down either, but on balance his peculiar form of social breaching isn't particularly detrimental to the functioning of the encyclopedia, at least, it won't be if everyone could take a chill pill about it. He's not battling for one thing or another, he's an equal opportunity offender against conservative and liberal positions, gays and straights. He's just got a strong on-Wiki personality. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• As a long term editor who has given this project countless value, I can tell you that I don't find being called a "cocksucker" as it relates to this particular article AfD, along with the diffs I already provided, "as harmless as it is provocative". Nobody on Wikipedia wants an "equal opportunity offender". Nobody wants that from the drunk bloke at the end of the bar, and even less on an intellectual, educational project. It's a bizarre way to defend his behavior. --David Shankbone 06:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Equal opportunity offender"? I haven't seen it thus far, but even if Tarc were to attack, to extend this example, both Jews and Gentiles (as Noleander argued), there is a crucial difference between attacking oppressed minorities with charged prejudicial language and attacking people in an ordinary dispute. Quigley (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Like others, I've had my share of differences with Tarc, but I respect his desire to rid wikipedia of agenda-pushers (though I opt to remain neutral on this dispute). Perhaps one should assess why Tarc believes one may have a conflict of interest. It's not adequate for one to simply say it's because one is gay or one is black. The allegations of homophobia here are very much out of line. Like WikiDemon says above, Tarc has a humorous and peculiar manner that is not detrimental to the project. You shouldn't take it personal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Perhaps one should assess why Tarc believes one may have a conflict of interest." It's already been assessed why he believes that; the problem is that Tarc, nor anybody else, has the diffs or policy to back that belief. So, homophobia is completely in line. --David Shankbone 06:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the humor or the agenda-pushing; in fact, Tarc seemed to be pretty isolated and embattled in his talking about people having COIs or agendas just because they were gay. Quigley (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, let me ask the drunk bloke at the other end of the bar what he thinks of all this... - Wikidemon (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, after a spirited discussion of the merits of Pliny the Younger versus Pliny the Elder, he says Tarc doth protest too much about gay things. I hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So far, I see plenty of diffs of Tarc being rude, but not homophobic. Better diffs? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Rudeness and battleground behavior on Wikipedia are significant problems of their own. However I'm not sure about what kind of administrative or community action is being sought. SilverSeren has suggested a topic ban on Bachmann articles. However Tarc's poor behavior does not seem limited to that topic. Something more a like a general civility probation, with a warning that he may be blocked if he continues to treat other editors poorly, might be more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  09:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility paroles have, in my experience, nearly never worked. Putting a user on civility parole shifts the limit of acceptable behavior by a small amount. However, that line is so blurry that the difference is usually not worth it, and people on different sides of an issue seem to keep disagreeing if any given act falls on the acceptable or inacceptable side of that line. A topic ban ("gay politics, broadly interpreted") would be easier and likely more useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of Tarc's "unacceptable" language is off-wiki, and if we started handing out blocks for people using potty words on Wikipedia Review we'd be rather short of editors. I've got to hand it to the folk suggesting that Tarc is a homophobe, though: more inventive than the usual casual allegations of antisemitism which get thrown around here. This is just another inclusionist-deletionist battle, and it is far better if people vent their outrage on that particular issue off-wiki than on here. Of course silverseren proposing that an opponent in that struggle be topic banned for battlegrounding would be good material for an Alanis Morissette filk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm no fan of Tarc's combative attitude and use of foul language, and am often frustrated by it because I'm more likely than not arguing the same side of an issue as he is. However the allegations of homophobia seem completely unwarranted to me based on what has been presented here, and the suggestion of "[a] topic ban ('gay politics, broadly interpreted')" based on those allegations looks quite like an attempt to gain advantage. Outside of anything that Tarc may have said, it should be obvious to people here that when editors who identify with a certain group of people (be it religious, ethnic, gender based, of a certain sexual orientation, etc.) engage in topics that fall within the sphere of group related politics that they are quite naturally going to be seen by others as having personal stakes in the situation. There is nothing nefarious about thinking that such a person might be more biased than your average Joe. The line is not drawn there it is drawn when people start suggesting that editors who are part of a certain group should not be allowed to participate, or should be completely disregarded.Griswaldo (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• What is nefarious is assuming, repeatedly, over and over, that because someone is gay that this is evidence on its face of their bias, while providing no links, no diffs, and no other evidence to back that up. It's the reason why we have NPA: focus on the edits and not on the editor. Saying, "Aw, come on! He's gay! Of course he's got an anti-Bachmann agenda!" isn't right, and you were one of the worst offenders, Griswaldo, attempting to haul me to ArbCom and make me part of the 'Santorum' case (which I had no active role in and didn't even follow) for this exact reason. You and Tarc said this over and over on the AfD with no other evidence despite repeated requests. It's offensive, and it shouldn't surprise you that I consider it homophobic. --David Shankbone 11:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Now that I consider slander pure and simple. I get where you are interpreting Tarc's language as being anti-gay. I do not agree with your conclusion but I get where that is coming from since it is actually connected to words that are attributed to Tarc. However, where have I ever suggested anything about your sexuality ever? You called me one of the "worst offenders" saying I tried to drag you to Arbcom "for this exact reason." I take offense to your claims and I ask you to please strike them.Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• And for everyone's information, I have never suggested that either this issue or the Santorum issue had anything to do with gay activism. In my view the activism problems on Wikipedia stem from a much broader political arena (liberal/conservative). I asked the committee if this issue was fair game for an arbitration case that is set to open about feuding and BLPs that is meant to address the Santorum issue, and others of its kind. I clarified when asked that I felt the committee should consider this case as evidence towards general principles but not in terms of sanctioning David Shankbone. It was never my intention to "drag" him to Arbitration. Do I think he created a political attack article? Yes I do. Do I think that is relevant to the arbitration case? Yes I do. Does he not like that fact? Clearly, but it is no reason to start slandering me.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that Tarc openly admitted to using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to carry out a political agenda,[106][107] I don't think it's a stretch to say that this account should lose its editing previlages regarding this article. As I said on the talk page, I have no interest in this topic and couldn't care less about the politics involved. If anyone can justify why I should be subject to Tarc's personal attacks, I'd love to hear it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility are one thing. Homophobia is quite another. I have no problem with Tarc being sanctioned somehow if it will prevent him from using the type of language he uses in these discussions, however removing him from editing a certain page implies that he cannot edit that topic area specifically. I see no evidence of that. Tarc gets this way in many different areas, and it clearly has nothing to do homosexuality specifically. Requesting he leave this specific discussion altogether, as opposed to being warned or sanctioned for generally uncivil remarks is what I object to.Griswaldo (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Having had one or two experiences of Tarc and seen him around generally, I think Griswaldo has it right. Tarc behaves obnoxiously most of the time anyway. He's one of those editors that believes "being right" entitles him to behave in whatever way he feels like. I don't think homophobia has anything to do with it - gay editors may just happened to be in the firing line this time. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

While this is under discussion - I want to say thank you to User:Aaron Brenneman for a well considered close of that AFD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Bachmann - Off2riorob (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not accusing Tarc of homophobia (either for or against, or anything related to that). I am accusing him of violating WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Again, I have never even heard of this person prior to the AfD. Why he is accusing me of persuing a polical agenda about a topic I know nothing about is perplexing and bizarre to say the least. I am making a good faith attempt to address the issues brought up on the AfD. I seen no reason why I should be attacked for good faith efforts to improve the project. I understand that Tarc is a veteran editor and admins may be reluctant to take action against him, but can someone at least issue a warning? I don't see why I should be subjected to these attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Homophobia claims is undue imo - off wiki insults are better ignored. Its a partisan issue - divided right down the middle just as in real life, no chance of a decision, only chance was of increased tension with no benefit to the readers of the encyclopedia - the end result was back to square one (minimal merge/redirect) and all back to your corners to cool off. Perhaps an apology for any unduely personal comments would resolve this. Off2riorob (talk) 12:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course you should not have to suffer incivility A Quest For Knowledge, but if he is not a homophobe there is no reason to topic ban him specifically from this page and/or related ones. If incivility is ongoing a preventative block might have been in order. If there is a larger issue with his civility then an RfC/U is in order, but for heavens sake banning him from specific entries for a general pattern of rude behavior is completely uncalled for. That's all I'm saying.Griswaldo (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Given the fact that Tarc openly admitted to using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to carry out a political agenda..."? Uh, no, the quotes you provide says exactly the opposite. In the first one, he says "Despite my own leftist leanings, I will not sit by and watch this project be used as a political tool for any side..." and in the second one he says "I seem to be one of the few who hasn't actually lost perspective as to what an encyclopedia is. It isn't TMZ. It isn't a publishing arm for the Democratic Party. it isn't for taking potshots at politicians we don't like. " How exactly is fighting BLP violations against someone that is on the opposite end of your own political beliefs "carrying out a political agenda?" Reading through your interactions on the AfD, the talk page and now this (where you misrepresent his statements 180°), honestly, it's starting to sound more like a personal grudge on your part. Calling for sanctions in those circumstances is a bit questionable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good morning, Wikipedia

Nothing like a raging conversation going on while one is sound asleep, eh. A few points;

• I am personally quite liberal, and if one really must know, a literal red diaper baby; dad was full-blown red, though I will politely decline to say where. Anti-war, pro-choice, loves me that government cheese, and most assuredly supportive of gay rights. Get married, adopt, serve in the military... Nothing afforded heteros should be banned or anyone else. So the idea that any of this is tinged by homophobia is on its face absurd. I do find it deplorable that gay people are very quick to play this card when it comes to combating opposing points of view. But they aren't the only ones...pro-Israeli editors pull the antisemitism card, blacks the racist card, for examples.

• When I have alleged editing because of personal bias, I have clearly meant liberal bias. Anyone that reads anything else, i.e. "gay-bashing", into it is quite frankly not being very honest here at ANI.

• I do not generally comment on Wikipedia review activities here. People that go there have an expectation that some of the edges will be a little rough and thagt not everyone plays nice. Hell, they welcome and shelter the likes of Joehazelton over there. Ask Gamaliel or Gothean who he is, interaction with that sort of wiki-troll is ugly. Seren's a big boy, and if he wants to engage in discussions outside the "tut-tut, AGF my good sir!" protection of the Wikipedia, then he accepts what comes with it.

• Are there any other specific points to address? Y'all generated quite a lot to slog through overnight. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I want to know why you are accusing me of wanting to "humiliate"[108] someone I've never heard of. Where do you get off knowing what my intentions are? Again, I've never heard of this person prior to the AfD. Just because someone disagrees with your interpretation of WP:NOTABILITY doesn't necessarily mean that they are motivated by some political agenda. Your accusations against me are wrong and completely uncalled for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Would this be something in the AfD talk page I retracted and hatted ? If so why are you still going on about it? Tarc (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—your participation in this thread is illustrative of a style of argumentation which seems to me to be designed to "win" whether right or wrong. You posted here and here and then you droped out of the dialogue. I asked you a followup question here but you had nothing further to say. In case you don't know, WP:BLP does not require "self-identification" for the inclusion of the material under discussion in that conversation, in the body of the article. If you are going to enter a conversation, try to do so in an open and constructive way—not by posting irrelevant and misleading inquiries without any follow-up dialogue. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I will not address piling on from random people with months or years-old beefs. If you think you have a case to make, then file your own report. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I crossed out "irrelevant" in my above post as that may not be entirely true. Bus stop (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a presumption that the articles are not simply a suckage of anything that anyone has ever said about the person, right or wrong, or for whatever ulterior reason the source may have. As I recall the argument there was your insistence of the emphatic "She is Jewish" over "raised in a Jewish household". John lilburne (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—reliable sources asserting such information concerning religion tends to provide justification for inclusion of such material in the body of an article. Bus stop (talk) 13:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arguing that if a reliable sources quote it, or say it, then it should automatically be added to a BLP is not something you really want to do. John lilburne (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

John lilburne—I presented no such argument. I did not say that "…if a reliable sources quote it, or say it, then it should automatically be added to a BLP…"[109] We are talking about writing an article. Something has to be added. Somehow the added material has to be justified. What I said was that reliable sources "tend" to provide justification for the inclusion of material. I said nothing about automatic inclusion. By the way, this conversation between you and I should be ended in this space as it is off-topic. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to know why you think it's justifiable to refer to someone and a group of unnamed people as "...you and your miserable cocksucking little cohorts". This is appalling behaviour and should merit a permanent block in my view. CycloneGU (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

CycloneGU, that comment was made to Silver Siren off-wiki. We do not block people for using offensive language off-wiki. Much of Silver's evidence above, in fact, comes from this off-wiki venue - Wikipedia Review, where both Tarc and Silver are engaging each other.Griswaldo (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, hence why I am not pushing for any blocks - merely noting it would be worthy of one. However, his reference to planned on-wiki activities is worrisome in the rest of that quote. CycloneGU (talk) 13:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc—you inquired if there were "any other specific points to address." Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• • I am personally quite liberal,[...] - Tarc, how does your fathers politics (whether red or supportive of gay rights) have any bearing on your politics? Your own position seems to be somewhat different ("loves me that government cheese" certainly does not seem to indicate agreement with this position). I'll have to say that I find the frame of mind classifying people as "gay", "pro-Israel", and "black", and making statements about them based on that classification to be deeply troubling. Not to mention that it's fairly hard to recognize gays and blacks on Wikipedia... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
    • And now we have the more general "bigot card," in play. Any others? I agree that Tarc made very unsavory comments at Wikipedia Review and that he is down right rude on Wikipedia but when is this game going to stop? And yes I think it is a dirty game to start nit picking at people's comments and suggesting nefarious intentions or biased mind-frames when those comments were clearly much more innocent than that. But Stephan, if you want to keep playing by all means do. It says much more about the player than the game piece. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • And FYI Stephan, political socialization is not a myth.Griswaldo (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Stephan, I think you're smart enough to figure out that I posted that personal tale to specifically refute the specious "tarc is a homophobe" accusation. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Assuming "spart" is a typo for smart (or is it a contraction of "ex[s]p[e]art"?), yes, I figured out that that was your intention. I took the liberty to point out that it does not achieve this goal at all, and hence at best is a distraction. I also pointed out that your tendency to make blanket statements about "gays", "pro-Israel editors", and "blacks" is of some concern. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc: fine. Please address my complaint.[110][111] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I view you, by being an admitted inclusiuonist, as a simple enabler of other agenda-driven editors, if you want to put it that way. The "everything must be kept if it appears in RS" mindset is harmful to the project when it is applied to bad BLPs such as this one. Stop and consider the end product of what you're working on. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I support the suggestion that Tarc should be banned from further discussion of Marcus Bachmann or his recent AfD discussion. Tarc has frankly declared outright war on this subject. He has done that both on Wikipedia and off. He has made it clear that he is not interested in Wikipedia policies, just in pushing his agenda. In the AfD discussion he insisted that everyone - EVERYONE - who argued "keep" was pushing a politicial agenda, even though he knew nothing about the politics or policies of the people he was accusing and it was clear that he was the one with the agenda. The Bachmann article was quite neutral, but Tarc insisted that the mere existence of an article about the man constituted an "attack" (which is a heck of a thing to say Dr. Bachmann, and in fact is far more insulting than anything in the article). Let's forget about the name-calling and the off-wiki comments, and focus on the issue at hand: Tarc has unilaterally declared his Battleground attitude on the subject of Marcus Bachmann, and if there is ever to be a calm and policy-oriented discussion about Bachmann, Tarc cannot be a part of it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • That is a lie. I am interested in upholding the simplest and most crucial of Wikipedia polices, which is WP:BLP. A non-notable, non-public figure has recieved some press because of who he is married to. Who he happens to be married to is one of the most conservative political candidates to have a serious shot at the White House in recent memory, perhaps ever. An article was created on a non-notable, non-public figure to embarrass him and by extension his political spouse, this was done by making the article focus on the "controversies" that some attach to the man regarding his religious beliefs, his therapy practices. There are other salacious rumours circulating out there that would worm their way into the article if recreation were allowed, simply because they too appear in a reliable source.
  • I am doing what I can to protect a living person from harm by a baseless Wikipedia article existing on him. I am doing what I can to prevent the Wikipedia from turning away from a mission as an online encyclopedia and towards a propaganda arm for a segment of the political sphere. If some egos get punctured, some toes get stepped on, and some pride wounded along the way, that is a good price to pay to do the right thing here. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Intent does not matter when making comments or actions that can to a reasonable outsider appear homophobic or racist. Let's stop this crap of "I'm a liberal, I had no intention". Plenty of "liberals" out there with ideology they "think" is liberal because they have no idea. And again- this battleground crap is ridiculous. A "policy-oriented discussion"? Oh, so we're back to lists of "who can quote policy better" when policy is simply a description of PAST consensus; apparently that's what we want and not NEW consensus based on WELL THOUGHT OUT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. If you cant back up your argument with something original and all you have to say is "Support per" and "Policy says" then your !vote doesnt matter. But I digress. There's plenty of incivility to topic ban and block Tarc. And to those that say incivility doesnt matter- do you work at a high school as a principal? Because then you are why children commit suicide because of bullies, and YOU are more of a problem to Wikipedia than the bullies like Tarc around here because you are an enabler.Camelbinky (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

And to those that say incivility doesnt matter- do you work at a high school as a principal? Because then you are why children commit suicide because of bullies, and YOU are more of a problem to Wikipedia than the bullies like Tarc around here because you are an enabler. Excuse me? You are saying that people who think this is overblown can be liked to people who enable activities that lead to the suicides of children? So because I don't want Tarc topic banned (short block for incivility perhaps but topic ban no) I'm enabling teen suicide? Wow what has this come to?Griswaldo (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• While I normally view bun-fights of this type from a safe distance, I'm certainly seeing more calls for topic bans than I am comfortable with. The histrionics are making it hard for us (collectively) to deal with the actual issue, which everyone agrees is the issue, that Tarc's got a mouth on him. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be the root of the problem, but the discussion here is about his declaration of war specifically on the issue of Marcus Bachmann. The original complaint here was WP:BATTLEGROUND, not "having a mouth on him." --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tarc blatantly declared battle, and that was clearly inappropriate. But he is not the only editor displaying a battleground mentality when it comes to Marcus Bachmann and to these sort of controversial BLP articles in general. We all know damn well that this is one of the most battlegroundish parts of the project and has been for ages. I'm not excusing Tarc's attitude, but some of the folks on the "other side" evince the same sort of attitude in terms of their behavior, they just don't outright declare it.

I might add some other thoughts on the overall issues raised here a bit later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

MelanieN, accusing the closing admin of bad faith for defending Tarc seems way over the line. That seems to add to the evidence that this is all just spillover from the AfD fight with bad behavior all around. I see a lot of piling on here by people with an obvious personal grudge, but I haven't seen anything to justify the level of sanctions that are being demanded. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I had already deleted that comment when you responded to it. You are right, it was a violation of AGF and I was wrong to say it. As for the "level of sanctions being demanded," it is simple cause and effect: Tarc has declared that he will wage unrelenting war on this particular subject, and so he should be banned from this particular subject so that a reasoned discussion can occur. --MelanieN (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Again, this is mostly just another round of inclusionism-deletionism. Both sides are "warring": Silverseren is playing the same role here as Childofmidnight did when his inclusionism got deeper than articles on Pokemon and Transformers and took him into Hawaiian birth certificates. That Tarc has made his "warring" explicit doesn't mean that, so long as he acts within community boundaries, he is acting particularly differently from the other side. Policy rather requires vigilance here, for the good reason that faliure to be vigilant has caused a great deal of external drama before regarding BLPs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to tit-for-tat with every single person that has a beef here, as it is unproductive, exhausting, and just devolves ANI topics like this into gargantuan TL;DRs. So I will summarize a few general things here;
  • 'Declaring war' is being reacted to a wee bit too hysterically. What I will do from here on out is simply vigorously oppose the article's recreation. I do not believe that any amount of editing or re-editing or reorganizing can address the fundamental flaw, which is an article on a non-notable person who has gained some degree of notoriety because of who he is married to. If we celebrate (or lament, as the case may be) President Bachmann's inauguration in January 2013, I will personally and gladly recreate the article myself, as a First Man will be in itself inherently notable. But as it stands right now, its very existence is an attack on the subject. So the "war" will be simply speaking, and speaking often, in whatever venue others choose to continue this. I retracted and hatted an inflammatory discussion (of my own creation) at the AfD talk page. There's rally nothing more to be done on that angle.

• • I skimmed something above about principals and this being akin to abetting teen suicide, but quite frankly it was too absurd to even bother with. People who are working themselves to that level of histrionics should be punished by requiring them to work on something cuddly, like getting a 4th-tier Pokemon article upto FA, honestly.

• • WP:BLP is paramount in this project. many editors here simply do not consider what the consequences of their actions are here as they strenuously argue over which wiki-acronym guideline they believe they have met. We cannot create articles on people where much of the content is simply criticism. Period. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

... is backlogged to a constipated maximum. Any assistance would be appreciated. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, looky at that. Don't worry, admins will be noticed about that soon. Bryce53 | talk 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner, again

I've had the misfortune to get embroiled in monitoring Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs), who I recently blocked for a month due to a serious failure to disengage from mutilatio ex equus mortis. It appears that Tokerdesigner has, in a completely unsurprising move, chosen to use his month off to compile yet another list of injustices on his talk page. Could someone who has sensibly remained uninvolved have a look and decide what, if anything, needs done about this? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dude is paranoid, obviously. At this point, even a brief skim though his contribs makes it abundantly clear that the (drug addled?) person behind he username is basically unfit to edit constructively here. I wish it weren't so, but this guy has been given every opportunity and then some. Increase the block to indef and walk away.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 11:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

...but MfD the user page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

mutilatio ex equus mortis, from the people that brought you Romanes eunt domus. People, if you are going to make up fake Latinisms, at least try to make them grammatically correct. – ukexpat (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole fun of pidgin Latin is to mutilate it. :) Nevertheless, I'm not entirely comfortable with increasing the block myself right now. If the soapboxing in question gets to Biblical proportions like the last one then so be it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I fully support an indef block on Tokerdesigner. He seems incapable of comprehending and abiding by our content policies if they happen to contradict his own, shall we say... unique ideas about the proper way to smoke pot. This has been going on for years now and is unlikely to ever stop. I have been involved ina content dispute with him in the past and so will have to recuse myself from admin action here, but hopefully someone will step up and take the necessary action. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Asdfakj obvious sock/committing vandalism and personal attacks

Resolved

 – Account blocked, blocked a proxy. TNXMan 13:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Asdfakj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new account that has picked up where his old account prideful (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left off. After Prideful was banned, he left a comment saying:

"Very well, I see that Wikipedia administrators are irreversibly anti-Semitic and will not listen to reason. Therefore, I will be forced to create more accounts in order to combat Wikipedia's inherent anti-Semitism." [112]

The two accounts contributions are nearly identical, and it goes without saying (the user admitting they intend to sock), that they should be blocked. This is also taking into account the personal and racists attacks that have been directed towards me and the other users on their own talk page and in edit summaries.

I am not sure if this sock has more accounts so far, but this one seems pretty clear. -asad (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Chronicle of a Duck Foretold. Blocked indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

London School of Economics

Unresolved

We're having a minor edit war on London School of Economics and Kingston University. I don't know how to proceed because my sourced edits are being reverted because another editor doesn't like me. If someone could weigh in I'd be grateful. It almost seems like he'll keep reverting even if he has no real reason to. BETA 00:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything beyond a content dispute here - AN/I is for issues that require administrator intervention. If you have a dispute that cannot be resolved easily on the talk page of the article, take a look at the other steps in the dispute resolution process. Looking at some of the edits involved, I also kind of have the feeling that a wp:boomerang may be involved here pretty soon... Kevin (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to report this here, but see that I've been beaten to it. BETA, who has been heavily involved in a contentious dispute over our Kingston University article, and stated on the talk page that he "believe[s] that Kingston is one of the worst universities in uk" [113], has chosen to add a new section to our article on the London School of Economics, where he writes: "London School of Economics' Academic Board has voted for a self-imposed maximum of ₤8000 per year in tuition fees per course. The regulation is applicable to all courses. The school's Council Will firm up the final figures on a course by course basis, provided they fall withing this ruling. School President Charlotte Gerada stated that she is both "grateful and proud", considering their rank in the top 5th of universities in UK. Other UK universities, including Kingston University, have decided to opt for the maximium". [114] Note also the misleading edit summary "new section, looking to nominate for good article". As the article history shows [115] after I removed the gratuitous reference to Kingston University, he has reverted it. I had made clear to him that this will lead to the matter being reported here.

Given his stated POV, and his disregard for the integrity of other articles, I consider at minimum a topic ban on any matters concerning British universities is entirely justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And when he mentions this POV problem, I promptly reassure him that my edits reflect the sources(though my most recent one had a minor accidental misinterpretation that was quickly corrected), my admitted bias about one particular university, created by the information I looked up for my contribution to the article, isn't relevant to my sourced edits. BETA 01:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:Boomerang. I mean this has been going on for a while on Kingston University before I even got to it. I might have gotten a little frustrated, I don't know. :0) BETA 01:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You add a couple of contributions and both of them are ripped to shreds, over minor things, it's bound to make you a little upset right?BETA 01:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your definition of "minor" isn't really in line with popular opinion. Even so, that doesn't excuse trying to make a point by going to another article and take the fight there. Dayewalker (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if I were making a point, Notpointy says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate it". Showing readers a contextual distinction is not disruptive. BETA 01:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

A "contextual distinction" between what and what? You edited the LSE article to assert your POV regarding KU. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Show me how my edit slanted the point of view of the article. I didn't say anything that was more positive or negative than the sources I supplied, despite the misunderstanding about the final decision. BETA —Preceding undated comment added 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

Did you edit the LSE article (a) because you were "looking to nominate for good article" as you claimed in the edit summary, or (b) so as to include an off-topic comment about KU? Given your recent editing history, and your self-proclaimed low opinion of KU, it seems hard to believe the former. Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page, or to find some other way to make a general point about fees without naming one specific university? I think you are stretching credulity beyond reasonable grounds here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Even if it were the former, wouldn't the logical response when I removed the reference to KU to be to discuss the matter on the talk page" - again, double standard, isn't it the "logical response" before removing something to discuss it on the talk page. WP:NPOVFAQ:"Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." BETA 02:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. You haven't answered the question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that Essay trumps policy? BETA 02:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing trumps anything. The two most important principles you can have for how to behave at Wikipedia are WP:UCS and WP:DBAD. Other policies, guidelines, and essays only exist for people who lack the ability to obey those principles. --Jayron32 03:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(OD) Wikilawyering isn't going to help, BTA. Taking a failed argument from one article to another unrelated one is pretty clearly a violation of WP:POINT. Dayewalker (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POINT is mostly about attempts to sway consensus, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. --BETA 02:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So you aren't going to tell us why you decided to edit the LSE article to include a gratuitous comment about Kingston University? I can't see any point in discussing this further then. You are clearly more concerned with pushing your personal agenda than with contributing towards Wikipedia, and as such, I'd suggest that maybe you would best direct your efforts elsewhere. If you continue in this vein, you may soon have no choice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What ever you think your motives were, they look and feel like an attempt to bring your issues about KU (which is under full protection atm) to an article you could edit, you may think that was not to prove a point, others (including me BTW) think it was. As others have already made clear to you both here and at your talk page, if you carry on in this way you are likely to attract a block or topic ban.

(edit conflict)If you want some advice, before you make any changes to university articles think, is, or could this be, a contentious change and if the answer is "Yes" post a note on the Talk page and leave it 48hrs to see what others think. This is after all a collaborative encyclopaedia and not a web based university guide or review forum. Oh and least you are in doubt any edit involving either "fees" or, in your case, given your comments, "Kingston University" is going to fall into the category of "a contentious change". Mtking ^(edits) 03:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Bentheadvocate for obvious reasons. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Whatever his problem is with Kingston University, it shouldn't be allow to spill over to other articles as this behaviour is evidence of. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Can the exact nature of any proposed topic ban be made clear, for example is it Universities, UK Universities, UK University Fees, Kingston University ? Mtking ^(edits) 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related to Kingston University" would be plenty for me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Edits related in any way to Kingston University" might be better, given BETA's predilection for nit-picking over semantics. I did however suggest a ban on edits related to British universities in general: my thinking was that if he has a strong POV on one, he is unlikely to be neutral regarding others, and a general ban is easier to define. Still if the ban is confined to KU, and enforced, it'll probably do the job. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Ben has been problematic in a number of places since he recently became active again, in particular he enjoys playing semantic games with people, pushing the lawyer talk to absurd heights. At WP:COIN, for instance, he has made arguments like this one which raise the likelihood that his goal is to get under people's skin and cause disruption, not actually improve the encyclopedia. I wish I could believe that a topic ban from KU-related articles would resolve the issue, but I doubt that it will, I feel that this just happens to be where he's currently active, and a topic ban will just lead him to disrupt elsewhere. I considered the possibility that the account was compromised, as is often the case when an editor returns after a long absence to cause disruption, but then I saw this comment from 2008 (before his previous absence), so I think this is just how he has always been. -- Atama頭 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic Bans for Bentheadvocate and Cameron Scott. Such bans, absent threats or totally off-topic edits/vandalism generally should not be enacted, as this amounts to censorship, particularly when they are phrased so broadly as a ban on "anything related to" x.--Lorifredrics (talk) 23:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would agree with Atama's analysis. The problem (to the extent that there is one) is not specific to Kingston University. I don't think he'd even heard of the place until he saw the kerfuffle and one of the editors being topic banned. His first appearance on Wikipedia was a very similar situation.

  1. User:Magnonimous had been edit warring at Coral calcium was eventually blocked indefinitely on 31 December 2007. [116]

  2. Bentheadvocate (BETA) registers new account one day later [117] and writes on his user page am not a new user, I have had some experience on wikipedia in the past. So don't be surprised if I seem to know more than I should.

  3. BETA then Proposes a new Wikiproject "CCE : Commission for Collaborative Editing" [118] (never enacted, no one signs up apart from him) but decides that Coral Calcium will be its first "case". [119] and sets about "advocating" for the blocked user's approach to the subject. Then appears to lose interest, moves on and stops editing altogether in May 2008.

  4. BETA returns three years later and heads for Samatha first as an IP [120] then as himself to edit war over external links with his previous antagonist at Coral calcium.

  5. BETA jumps in with both feet at Kingston University using similar tactics/arguments/alphabet soup to Coral calcium and Samatha kerfuffles.

  So no, topic bans are pretty pointless in the face of these kinds of shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Shenanigan #6. BETA starts and perpetuates an edit war at London School of Economics and then procedes to nominate for GA [121], despite one of the basic critera being "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." Voceditenore (talk) 08:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily re-opening file. In reply. Yes, If I recall correctly I had been editing via IP at the time, until I came across the notice board's record of the controversial gang-up that occured on Coral Calcium, by proponents of now defrocked Stephen Barrett of QuackWatch fame. And while I don't agree with the victim's response to the antics, I nevertheless felt compelled to intervene based on the slanted state of the article at that time, and the injustice of it all. I realized that if I were to take this on I would have to establish myself as a regular fixture on this site, at which point I created my User status. And from time to time I do try to make sure that the quote unquote enforcers and deletionists don't overstep their bounds, at the expense of encyclopedic quality, and the dignity of other editors. Thank you. Resealing file; July 23rd 2011 --BETA 08:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

??? In what way has Stephen Barrett been "defrocked"? Voceditenore (talk) 08:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Following this mornings reverting at Barbara Boxer, I am starting to think a 3 month "1RR" probation may be a better idea - comments ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Registering relevant 3RR against Cameron Scott

Since it pertains to this discussion, an assertion of 3RR violation has been made regarding edits to Kingston University, by User:Cameron Scott. Request that his vote be tagged as conflicted. Thank You. BETA 13:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Object to striking Cameron Scott's !vote. He is not an admin, so WP:INVOLVED does not apply. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Given that BETA posted the supposed (stale, and highly dubious) 3RR violation in response to Cameron Scott participating in this AN/I debate, I suggest that additional sanctions be taken against BETA for misusing the edit warring noticeboard. I think we've seen quite enough crap by now to tell that he isn't interested in Wikipedia, except as a place to push a POV, and to attack those who disagree. I think a block is now in order. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm choosing not to rise to the bait. Look at me I'm growing(a la chandler) :o] ...... p.s. This thread is pretty much done for me except for the 3RR. -BETA 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support topic ban broadly construed. That's arbcomspeak for "BETA will be in trouble if he tries to wikilawyer this ban." Bishonen | talk 15:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC).

User:Bentheadvocate/"BETA", redux

I have reinstated this section, as this editor has waited until the week's protection on the article has expired and immediately reverted it back to his preferred version, totally against consensus on the talk page, and with an edit summary of "reverting vandalism". I have reverted his edit (and previously commented on the talkpage) so I am wary of taking any admin action here but I think either a block or an actual enforcing of the topic ban which was discussed above is now necessary. This is clearly a user who is not prepared to edit collegially. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit [122] is not, despite its edit summary, reverting vandalism. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, quite the opposite - it is introducing POV material that the talkpage consensus was to leave out (not to mention that some of it is actually factually inaccurate, but that's another issue). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Avanu's edit, because it removes properly sourced information, to further his POV, and because he did not discuss it beforehand, constitutes vandalism. If he thought he had good arguments he should have raised them on the talk page, instead of sniping.--BETA 15:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for edit warring on Kingston University. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Should the supporting template of an article have a name consistent with that of said article?

There is a dispute going on at Template:2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests over the title of the template. Myself and a few other editors have tried to move the template's name to Template:Arab Spring, as that is the name of the main article, only to be continually reverted by a stubborn User:Lihaas. He demands that a new discussion be started for the template, even though the main article already had such a discussion to determine the name (which was closed decisively in favour of "Arab Spring").

Per WP:AT, "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles"; per WP:TEMPLATE, "template names are exactly like other page names"; per WP:Page name, the policy on article titles is WP:AT. Thus, template titles are subject to the same rules as article titles. I maintain that starting a new naming discussion for the template is contrary to naming policy. In addition, any move discussion on the template would be a challenge to the consensus of the main article, and should be settled there; if a main article is moved, all other pages supporting it should have consistent names, with no new discussions needed to determine names. Any challenges to the name should be settled at the talkpage of the main article; if Lihaas has an issue with the title Arab Spring, he should take that to the Talk:Arab Spring instead of jealously guarding the name of a supporting navigation template.

Community/administrator input on the matter would be greatly appreciated, as discussions between the parties involved have been unproductive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As a template no reader sees (or cares) which title it is at... so it is somewhat irrelevant. Create a redirect at {{Arab Spring}} and get on with doing productive things :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment, but some closure would be appreciated here... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I must say, for the record, that User:Lihaas needs some wikilove, as he seems to be overly contentious in his editing and has some trouble assuming good faith (yes, I know, a rare thing indeed). Please see my talk to see what I mean. He is also not very clear when raising issues. Perhaps someone un-involved might remind him to be cool man luke... I have no idea if he just grumpus or doesn't get it, but I am afraid that if no TLC is shown, he might be a regular of AN/I...--Cerejota (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by IP 95.16.89.4

Hello,

Since this morning, this IP started a series of disruptive edits on some articles (can be seen on the User Contributions page), accusing of vandalism any opposition to the undiscussed edits.

Please intervene by a semi-protection on these articles: the previous vandalism on them was made by User:FAIZGUEVARRA and his multuple SP's, this time it is not him (I think) but (I suppose) a notorious POV-Pusher: User:Bokpasa ([123][124]), and I suppose that it is him since he was already blocked from editing (a few years ago?) for the same reasons... and on the same articles.

Thanks in advance.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)