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

Disruptions, deliberate

Disruptions at an ongoing mediation[1] by User:B3430715: [2] and [3]. I request a review of this and advice on next step. Several of us are perplexed by the weird disruptions caused by this user. The user has a very short history of disruptive editing. The links will also show my warnings to the editor.—Djathinkimacowboy 21:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really responsive, but there's something disturbing about a Wikipedia editor having a huge image saying "Fuck copyright" ([4]) on his user page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I noted that also, Bbb23. My personal wish is that he weren't so (apparently) bad at English. If you notice, his fluency does seem to fluctuate. But he certainly knows what he's doing with his disruptions.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The latest weirdness may be seen here:[5]. Can't say if this is deliberate or if he really does not comprehend. A brilliant strategy, if that's what it is, though.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

He strikes me as a troll. Have you asked the mediator to step in?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this[6] you must see. No, Bbb, the mediator doesn't even seem to reply to MedCab itself regarding vital issues, so ... but I did advise her of this. And I agree imho, I think he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what he's doing when he's not at the mediation cabal. I found this one really weird. He doesn't seem to like the movie as he removed a link to it from another article. Another weird edit related to the movie: [7]. Oh, a heads up to any admins watching this topic, B3 removes warnings from his Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For all the world it looks as if he's just whipping about with the intent to troll. There's no other explanation. He's keeping off here - I trust you took a gander at his reply to this ANI on his talk page! I'll try to see how far back he goes ... I am under the impression he's very new. Yet his disruptive edits go back a ways on the Columbo artilce.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What seems recommended, aside from the diffs I have provided so far, is a look at his contribs. If anyone wants it, I'll find all of his disruptive edits as they pertain to my issue. One thing I noticed way back is that he 'does his rounds', and as I said, his disruptions are sometimes weirdly subtle.—Djathinkimacowboy 01:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with him dates back to around 22 February. All of this from the editor's talk page: personal attack[8]. I warned him about this[9]. Second weird personal attack after deleting my warning[10]. My next warning[11]. His next personal attack[12]. Here he thinks he's deleted the evidence[13]. This was his invitation to sign up to participate in the ongoing MedCab[14]. The following are the diffs from Columbo and from the article's talk page (please note the edit summaries whenever there are any): the first edit to the article, innocent enough[15]. That proves he knows how to edit properly and within rules. But then there's these two edits[16]. Clearly off his rails. Though I am repeating this, I draw to your attention his edit warring here[17] (which also shows a correction I have had to make twice now thanks to him) Note the reversion, for no good reason. I leave you with his blatant edit warring in the removal of the RfC I had there a while back (he removed that tag repeatedly):[18].—Djathinkimacowboy 01:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

May I add: here[19] I apprised my fellow editor who's with me at mediation about this trouble as well.—Djathinkimacowboy 02:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his entire history, but I don't think his "stupid people" ES is any more of a personal attack than you calling his answers schizophrenic, or telling him "... and learn better grammar while you're at it". I can quite understand that you're irritated by the guy, Djathink, but in terms of the shades-of-grey area between attack and not-attack, I don't see that you're actually that far apart from each other. Try toning it down with him a few (several?) notches, and see if setting a better example to him might make him more inclined to communicate more peacefully. Pesky (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has failed, and the disruption is not clear-cut enough to warrant any immediate admin action here. Hence, you need to request arbitration, in which case the Arbitration Committee will look at the evidence and likely issue admonishments, topic bans, and even complete site bans, depending on the severity of the situation given. --MuZemike 07:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit: hardly an improvement, IMHO. Muddying the water. A slight competence issue, perhaps? 114 total edits. Wow. Hey: this is not a personal attack, folks. This is Columbo we're talking about, here. Can old dogs learn new tricks? We'll be monitoring... Doc talk 08:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to show this[20] as an example of how this editor can edit properly, and knows what he's doing. Of course it is also proof that his English is really much better than he usually pretends. Reply to Pesky: Have you looked at the disruptive editing I showed from the mediation that he's done? And also from his talk page? When I responded angrily to him it was because he was just trolling about and sticking his tongue out - do you see him replying here? He's been responding on his talk page. This was enough trouble. I don't see what arbitration is going to do, except perhaps send me back here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Here[21], an extremely recent edit, he is asked why he placed an image of a copyrighted DVD cover in place of an old image. Note his reply in edit summary, and his insistence on using schizophrenic reasoning when he does reply to other editors. So, he adds what is likely a copyvio and says it is because 'People love color photo ... ' This is but a taste of the insanity this editor brings, to disrupt articles. In one or two new edit summaries, he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. This user is a troll. I am beginning to expect him to be treated as one; why is it that we're supposed to try to charm him into behaving?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Query: I'd like to know why this issue is being ignored here. The issue as I tried so hard to explain clearly is the following, about the editor in question:

1. After editing normally for a good while at Columbo, he suddenly became a little belligerent.
2. We either worked with him or ignored him until he became a bit offensive.
3. When I approached him politely on his talk, he attacked me.
4. When I warned him about this, he attacked again.
5. Recently in the Columbo mediation, he altered at least one of my posts, and injected disruptive, weird posts in odd places.
6. He was warned about this in about the same way as you see above.
7. He disrupted the mediation again, all the while his English getting 'worse' and 'worse'.
8. He responded to this ANI on his talk page with strange ramblings and began mentioning the ANI in his edit summaries.

I don't understand what more you guys needs to give me a perspective on this. It certainly does not help to say to go to arbitration - so this troll can laugh at us some more?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on a reading of Talk:Columbo#Lead image: WP:COPYVIO problem, there could be a compromise about the DVD cover. The above discussion shows that no admin is prepared to issue a block at this time. If the editor is really trying to cause trouble, he will be back here soon. It would be better if Djathink would wait for someone else to make the next report. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - message received loud and clear. What do we do here now? Close and archive this where no one will ever see it, when the editor goes round the bend again? Just wondering.—Djathinkimacowboy 05:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see[22] and note the post above it, where the editor keeps responding to the ANI there. Yes, let's do drop this for now and let him keep trolling. ANI just makes me so proud at this moment. And of course, no one could at any time have even bothered him, by going to his talk and asking him to respond here. This board is asinine in the extreme. Let's just wait for "the next person" to come and report him.—Djathinkimacowboy 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any trolling, and think you should probably stop using that word. I do see an editor with poor English skills, who is perhaps editing beyond his means, but I don't see any bad faith. I find it completely understandable that a new user might suddenly start editing a mediation page, even though they weren't previously involved, and then not "sign-up" since the mediation was basically already over. You've been fairly threatening, and used some pretty strong language yourself. Trolling is a really strong claim: you're implying he is only here to disrupt Wikipedia, make false edits, antagonize people, etc. And yet I don't think you've come close to showing that through diffs. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, I did nominate the page he created for deletion per A10 (he essentially took the stuff removed from the List of episodes page and made a new page to keep it under a similar name), but, again, I don't see that as being intentionally disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WOW! OK, let me begin by addressing Qwyrxian that good faith can be assumed unless proven otherwise and let me assure you that B3430715 is desperately doing so. Its not that the user is bad in english, actually he is competent enough to put a very graphic English term on his userpage. Getting down to the point. Have you gone through the revision history? It shows that some really meaningful comments have been removed expertly from the page giving the appearance that the user is a happy-go-lucky type of user. His talk page will show you that he is an expert in feigning ignorance of the language unless it comes to the art of rudely dismissing a person, or acknowledging a compliment. This is certainly not contributing to a harmonious working environment. --Wikishagnik (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a manic and inappropriate obsession with a subject a kind of trolling? W., I truly thank you for showing that there is a problem with him and it needs to be somehow addressed. That is exactly why I came here asking for advice and direction regarding what steps could be taken. That editor has deliberately disrupted several things and has persisted in doing it. It's a shame nobody sees this pattern, especially Qwyrxian. But as I said to Q, I'm prepared to drop this whole issue for my part. Someone else will come here about him if he persists. Does anyone note how sweetly behaved he's been lately? Still playing the troll ... I apologise if that term offends some people. But I still say he is a troll.—Djathinkimacowboy 18:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dja... remember this little piece of advice and your reply? - DVdm (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, God, I was just waiting for something like that. I went and put my foot in it, didn't I? Now this is all about me, whilst B3430715 gets justified and protected. This is NOT about me, DVdm. I am trying to stop someone much worse than I ever was! He's doing it deliberately, DVdm! Why don't you read the things before coming at me like this? Please, don't come here again to post stuff like that. Post it at my talk page. Please.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is doing it deliberately, that's the whole point. I have read the things, and I'm not coming at you, on the contrary. But if you insist, I will not comment any further. Forget about it. - DVdm (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Those working here are free to review me if they wish. I do not object. As for me, I am withdrawing from this silly thing and will not visit or post here again. In light of the undue attention going toward me, I leave it to the good wisdom of those whom I have seen posting (all too rarely) on this board. After all, the editor in question will get in trouble if he persists in wrongdoing or whatever it is he's doing. I leave you with this warning: keep examining issues in the way you did here, and LOTS of these types will eventually rule WP. I sincerely thank all of you who participated.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

May I say something? Apparently I received tons of disruptions from a same person. This person would like to controls everything. When someone disagrees him, he will argue and argue until you are just tired of it.

For ex, in the mediation case, I simply point out what was wrong with proves. But this person starts to avoid the thing when he knew he is wrong,and begins some pointless arguments. (same with the table issue back in Feb)

Moreover, this same person is being a dictator, he thinks that he represents ever wiki users... look how many time he made his decision even no one agrees him.

I remains silent and chose not to come here but today, to avoid having another fight with this person. However, this person continues his personal disruptions.

I know for sure that the Admins can tell who is right or wrong, and they'll need no instructions from anyone. So for now, I will remain silent again. B3430715 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

An observation from an uninvolved non-admin: if this is indicative of User:B3430715's skills regarding the English language, I can see little prospect of him/her making any positive contribution to this encyclopaedia. Regardless of any other issues, I'd suggest that B3430715 would be better employed elsewhere: basic literacy in the language of the relevant encyclopaedia is a necessary precondition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

“ he is asking what the Columbo catchphrases have to do with ANI. ” — Djathinkimacowboy

Reply,because someone said this, thus I replyed(talk) 10:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - B3430715 please don't use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone else. Please mention whom you are quoting if you do. Please don't use phrase, instead try complete sentences. This is not a poetry competition but a legitimate discussion. If you use random phrases like you did now, I will strikethrough your comment and request a more complete and comprehensible statement. --Wikishagnik (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikishagnik, You are in this discussion since the beginning. I quoted the phrase right from this page. But since you are having confusion, I added the person whom I quoted from.

• Just imagine：

when someone who edits Columbo says that Columbo season 11 has just released, and gives a [French version DVD] as a prove...

when someone wants to change the existing episode order to "1~10 + Specials + 11 + Specials" instead

while on the other hand, the Columbo page said this in 2009:

In the UK, (Region 2) all episodes have now been released as ten seasons, the tenth season covering all the shows from "Columbo Goes to College" (1990) to the finale "Columbo Likes the Nightlife" (2003). However in France, and The Netherlands (also Region 2) the DVDs were released as twelve seasons.

Anyone will say things like hey you, look at the big photos, you are talking about an old things that will not be used in an English wiki article. Because in UK, all episodes have now been released as ten seasons

But if someone tries to avoid the fact, and claims you are being disruptive, being disruptive to a place where nobody is there.

anyone gets nuts--B3430715 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

B3430715 - Good attempt at answering the questions but I suggest you may condense your answers even more and avoid the excess formatting as it confues the reader. Next time you have region specific variations for any TV sereal please mention it clearly in the article and provide suitable references. I am sure no-one will object to that. --Wikishagnik (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Really, sometimes it is impossible to go away and leave something alone! Yes, Wikishagnik, really good. However, none of that is to the point, if you will look at my opening statement. It does not explain his disruptive editing, or his inserting things into my posts (whic he no longer does since he knew it was wrong in the first place). It also does not explain the nonstop broken English when it's convenient, and a much better fluency when he really wants to communicate something. It does not explain this sudden and singular interest in Columbo and the restoration of discarded WP:UNDUE material (which was also not to the original point). Honestly, don't you think this is encouragement of the worst kind?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, did anyone notice this[23] from yesterday? Yes, keep encouraging B3430715. I see he has many of you fooled as to the true nature of his activities here.—Djathinkimacowboy 17:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

General comment:My fellow WPs, this is what ought to occur on ANI:

1. The problem is stated.
2. All involved editors come and open with statements.
3. An admin comes in as soon as possible, having reviewed preliminaries and makes a statement.
4. Depending on the issue, commentary should be welcome in general. Especially commentary from other admins and knowledgeable editors.
5. An agreement should be reached as to appropriate action.
6. 'Closing statements' if you want to call them that.
7. A firm final declaration - not binding or otherwise violating ANI - issued by an admin. A bit like the Supreme Court does opinions, so a dissenting declaration should be there also.

Instead, this is what happens on ANI:

1. Problem is stated.
2. WP:CHINESE FIRE DRILL ensues.
3. Everyone who is interested comes to air grievances, from WP:UNDUE disagreements to complaining about the brown spots on giraffes.
4. And all of that only if anyone is interested in responding at all.
5. Lots of yelling can occur. No one listens to anyone.
6. Almost immediately the original problem is high jacked and lost forever. If an editor comes to remind everyone of the original problem, that editor is ignored or shouted down.

Who is ever going to fix this place?—Djathinkimacowboy 17:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Djathinkimacowboy, it sounds like you're unhappy with the way this particular AN/I report has been handled, and are making the extension to assert that there's a pressing, general problem here. Now I'd be the first to agree that there are times when AN/I resembles a zoo, and it's not known as the dramaaahh board for nothing. But at the moment I think it's generally functioning rather well. Most reports are dealt with quickly and appropriately, but I do agree it's frustrating on those rare occasions (like this one) when they are not. For what it's worth, we had a very long and full discussion of some principles rather like the ones you set out - just look at the most recent talk page archives for this project page. The consensus was that a strict protocol such as you suggest is not needed (and in fact is unworkable) because reports of so many different sorts are made here, and one size does not fit all.

On your specific report, I'm sorry you've not had the resolution you wanted. Reports are left unresolved for a number of reasons, such as:

1. There's clearly an issue, but it doesn't seem major enough to warrant admin action yet
2. There may be an issue, but it's been reported in an unclear way (eg without sufficient diffs)
3. There may be an issue, but it's hard to see one side as exclusively in the right
4. There may be an issue, but process issues (such as conflict, incivility, trolling or digressions) make it hard to see.

In this case, I think the inaction you are seeing is partly because of 1) above - other people don't yet feel as strongly as you about this issue. It's muddied a little further by noticing interactions such as these from you, which reduce your credibility even if you have a good case. Continually reposting here when you don't get an answer can feel like nagging, and puts people off as well. How you present your self and your case is almost as important as how good your case is, in Wikipedia as in life.

Having said all that, I'm going to post a warning on the user talk page of the editor in question because at the very least there are some WP:COMPETENCE issues going on. I don't think anything further than a warning is warranted right now, so would suggest we close this thread as resolved once I have done that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've had a closer look at both main protagonists' posts and I have left a mild warning at B3430715's talk page. However on reviewing all edits more closely I gear there is a boomerang coming back at you, Djathinkimacowboy. Posts such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B3430715&diff=next&oldid=483886948 this, this and this are, in my view, much worse offences. Your very own talk pages asks people to "not bite the newcomers" and yet that is exactly what you have been doing here. I don't see the evidence of trolling that you do, rather I see a newcomer who is fairly unfamiliar with WP protocol and with English being mocked and tied up in bureaucracy. From what I can see, with a helping hand, this user might be an asset. Why not extend one, rather than a sarcastic comment? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you posted some very wise words, and I appreciate the evaluation you have given the ANI process (as a reply to my venting steam). However, I think you are in error when you say that B3 is some sort of innocent newcomer, because he is clearly not a newcomer, only a new account: he knows how to edit quite well when he wants, he expertly removes warnings from his talk page (wonder how long yours will last), and can ratchet up his fluency in English when he likes. Then suddenly he's posting in near-gibberish later, when it suits. Too many helping hands have gone out toward B3 already, only to be nipped-at. If you looked at the other events, his contribs and what some admins have said, you'd know that. I myself am not going to offer a helping hand to someone I see as a troll! Help him how, by letting him feel all the security he wants? I'll say something further, I do not care about appearances: I'm beginning to think B3 is a sock. My evidence is thin, and no one wants that, so I'll shove that where it belongs for now. There, now you have my unadulterated personal feelings as well. And I'm sorry I came off so badly here. I never thought this place was the bastion of diplomacy. What do you want me to do aside from 'buzzing off' and not posting anything further here? A love sonnet to B3?--ain't gonna happen.—Djathinkimacowboy 23:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim--you suggested we close this "as resolved" once you post a warning on B3's talk. That is not satisfactory, unless another admin seconds it. You are moving too quickly, which was never what I wanted from anyone. If "no one gives a damn" is the criterion for closing a thread as "resolved", then by all means!—Djathinkimacowboy 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Had Kim not taken the time to provide helpful feedback, this would have been automatically archived anyway for receiving no action. I agree with her assessment. You have just now escalated from claiming this person is a troll to claiming that they're a sockpuppet (implied by your claim that they're an experienced editor, despite the relative new-ness of the account). I have not yet seen a single piece of convincing evidence that this is intentional disruption of the project. I do believe that, if the user's future edits continue to be argumentative while still being fairly incomprehensible, that WP:COMEPETENCE (regarding English language competence) may come into play, and they may end up blocked. But that point has not yet been reached. It's time for you to back away. Keep editing the Columbo articlees. If you have problems with the user on those articles in the future, you're welcome to bring them to me (or even back here, though, of course, be wary of the boomerang). Don't start watching their contributions, or their talkpage, because several of us really think you're seeing this wrong. Could Kim and I be wrong? Absolutely--speaking for myself, I've been wrong plenty of times before. Did both of us check the contribution history, and disagree with your assessment? Yes, we did. Unless you have new evidence, or some other editor significantly disagrees, I don't see much more value in this thread. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Close it then. I did express an opinion (and I said it had next to no evidence) that B3 is probably a sockpuppet. That opinion notwithstanding, I of course bow to the decisions made here. But I do not have to be pleased about it: and I am quite certain I have expressed gratitude for the "advice" that has been given here.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Though I bow to the decisions here, let me say this. Yes, in light of this[24], this[25], and this[26], I can see why we ought to leave this editor to his own devices!—Djathinkimacowboy 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)??--My apologies for the last post, which I have redacted. I was in error about those edits. Special thanks to Qwyrxian for patience and assistance in this. Is anyone else noticing terrible slowness and other problems editing at WP lately?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had that on tne weekend, and had to get a new internet gateway. You could also try clearing your cache and deleting cookies etc. The site is working fine for me. -- Dianna (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Shared account

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

---

Reopened

User(s) warned (see my comment below.) Policy changes should be proposed on the talk pages of the concerned policy. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC) Through the course of my adventures I've come across Inventcreat (talk · contribs), an account belonging to a married couple and used by both. Obviously this is a violation of WP:NOSHARE, however they do appear to be a constructive account and are apparently reluctant to have separate accounts. I would be grateful for some further opinions on this, I'm unsure how to proceed here--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• I saw your conversation with them--thanks for taking the time to do that. Yes, NOSHARE is quite clear: they each need to get different accounts and stick to them individually. They could take Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat (I assume it's a mixed-gender couple), or Inventcreat and Inventcreata? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would say let common sense let em keep it... many societies see matrimony as the joining together of two persons after all . Of course to do that, we all have to pretend this thread doesn't exist; therefore I would ask some admit to close after me, and for no one else to post anything. Egg Centric 23:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Right it's been decided that closing it ain't acceptable. Well I stick by what I said. A great many married couples can be considered as more or less the same unit, ready to take responsibility and credit for anything that the one does. I see no reason they can't share the account, except for a pesky policy which we can ignore. Egg Centric 01:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(Or we can even change the policy - especially now that gay marriage is finally rolling out amongst the civilised world) Egg Centric 01:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a special case that can be excluded from the rule, however for that to be so there should be an actual consensus here, NOSHARE makes it very clear that it's not allowed except for staff accounts and bots, and even bots need clear consensus--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I rather hope we can come to one now... not sure this is the right place to propose it, but lets have a go: Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

A married, or similar (with "similar" to be interpreted by the community on a case by case basis) couple should be permitted to share an account. Naturally all the users of the account will be held responsible for all of its edits, and thus subject to any sanctions, even if said person did not perform the edit themselves. Additionally, such accounts must make it clear that they are a shared account, especially if running for a community position such as administratior Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As proposer Egg Centric 01:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, how about we propse that NOSHARE be modified to allow exceptions when approved? Set up a discussion location for this, similar to usernames, etc. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) *Support as nominator. Calabe1992 01:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• You beat me to it. Support. Calabe1992 01:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

NOSHARE is essential in order to hold users accountable for their edits. I know that you're busy, so schedule enforcement of this policy for this particular situation for January 2015 unless they become an issue in which case it would be expedited. North8000 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not in favor of actually making it policy, but I'm perfectly willing to follow North8000's approach. Turning a blind eye has a bad reputation, but it's an underutilized tool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Turning a blind eye? To what? What were we talking about? Oh, gotta go: roast in the oven. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Still, you have to wonder, if they get divorced then who gets the account or will they agree to "joint custody"? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This proposal goes against Wikipedia's content license. Each edit must be attributable to an individual.--v/r - TP 03:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as T points out, this has potential licensing issues, as well as problems if a disagreement should occur. We don't accept the "my brother/sister/roommate/dog/etc. did it on my account, it wasn't me!" argument. As sweet as it might be to let this couple edit together, it's going to cause problems in the future if we make this a blanket exception. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, licensing issues. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Allow an exception if the users in question agree to always edit together, as a unit, and not to use the shared account individually. It is common enough that a book has a shared copyright, so I don't see a licensing issue. What do we gain by disallowing this?  --Lambiam 16:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Sarek. Apart from which, "On the internet, no-one knows you're a dog" - how do we know they are married? We don't. Just as we don't know if someone really has a little brother or not. Peridon (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Sarek and Peridon. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 18:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Married couples are not legally considered to be "one person", so allowing them to use one account messes up our licensing, as it will be uncertain which of the partners holds the rights. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing

I'm going to close this as "user warned". I agree we shouldn't be rules-sticklers if people are otherwise behaving productively, but the problem with turning a blind idea to policy violations is that it gives the editor(s) a false sense of security that they won't be blocked by some other admin who notices the shared account but isn't aware of the decision here to ignore it. When/if that happens, they will be understandably hurt and upset that they were blocked after being told everything is kosher, so I've left them a note on their talk page strongly encouraging them to get separate accounts at their earliest convenience and advising them that they won't be blocked now, but there are no guarantees that another administrator won't independently notice the shared account and block them later. 28bytes (talk) 05:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Reopening

Sorry, but less then six hours is simply not enough to allow editors to discuss this, and there's no consensus. I disagree with creating an exemption. This would set a bad precedent and one easily gamed. For instance, how do I know who created the copyvio at User:Inventcreat/Author’s Certificate? If at some point we end up blocking this account, do we allow one of them to create a new one or hold them both jointly responsible for whatever lead the account to be blocked? (Is there a better way to indicate I've reopened this?)Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Put the heading in rainbow colours with twinkling stars? Peridon (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant some sort of template, although I did look for one. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What's the actual licensing issue?

Anyone wanna explain it? Understanding it will help us see if we can find a compromise. Egg Centric 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

We use a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license which allows the reuse of our content as long as it is attributed to the original author or authors. In this case, it is impossible to attribute it to the author because we are unaware of which person is the author. I suppose a compromise would be if they both released all of their contributions to the public domain. They'd have to specify that on their talk page. But doing this is going to open a can of worms because organizations will also want to buy in on this. I know I am not explaining it too well. However, the license text defines the "Licensor" as "the individual, individuals, entity or entities that offer(s) the Work under the terms of this License." However, where it says "entities" it is referring to the collection of contributors on the history page. Not a shared account. This isn't a legal opinion, obviously, but that shouldn't be confused to mean accounts can be shared. Contributions must still be attributed.--v/r - TP 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

has the situation you're referring to actually been a problem? If they take joint responsibility it's the same as if each had given the other a power of attorney, and they've agreed to be bound by what the other does. I think this is a place to evoke IAR: the strict application of the rule is discouraging good contributors.I'm not suggesting changing the formal rule, but agreeing to overlook minimal violations. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If the situation is how you describe it I'm not seeing the problem. As DGG says they can be treated as an entity together. Think Lennon-McCartney Egg Centric 23:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Just to note that OrangeMike has blocked the account. 28bytes (talk) 23:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor show. At the very least could have waited for all this discussion to be complete. I am not at all convinced that the licensing actually does require individual users (and if it does, why are/were there wikimedia role accounts permitted?). This ban does nothing to help wikipedia, particularly at this timing, and I think it would be permissible under both policy and ethics for anyone to reverse it. Probably not wiki-politically suitable though, but maybe soemoen will surprise me Egg Centric 23:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Poor show indeed, but 28bytes called it fairly accurately. With the current wording of the policy, I don't think discussion about an unblock is going to be feasible. It's an order of magnitude easier to choose not to enforce a silly policy than to actively do something to violate a silly policy that's been enforced. I've at least modified the block to remove the autoblock and allow account creation so they can create separate accounts.

In theory, discussion about changing this could continue on WT:UN. In practice, I imagine inertia is going to prevent any official change. in either case, the ANI thread has no further use, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Call me naive but I think we have a useful discussion going and there is some chance at least of changing policy here. Most of those who are supporting the ban are doing so because they believe it's a licensing issue; I think we can show them they're wrong, in which case there's a lot of potential for this thread to improve the encyclopedia. Egg Centric 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I certainly won't close it myself, but I just know someone is going to come along in the next 1 to 12 hours and close it because it "doesn't require admin attention". I don't think I've ever seen a discussion at AN result in a change to a policy... have you? I think the best bet (and it's a long shot) would be to move this to WT:UN. But I certainly wouldn't stop you from commenting here some more. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Floquenbeam; much better to propose changes to policy on the policy's talk page (or perhaps a Village Pump discussion) than here, since that's not really what this board is structured for. Since the account is blocked and the ball's in their court, I agree this can be (re-)(re-)closed (third time's a charm, perhaps?) 28bytes (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll come out and say it. This board has a more eclectic and represenative audience of wikipedians than the one I'll find in those more obscure places. And I feel that for a variety of reasons, a general wikipedian will be far more receptive and open minded to this kind of proposal than the ones that will be monitoring those spaces... Even if it has to be moved, can we not just at least keep this thread to direct people to said discussion? It is not as though it will clutter up ANI... Egg Centric 00:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if they create the Mr. Inventcreat and Mrs. Inventcreat-accounts, who says that they will actually use these accounts as a single person and not as couple? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So if you allow married couples (how do we know?), do you allow same sex couples (again, how do we know), flatmates, little brothers and sisters, Mr Jones at No 46 and Mrs Evans at No 83 because they share his computer? Getting ridiculous there, I know. But how do you draw lines beyond 'one man one account'? (Not being sexist - parodying one man one vote.) As it stands, we can't easily tell if a couple IS using one account, unless they let the cat out of the bag, so long as they are behaving properly - and keeping to one editing style. As with COI, if we have no cause to suspect, why worry? But legitimising it can open a real can of worms. Do we require copies of marriage certificates? Who gets the account when (if...) they split? Who gets it when they haven't split for economic reasons, but hate each other? Does happen. What's wrong with having separate accounts? They don't share a driving licence or a social security number; they both vote in elections; presumably they do have different opinions on some things. So what hardship is there in having two accounts? Peridon (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Peridon has said in this comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

I know a ton of users on Wiki who are a husband/wife team account. I'm not going to name any of them, because i'm not going to have them be blocked for this stupidity. This whole situation is just ridiculous and rude to productive contributors. Was Inventcreat even given the opportunity to reply and to obtain separate accounts or were they just blocked right off in a completely bad faith manner that i'm not surprised about at this point? Silverseren^C 06:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, if we don't know and can't see the join, and the contributions are good, why worry? There are people editing for companies but using private names, but if they stay within the policies, they're OK. It's when these things are made open that the worms start wriggling, and there is little room left to deny User:BloggsoWashesWhiter an account. In the case in question, theoretically the account is compromised and should remain blocked. Unless they took turns typing things in, one of them actually created the account and then allowed the other one access. I can see no objection to them being allowed to start a new account apiece - and if we can't spot A using B, all's well. IMO OrangeMike was right to block, but a new start should be allowed - under two new names. Peridon (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable homophobic attacks by Youreallycan/Off2riorob

At an AfD discussion, Youreallycan has made the following personal attacks on myself:

• [27] - accuses me of "repeated NPOV contributions"; without any evidence to support it
  • [28] - I respond to this baseless accusation
• [29] - reiterates the same accusation, and includes another editor as well. Calls me a disruptive troll.
  • [30] - Greyhood notes that personal attacks are not on.
• [31] - I make a comment to another editor in response to their accusation that I am here to push an agenda.
  • [32] - Youreallycan posts: Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?

He was asked to redact the comments, and he has struck them. Unfortunately, the damage is done, and a redaction is not enough in this instance.

I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks. But most importantly, I have never really edited "queer" subjects, so how exactly am I pushing a "queer agenda" anywhere on this project? The only agenda I have been involved in is speaking out against homophobic attacks on GLBT editors, and urging the community to protect editors.

Numerous editors have in the past expressed serious concerns relating to what has been construed as homophobic comments made by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards other editors. A recent example was Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. In previous instances, when this has been brought to the community's attention, he has gotten out of jail by using the BLP card.

Unfortunately for youreallycan/off2riorob, this time there is no BLP to hide behind.

He made outright an outright homophobic attack on another editor, and I am asking that he be given:

1. a lengthy block for his inexcusable attack

# A DIGWUREN warning given the topic area. - as per fluffernutter, this was already done. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The community finally needs to do the right thing by its GLBT editors here. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 02:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Queer", in the context he used it, is not a homophobic slur. In this context, he is likely calling your "agenda" out as being questionable or odd. It does not look like the two of you had a good interaction there, but you asked him to redact and he did. Unless you want an administrator to look at the interaction between the both of you, I'm not sure anything further is necessary here. Resolute 02:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not the 1940s. I don't think "queer agenda" can be reasonably taken not to have a homophobic connotation here. FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What FormerIP said. I really don't see "queer agenda" meaning anything other than homosexual agenda. LadyofShalott 03:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, for UK editors of a certain vintage the use of the term Queer for Gay wasn't in use in the early 70's when I was growing up and it was a word that would have meant odd or strange. Wiktionary agrees too. The only person who can explain what YRC meant is YRC and unless they do so anything else us just supposition. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll revise my comment. It isn't the 1970s. FormerIP (talk) 03:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the word queer has that meaning, no argument. However, combined with the word agenda, and given the concerns people have already had with certain comments from O2RR/YRC concerning the subject matter of BGLT people, it seems to reduce the liklihood that any meaning other than that of homosexual agenda is viable. LadyofShalott 03:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly, knowing nothing of Youreallycan's history in this regard, I took the positive context (such as it is) by default. It seems that assumption was poor on my part in this case. Resolute 04:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of all the Wikipedia editors I have ever encountered, Youreallycan has impressed me as the most homophobic. At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 I spoke in favor of an LGBT topic ban for the guy. I continue to hold this opinion, now more strongly than ever. Binksternet (talk) 03:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Insulting a person as "most homophobic" since July 2007: That seems to be an extreme, vicious personal attack on a person who used the word "queer" in this reported incident. Just counting all the editors whom you "have ever encountered" since first editing as "User:Binksternet" (since 28 July 2007: contribs), how many editors do you count who were not the "most homophobic" in Wikipedia? -Wikid77 (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my words; they exactly reflect the impression I have gathered over four years. I have not met a more homophobic editor. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed but entirely unsurprised that YRC/O2RR has continued this pattern of attacks on other editors. I hope that since it's not about any "favorite" politicians this time, his defenders will finally be forced to drop the lame BLP excuse for not banning him. This has gone on for way too long. (See evidence linked here and his list of past blocks for personal attacks.) Given the number of times he's been asked to stop and/or brought to a noticeboard over such comments, his failure to change his behavior indicates that a block or ban would clearly be preventative rather than punitive. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Though Russavia and I have clashed nastily on several occasions, I agree with him 100% on O2RR. I have watched his disgusting hate speech flare up numerous times on the boards, only for him to slither away from sanctions by masking his revolting remarks with policy. This time, he has nothing to hide behind. He's already been warned under DIGWUREN, but I think that is really a secondary concern here. I firmly support a lengthy block for O2RR. This has gone on far too long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: I logged my warning today to YRC (diff above in russavia's original post) as a DIGWUREN (now known as ARBEE) warning, since I informed him that he was operating in that topic area and needed to be wary. It was an informally-phrased warning, however, and I suppose there's no reason that he can't be given a more explicit templated version of the discretionary sanctions warning if someone feels it's necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey Fluffernutter, thanks for your intervention there. I really do appreciate it mate. I don't know if you got my message on IRC, but I just stated that after discussing this with some other editors, and because of the history of shocking comments towards other editors, that something more substantial needs to be done in regards to him. Thanks again for your assistance with that. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 03:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• [Non-admin observation] I do not in any way endorse the language above (though I'm wondering what prompted Russavia to introduce the big and clever 'F' word to talk about his contributions to en.WP on getting Fucking, Austria onto DYK) but while we're here, can a grown up admin please curtail Russavia's 7-day RM process on Zhirinovsky's ass and get it off centre-stage in DYK queue please? Please. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No, this is the misuse of a Wikimedia project for a blatant homophobic attack. We deal with blocking the homophobe before using interest in the case to escalate punitive measures against the target of abuse. If we were dealing with a persistent racist who started calling another editor the n-word, there would be no hesitation in taking appropriate action here. --Fæ (talk) 03:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, actually I agree, homophobic comments shouldn't be tolerated, ever. FYI I suppose my WP:AGF has been tested a little by the gaming to get Zhirinovsky's ass on DYK, I already noted concern at BLP Noticeboard yesterday. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very little hesitation, anyone who thinks that somehow it's not a slur is dreaming and living in a Mickey Spillane novel. That was then this is now. RxS (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was homophobic? John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer as Folk was as homophobic as Huckleberry Finn was racist. Got it now, John? Blake Burba (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to stereotypes we have a number of one dimensional characters on stage in this thread. John lilburne (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Russavia himself has pointed out in this thread that he is not known to be gay and has not edited LGBT-related topics to any extent, so there is reason to question whether or not YRC intended the comment to be an attack. The comment itself is ambiguous, but given the previous concerns expressed here, it was an unwise choice of words at best. I think it would be wise to wait for YRC to explain himself before deciding if a block is in order. In any case, an LGBT topic ban is probably overdue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Re your first sentence: "I don't think I've ever really said one way or the other whether I am queer, but I have recently defended a high-profile editor in what many deemed to be homophobic-driven attacks." This context makes it much more likely that it was intended as an attack. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A minor point, but YRC's comments about a 'fucking agenda' need to be looked at in the context of Russavia's previous post: [33]. It seems to me that Russavia set Rob up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That may explain the repeated use of "fucking" but would not justify making a homophobic comment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me Andy, but my post was not attentioned towards Rob, nor was it in response to anything that Rob said. It was in response to the editor directly above me who stated that I was pushing an agenda. I simply pointed out an article that I (unbelievably) managed to 5x expand -- the only agenda being because I could. To say that I set Rob up is an inexcusable assessment to make at this point. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For the life of me I can't think why any instance of homophobic abuse - let alone a persistent pattern of it - should receive greater indulgence than, say, racist or anti-Semitic abuse. Oh why anyone would try to justify it by blaming the victim. Writegeist (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Abuse is abuse, period, regardless of the target, end of line. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It has only been a month or two since the last ANI discussion of YRC and homophobic attacks. Perhaps we should automate the initiation of threads like these -- or keep a permanent discussion going here, since there appears to be a lack of will to do anything about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to how someone so concerned with BLP issues can do something like this. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As am I. A topic ban here is the least we can do, but were this any group besides LGBT, I can't help but feel like a long time out would be issued post haste. AniMate 07:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Queer - is not a homophobic descriptor in any way, its a totally acceptable word these days - User:Russavia uses it extremely often. It is his (at least on wiki) preferred word for homosexuality. He use the self descriptor with great regularity. - Using a word that the complaint uses himself regularly can hardly be an attack. Youreallycan 07:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. Spoken like a heterosexual willfully ignorant of the current usage of the word "queer" or someone desperately trying to make himself appear so. The re-appropriation of "queer" as a self-descriptor by the gay community is not license to fling it about in a pejorative manner while simultaneously claiming it is an innocuous or "acceptable" term. Blake Burba (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Queer eyes for the straight guy, Queer as Folks Queer is not some phrase from the ghetto but in mainstream usage. John lilburne (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blake Burba, context is important here. Many black rappers liberally use the n-word in their lyrics and Dan Savage, a well known gay activist, has a history of addressing his readership using Hey Faggot!. This is not an excuse for any Wikipedian to start addressing other contributors using these highly offensive words without permission or without expecting them to be immediately treated as defamation and a blatant personal attack. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Context is the very nub of this discussion. Way back in January 2009 I found a red-link somewhere or other, and started the Crittenden Report article. Lets say I got this response on my talk-page: "Hey girlfriend! Thanks for queering up Wikipedia!" How I would have reacted to the very same message is all in the context.

• If it was the first edit from an IP user, I would have welcomed them and asked them if they were interested in WP:MILHIST
• If it was from a registered user who was active in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a compliment
• If it was from a registered user that had a history of intolerance in LGBT matters, I would have taken it as a slur against me and LGBT editors.

Context is what is important here. That disingenuousness about context is very much not to the credit of those editors who would appear to have overlooked it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As there's pretty much no doubt now what YRC meant, and as he still thinks that there's nothing wrong with it, I've blocked for a week. It's longer than usual due to his history of NPA blocks. T. Canens (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TC. Long overdue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about the use of the word "queer" here is a complete sidetrack, and frankly a non issue. What is abundantly clear is that there was a definite breach of civility in that discussion. I don't think the accusation that Russavia has a pro-homosexuality agenda is in itself anything to be concerned with - it may or not be true but editors are accused of bias all over Wikipedia and the fact that this alleged bias regards homosexuality doesn't make that any worse or any better. What is a concern is the rest of that sentence. That's a clear personal attack and is inexcusable.

But the important thing is that User:Youreallycan did redact the comment when asked to. Since blocks are preventative not punitive it seems clear to me that User:Youreallycan is aware his actions were incorrect and is not about to repeat them, so a block is not appropriate here.

A topic ban, however, is worth considering. I recommend that User:Youreallycan is warned that any similar behaviour in future will result in such a ban. Beyond that I don't think any further action needs to be taken at this stage. waggers (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think he's aware that his actions were incorrect at all. As I said on his talk page, I wouldn't have blocked him, since he redacted the comments when requested. However, in his current unblock request, he seems to think it's fine to make comments of that nature. When/if he acknowledges that it isn't, I'd support an unblock. 28bytes (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are being manipulated by the application of false dramah for the lulz. Back in the 70s Queer was a preferred term used by members of the LGBT communnity, this was replaced by Gay from about teh late 70s, but never went away as Queer tended to be used to used as a shortened form of LGBT without resorting to acronyms. John lilburne (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Is your comment a reply to me? It's indented as though it is. And yet it has nothing to do with my comment. My point, in case I wasn't clear, was that I'd support an unblock if YRC agrees not to make any more comments like "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" That would not be an OK comment to make even if "queer" were replaced by a synonym. 28bytes (talk) 09:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure you mean 'synonym', is it not the case that you are really complaining about accusations of 'agendas' regardless as to whether they are 'queer', 'fucking', or 'WASPish'. John lilburne (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Redacted usernames from insulting thread title: As an uninvolved editor, I have changed the title of this ANI thread to replace usernames "Youreallycan/off2ri..." as "Yrc/o2r" and link-anchored the prior title. Of course everyone realizes that calling someone's actions "homophobic" is an extreme personal attack of the most vicious and hateful sort. It is one thing to claim a remark was a GLBT-slur, but to generalize, universally, as being "homophobic" is just begging the question as if stating "wife-beater attacks". As a formal debate judge for years, I will try to reduce all this rampant use of word "homophobic" as unneeded hate-mongering with ad hominem attacks on accused editors. Please remember, the use of the word "homophobic" is completely, totally, and utterly unacceptable in this manner, especially in the title of a thread. Comment on the actions, not the contributor. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  Nah. If an editor has a long and ongoing history of making homophobic attacks, describing that person as homophobic is right on target. A person who makes racist comments is a racist person. For the present case, it's becoming clear that it's the person that needs dealing with, not just a distinct set of remarks. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  YRC/O2RR's personal beliefs are frankly entirely irrelevant. He could really be a homophobic person or he could be on a sustained campaign to troll us all. Either way, the attacks on LGBT editors need to end, and since he shows no sign of stopping of his own accord, preventative measures are the solution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• To me this looks like one final round of gaming from Russavia, who is currently looking at a likely 6-month ban at WP:AE for ... gaming. Yes, Youreallycan's statements were uncivil. On the other hand, he redacted them immediately when called upon, and they also reflected exactly what went through this editor's mind. If I had been asked to say what I thought of Russavia, honestly, in light of shenanigans like these, and his involvement in stuff like Zhirinovsky's ass and Polandball here and on German Wikipedia, all of them real embarrassments to this project, I would have said exactly the same. Why are we putting up with Russavia? Lastly, the term "queer agenda" is in mainstream media and scholarly use. That agenda is as unwelcome in Wikipedia as any other type of agenda-based editing. --JN466 09:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The trouble is, you have not been asked here to say what you think about Russavia. Having just replied to you at User_talk:Youreallycan#unblock_request, could you tell me exactly how many forums are you intending to use to canvass against Russavia with the same text? When there is an ANI thread about Russavia we can discuss Russavia. This discussion is not an excuse to repeat offensive claims about Russavia or to promote your personal views that there is a "queer agenda" that Wikipedians you think might be gay and don't like must be following. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This attempt to justify YRC's homophobic remarks reflects poorly on those contributing to it. "Queer" is one thing, but the term "queer agenda" is usually used by those seeking to denigrate it, and in fact JN466 is wrong to say it's "in mainstream media ... use" -- in all of Google News archives, there are 68 hits, very few of them "positive" in any sense. In any event it's painfully obvious how YRC intended to use the term. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The thing is, the best response to those carping about the "agenda" remark is to demonstrate that Fae actually pursues such an agenda. i.e. those who create and support the retention of articles such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gay bathhouse regulars. Creating articles wit the specific intent of agenda-promoting needs to be called out. Tarc (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tarc, your claim about me is a bad faith personal attack attempting to devalue my opinions in a consensus process (other admins here, please take note). As for "List of gay bathhouse regulars" that is way off-topic for this discussion about Youreallycan and a reply to Jayen466's wife sweeping aside this attempt at smearing my character is already on Jimbo's talk page. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• It is not a personal attacks to point out things you have done under prior user accounts, I'm afraid. There is no good-faith reason to support that article's existence, there fore we're left with the bad-faith reason. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Er, no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are not in common mainstream-media or scholarly use. What a ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • See NYT [34], [35], and a multitude of NYT uses of "homosexual agenda." "Queer agenda" used as a self descriptor at [36], Village Voice at [37] etc. You may dislike it, but is absolutely in mainstream use now. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

An extraordinarily bad accusation here after the baiting of YRC which has been repeatedly done and is fully as objectionable - and the use of "homophobe" as an "attack word" is getting too dang commonplace on Wikipedia. Time to retire the attacks and get down to actually editing the dang encyclopedia. I also note this was placed at UT:Jimbo to get the maximum effect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Too dang commonplace? Can you link to some instances of it being used where the editor in question has not attacked LGBT fellow-editors with homophobic language? Or is it your belief that the word "homophobe" is so incredibly hurtful (more so than the homophobic slurs users like YRC/O2RR fling around, too) that we should avoid using it even when an editor clearly demonstrates that it applies? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's not homophobic but opposes agenda-pushers, of all varieties, who persistently skew Wikipedia content off NPOV. However, sexuality and oppression of minorities are highly emotive and important topics, and there is no room in discussions for flippant use of ambiguous terms like "queer". Obvious personal attacks, like "fuck off", are almost never appropriate. (I can think of a couple of instances where such language was spot on, but this certainly wasn't one of them.) So, I think the block is appropriate for the obvious personal attack, but this was not a homophobic attack, that's a smoke screen frequently thrown up by gaming tendentious editors to undermine YRC's quite often legitimate concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware of YRC/O2RR's very long history of homophobic comments about other users? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note that Fae is now forum-shopping...or foundation-member-shopping...this around as he is not getting the answers he wants here or at Talk:Jimbo. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You obviously believe there is such a thing as a "queer agenda", logically that means there is an "anti-queer agenda". Do you think some of the editors expressing rather inflammatory opinions here might subscribe to that second agenda? I thought this ANI thread was about Youreallycan. If you are making it all about me and pointlessly repeating old and tired allegations about me, could you please follow the guidelines and leave a note on my user talk page before having a personal crack at me here? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I understand you're not addressing me but, if I may, It's highly likely there are bigots of all flavours on this site. Given his obvious capacity for empathy, demonstrated by his frequently-expressed (and acted-upon) concern for human rights and the feelings of other editors, our subjects and our readers, and the absence of any convincing evidence that he is homophobic, I can't condone lumping YRC into that category. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is this meant to be sarcasm? It's hard to tell over the internet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looking over the evidence of YRC's past behavior under his two accounts, I think we're seeing two issues here. First, blatant incivility yesterday, which he quickly redacted at my request. Tim's block was valid at the time, since there was no commitment from YRC to avoid such personal attacks in the future, but I note that YRC has now apologized for his outburst and stated that "I will keep a tighter lid on my emotions and can accept a heightened level of civility restriction for the rest of the original block length, a one strike and blocked def con level". At this point, I think an unblock should be on the table, as long as YRC understands that civility is required, not something one does for a week as a sort of probation.

  The second issue is that homosexuality is clearly a reactive issue for him. It matters little whether this is because he's homophobic, because he dislikes (what he perceives as) POV pushers, or because a witch once turned him into a newt (he got better!) - no matter what the cause, his presence in LGBT-relates areas of the 'pedia ends up being disruptive because of his reactiveness to the topic. I would support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors in any way. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think he's any more reactive in this topic than others. I've seen YRC in action on several different topic areas where he perceives tendentious editing, and he is prone to emotional responses in all of them. I'd like to see a commitment from him to reign in his thymos on all areas of the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Numerous such commitments have been offered in the past. Offering them appears to be easy; sticking to them not so much. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• FWIW, what Anthony says is my impression too. I don't think he's more reactive in this topic than others. --JN466 22:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hm. If that's the case, this is a more difficult matter. We can topic-ban someone from an issue that pushes their buttons in the wrong way, but if any and every issue pushes or could push their buttons, little other than a draconian civility parole or an indef block seems likely to remedy the matter if the person can't control themselves. And civility paroles, well, they never seem to work. It's possible we could offer some sort of "official last chance" to YRC, with the warning that the next time he flies off the handle, he'll have exhausted his chances and be indeffed, but...none of these options really feel entirely comfortable to me, and I'm open to other ideas. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've not looked closely (nor will I for a while) but it does look like a good block. Given the relatively long history of similar issues, I don't think an unblock is appropriate at this time. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Unlike the editor who provoked him into making this outburst, Youreallycan actually contributes something of value to this project on a daily basis, rather than schoolboy humour. --JN466 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Russavia did not force YRC to make homophobic remarks. Neither did any of the other users whom YRC has attacked in a homophobic manner. YRC had the choice not to make those remarks, but he made them anyway. If Russavia's behavior is sanctionable on its own, then deal with it elsewhere. He is not responsible for YRC's own decision to attack other users based on their sexual orientation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to block talk page access for Youreallycan

Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is manipulating discussion of their repeated unblock requests by deleting all negative comments and leaving in anything that appears positive, even where comments were in response to each other. This is in contravention of Refactoring talk pages as it gives a deliberately misleading impression of the opinions of others. This is making it difficult for any independent administrator to assess or discuss a possible unblock. I propose that the block is extended to a user talk page block and Youreallycan can email the blocking admin if they wish to have further unblock requests created on their behalf. --Fæ (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• A lot of those messages are nothing but gravedancing and, by the by, I assume any admin worth his salt knows how to use the history tab. And you should really stop agitating against other editors. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Salvio, do you perceive support/consensus in this ANI thread for your proposal to unblock YRC? You don't appear to have support from the blocking admin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This ANI thread, honestly, is nothing but a disjointed train wreck. There are people who have gathered to lynch an editor they dislike and others debating linguistics, while only very few are discussing the actual merits of the block itself. The few who do emphasise that Youreallycan had struck his attacks as soon as he was asked to and before this thread was started, has apologised, has admitted he acted inappropriately and has promised he'll avoid such behaviour in future. Admins are allowed to use their best judgement, that's why we were made admins by the community. And my best judgement tells me this block doesn't serve any purpose any longer except to punish Youreallycan. And, therefore, should be lifted. And I don't have to have the support of the blocking admin to reverse his block; it's considered courteous to contact a blocking admin before reversing his actions, but that has never been a requirement. Especially when one is evaluating an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Update. I have just unblocked Youreallycan. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (ec)I might agree, if this weren't part of a pattern. YRC/OTRR has a history of getting emotionally invested in editing disputes and reacting poorly. If it's not personal attacks it's edit warring. He's made promises before, as noted in his block log. They don't seem to stick. A truly bad unblock. AniMate 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Indeed -- a total of 15 blocks, including 3 on the new account, roughly one a month. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. --JN466 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a sad day for our community when a long term disruptive editor makes a blatant homophobic attack and gets unblocked after only a few hours, while wikilawyers quibble over whether demeaning other editors by telling them to fuck off with their "queer agenda" might not be quite blatantly homophobic enough. Poor show, bad unblock. I'm disgusted at how ineffective ANI is as a means to deal with harassment in these cases. --Fæ (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• The fact that YRC has been unblocked doesn't mean this thread can't continue to discuss the issue of if he needs any sort of further topic ban or blocking regarding his behavior in LGBT issues. I would encourage everyone to move ahead with discussing that matter, especially since now YRC is able to participate directly in that conversation on his own behalf. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disappointingly, the rationale for the unblock seems to be that the comment "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" was in no way homophobic, so apologising for the swearing and refusing to apologise for the homophobia is good enough. Maybe we should preach what we practice and take "homophobic" out of the text of WP:NPA#WHATIS. FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Salvio could you please explain the meaning of your wink and bum related joke immediately after your unblock for Youreallycan?[38] In the context of homophobic allegations it seems to deliberately make light of these serious issues and not what I would expect of an unblocking admin who has taken time to consider the nature of the serious allegations, the disruption this has caused or how LGBT Wikimedians will judge your comment as trivializing such attacks as a joke. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Of everything I have read in this debacle; this is the most disturbing and worrying thing. Fæ, when you start to see homophobia in such small detail then it starts to become disruptive. When you shop in multiple fora for a response it begins to get worring. It's bad enough that the word "queer" is now being bandied as a heinous crime, and multiple editors are being accused (even if subtly) of homophobia. I have a growing concern here that there really is some sort of agenda here - exactly what, and from whom, is eluding me at the present moment but something odd is emerging. In the light of day this comment was unfair of me, and rude, sorry Fæ. In mitigation it was 1am :) --Errant ^(chat!) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I was taken aback to see your comment and its implications about my motivations, and I very much appreciate your withdrawing it in good faith. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you realise how offensive and paranoid this question is? I'm employing a commonly used colloquial expression to tell Youreallycan that I hope my actions will not boomerang on me and that I hope he'll not let me down. Have I become an homophobe too, now? Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)In the recently-closed and aptly-named Civility Enforcement case (which you yourself clerked), arbcom held that in a non-emergency situation, administrators are expected to refrain from undoing each others' administrative actions without first attempting to resolve the dispute by means of discussion with the initiating administrator, even in the face of an ongoing community discussion. In a situation where there is an ongoing community discussion, administrators should refrain from undoing another administrator's actions until consensus has become clear. Since you nowhere discussed this unblock with me, care to explain how there is a clear consensus to unblock or that this is an emergency? T. Canens (talk) 23:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have explained my actions earlier. It is only courteous to discuss with the blocking admin before reversing his actions; it has never been a requirement and that statement by ArbCom does not make it one. In this thread, there is no consensus that Youreallycan should remain blocked and various admins have stated that they would consider an unblock, if Youreallycan promised to refrain from making personal attacks. Since he did and since the block was no longer preventative, I unblocked. I consider my actions fully justified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I am glad you are so comfortable Salvio. Are there any more bum jokes and winks for Youreallycan you would like to add at this point, so all LGBT Wikimedians reading this are completely clear how sensitively these sorts of homophobic attacks will be treated by administrators in the future? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Fae I think you're over reacting to the wink and bum joke, although the real joke might be Salvio saying this is a risk to himself. What's the worst that could happen? Is he going to be desysopped over an unblock some disagree with? Will he be taken before Arbcom? Will he himself be blocked? The answer to all of those is of course no, so the risk to Salvio seems minimal, while the risk of more unpleasantness being dealt with by those he edits with seems much more realistic. Perhaps instead of focusing on the unblock, we should attempt to craft some community sanction to keep YRC from this disruptive behavior. AniMate 23:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fæ, let's not turn this into something that it isn't. Salvio's meaning with the "bum joke" was perfectly plain and in no way homophobic. This is how to react to a bum joke: by first assuming the person making it meant no offense. Let's not toss AGF out of the window here. 28bytes (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) AniMate, Those are not the only risks I worry about. I have taken a chance and if it turns out I was wrong, that would of course reflect on me too. That's the risk I was referring to. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
          • By all means try and get something a bit more meaningful out of this. At the moment I see only reasons to be disgusted at how homophobic abuse is repeatedly "tolerated" while anyone who might be accused of having a "queer agenda" appears to be a target of malicious harassment and canvassing on and off-wiki. I'm travelling, so it's a good time for me to take a break from looking at the issue of blatant patterns of homophobia on Wikipedia that should have been left behind in the 1970s, and focus on less disheartening matters. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Fae, for what it's worth, I agree with you completely. Salvio, this is a bad time for bad jokes: unblocking a blocked editor is already a delicate matter, and unblocking someone who got blocked for anti-gay remarks with a bum joke: I expected better from you. To the rest of you: what? It's obvious that a joke was being made here, wink and all, and if you don't see how it is a bad joke, then maybe empathy workshop, required by HR, might not be a crazy idea. Fo shizzle. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Don't want to add on but I disagree very much with what has happened here. Much as I agree this was a user reacting out of anger, how in the world is this [39] not a blockable offense? The comments were in no means relevant to the AfD in question (baited by another user or not) and are offensive to other users (LGBT or not) as evidenced by this thread. I would argue that the block is preventative over its duration in a user with the block history described above. I think an unblock was a very bad idea and sets a poor precedent that vitriol with accusatory overtones is acceptable on this project when an editor is baited or if they promise not to do it again after the fact. It is not, regardless of circumstance. -- Samir 23:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is beyond credibility that you are persisting in this discussion about the term "queer". We all know TODAY, right here and now, what that word means. It's homophobic in this context. Also I take into account the proof given of the editor's horrific incivility in general. Something must be done. You cannot continue to strain to give that editor's ugly words any kind of innocent construction.—Djathinkimacowboy 00:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The workings of Wikipedia "civility enforcement" seem most mysterious to me. One editor calls some people "control freaks"^[40] or says "u r dumb"^[41] and gets banned for life, another drops the F-bomb in the process of telling a fellow editor to get lost from the project and after a few hours all is forgiven. It all seems very peculiar. I think that it is time for people to seriously consider repealing or at least reducing the scope and penalties for WP:CIVILITY violations, because the policy won't and can't be enforced in any coherent way. Wnt (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This (insert whatever words you wish) business is now getting far out of hand. A block was made - and anything more sounds like "Torch his castle". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment re: Collect's remark: You dismiss this too lightly, as do too many here. Look at the threads this has generated. And you're saying the decision is to 'torch his castle'? I am personally in favour of torching any castle that houses a anti-Semitic, homophobic abuser. I'm a Jew and I'm gay. I don't need anyone telling me who is playing at being my enemy. Point is, he should be stopped.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are accusing YRK of antisemitism now? What next... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Since Andy the Grump decided to make things more personal[42], I will strike the anti-Semitism comment. Andy, as I told you at my talk: do not come to my talk page like that and stay clear of it henceforth. In fact as I redact and retract my anti-Semitism suggestion, I also officially take umbrage with Andy - or anyone - threatening me on my talk page about this thread. Stay off my talk henceforth, Andy. You know, you give this place a really bad name.—Djathinkimacowboy 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Since Salvio thought it most essential to unblock while ignoring an ongoing discussion, what do people think about topic banning YRC from LGBT related material for 3 months? AniMate 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for an indefinite topic ban on all LGBT-related articles and pages, very broadly construed, and a ban on mentioning anything even slightly LGBT-related anywhere in the project, with an non-negotiable indefinite community ban for any violation. Three months is too short, considering his history. He has insurmountable problems in this area. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think a topic ban can only help here, even if it doesn't fix everything. As I said up above, I'd support a topic ban for YRC from LGBT-related pages, broadly construed across all namespaces, and from calling attention to the sexuality of other editors or article subjects in any way. I'd prefer an indef duration rather than a three-month one, since time isn't a reliable fixer of, well, much of anything behavioral, but I can support 3 months as a minimum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• I would be fine with the unblock, if the community is able to implement an interaction ban on Youreallycan/Off2riorob from interacting with me, anywhere on WP, for any reason. The attack of myself, was absolutely below the pale, and I do not accept (along with the majority of uninvolved, level-headed and open-minded editors) Youreallycan's statement that it was not a personal attack. With an interaction ban on myself, at least I will be protected from such degrading, personal attacks in the future, and particularly because Youreallycan often engages in outright harassment of editors. (He's been warned against harassment of myself some months ago as Off2riorob). I also support an indefinite topic ban as per Dominus Vobisdu. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 04:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Context: I have had no recent interactions, and never any prolonged open discord, with Youreallycan/Off2riorob. As I recall, we interacted a few times, usually disagreeing, several years ago. I really hate saying this about a fellow Wikipedian who clearly is capable of contributing constructively, but Off2riorob's repeated incivility when discussing LGBT-related topics and relating to editors he perceives as having an "agenda" has created a toxic atmosphere in various parts of the project. When I encounter his username on a talk page, I generally just close the tab and go elsewhere even if I have something worth adding to the discussion because reading his combative, sometimes blatantly offensive remarks is just too stressful. Adding to that stress is the knowledge that no matter how many times the pattern repeats itself, Off2riorob walks away scot-free—sometimes with a slap on the wrist, not infrequently with heartfelt kudos, but the point is: he walks away, free to do it again. I believe in second chances, sometimes even third or fourth, but not an infinite number. How many times must this behavior come to ANI before it's taken seriously? A topic ban per Dominus Vobisdu's suggestion is entirely warranted. Failing that, a final warning—with teeth in it—is the only other acceptable outcome of this thread. Anything less would make a mockery of WP:CIVIL in general and send a clear message that Wikipedia tolerates a hostile editing environment when it comes to LGBT-related civility specifically. Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I see claims of homophobic behavior, but the only instance I see reported is the outburst concerning "Was it your queer agenda?". The claims that "queer agenda" is a homophobic attack are nonsense: click the news, books, and scholar links in Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I have no idea whether YRC's claim (that someone has an agenda to unduly promote LGBT issues) has any basis, and of course the redacted remark breaches CIVIL. However, it is not evidence that a topic ban is warranted. If evidence exists, please present a summary before making a proposal about a topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  Accusing people of having a gay agenda for being supportive of gay people and issues can certainly be homophobic, depending on circumstances and irrespective of the words used to say it. It accuses a person based on assumptions about their group identity. There's a crowd of bigots out there who are convinced that society is falling apart, losing its moral fiber, children are in danger, the suffering majority is afraid, etc., due to the concerted efforts of gays (or Jews, blacks, women, foreigners, whatever) with an agenda to control things. Like I said, it depends on context, but seeing those words used in anger is a red flag. Even if said without anti-gay malice, that kind of talk is at best divisive and unconstructive. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  While various attempts to reclaim "queer" from the epithet gutter have met with considerable success, the word tossed around casually and carelessly is still deeply offensive to many. (See 1 2 3 4.) In conjunction with the word "agenda", it's not even so much the word itself as the phrase and its connotations (see Homosexual agenda). In any event, this instance was part of a larger pattern. I don't log these kinds of things (in fact, I try to forget about them if at all possible) and I lack the patience to spend hours meticulously combing through thousands of user contribs only to find this thread has been prematurely closed in the meantime. Rivertorch (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC) Adding: These two threads are a starting point, however. This was also sort of weird; not sure what it meant, but it seemed a bit less than civil. Rivertorch (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, I suggest you look at the discussion on my talk page with AGK, where I have chewed his arse out because of the Arbcom doing nothing about acting upon what many editors saw as homophobic harassment of Fae at the RFC/U. Given that these statements were made within a short time after this on my talk page, one can safely assume that my "queer agenda" is protecting other editors from what many deemed to be homophobic harassment. It is disgusting behaviour from Youreallycan, and he needs to be removed from this entire area. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  John, you should also look at the most recent thread linked at the top of this section, in which users linked to YRC calling LGBT people (as a class, not specific users) immature/backwards, saying that any mention of a person's non-straight sexual orientation would make Wikipedia just like a gay newspaper, vandalizing a BLP because he believed it would make LGBT users (again as a class, not specific ones) angry, etc. Since a lot of past evidence was brought up in that thread, I think people have largely refrained from linking to each instance individually, but please do read it before saying that it was just this one time. And no, "homosexual agenda" and any of its variants are, again, not used in the MSM/scholarly work. Please do not propagate this ridiculous claim. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support -- in part on the basis of clicking on the links offered by Johnuniq, which demonstrate the opposite of that editor's claims (the scholar links are irrelevant in this context as YRC has almost certainly not consulted scholarly sources). The main point is that this sort of kerfuffle with YRC recurs on a regular basis -- there has been ample evidence in this and previous threads that a topic ban is warranted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support a well demonstrated history of disruptive editing and aggressive behaviour to other editors shows that an indefinite topic ban on LGBT related topics is required, this includes an interaction ban for any contributor that Youreallycan / Off2riorob has made "queer agenda" or similar anti-gay and unprovable claims about. Claiming a Wikipedian has a gay agenda is the declaration of a witch-hunt - such a claim can be made about any of us who have ever edited gay related articles and is a malicious act to foster a hostile environment to ensure that LGBT editors leave the project or cease improving these topics for fear of outing and malicious harassment. Sadly, there is an established pattern that such branding of editors is an open invitation for stalkers to canvass against Wikipedians using off-wiki badsites to sadistically out, harass and bully such an editor; Youreallycan is fully aware of the damaging consequences of his actions. --Fæ (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And noting that many BLPs have had substantial problems with people violating WP:BLP by asserting a sexual identity on a person without WP:BLP required sourcing, saying a person can not work on such abuses is absurd. Use of a topic ban in order to allow violations to go unchecked is a violation of common sense. And using a !vote in order to silence an editor whose article edits are of great value is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC opposes mentioning anyone's (non-straight, of course - we can talk about people's heterosexuality all we like and it's fine with him) sexual orientation even when it is well-sourced, as demonstrated in the evidence at the last discussion, linked at the top of this section. He believes that we must only talk about heterosexual people's sexual orientation because otherwise Wikipedia would be the "gay times." I'm really rather tired of people bringing up irrelevant BLP comments. BLP does not mean "remove sourced information you don't like if the article subject is a living person" and it certainly does not mean "if you edit enough BLP articles you are exempt from all rules." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If there is a civility/NPA problem, address that, but banning someone from enforcing BLP policy related to LGBT seems like the wrong way to go about this. The problem here is a very bad interaction with other editors, not LGBT-related abuse in articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The problems here are actually multiple, but this is an attempt to deal with very bad interaction with other editors that frequently manifests itself on LGBT-related discussions. And let's be clear: it's not a question of "enforcing BLP policy"; it's more like "edit warring to enforce his narrow interpretation of BLP policy on LGBT-related articles, questioning the motives and affronting the dignity of editors who disagree with him, getting blocked or admonished (but defended by the same select few administrators), announcing a break or retirement, and then returning in a few weeks or months and doing the exact same thing all over again". Does this happen only with regard to LGBT-related discussions? No. But it happens often with such discussions, and the continual lack of resolve at ANI thus far to do something about it is perpetuating an environment especially hostile to editors who identify as LGBT or are active in editing LGBT-related topics. It is my hope that a topic ban would have the effect of directing Youreallycan to other areas of the project where his tenacity would be less disruptive. Rivertorch (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support for "broadly construed" topic ban given YRC's repeatedly demonstrated inability to edit with neutrality on subjects related to LGBT issues. Ban should also encompass any reference to another user's sexual orientation in any namespace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown. Admittedly this is a touchy area, but I think a topic ban to be excessive.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: My view, humbly proffered here, is that the editor be permanently blocked. No suffering should pass from hand to hand. This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering. That is an aspect of this you should all consider. I do not view this as 'burning down his castle'. He burned it down himself. Practice what you seem to preach, and get off Salvio's back - that is what I think you should also do. Unless you wish to bring further actions against Salvio, what has he really got to do with this?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

" This editor likes to cause the gay community suffering". Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are funny. How about I cite this entire thread and the previous one. Or are you willing to cite all the examples he should be coddled and allowed to keep doing what he's been doing?—Djathinkimacowboy 19:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If I were convinced he was making homophobic comments, I would absolutely support the ban. I just don't see sufficient evidence here. Yea, his comment was inappropriate and juvenile, but it doesn't warrant a ban.JoelWhy (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per others. Taken in context and with knowledge of past behaviour, YRC/O2RR's remark crossed the final line. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Above I said that we may as well take homophobia out of the NPA guidance, which was meant as a throwaway comment. But if the consensus on this is denialism and an unaccountable desire to indulge the culprit, I think we really should forgo the hypocrisy and stop pretending. Because YRC refuses to acknowledge the problem, he should not have been unblocked. A topic ban is the next rung down the ladder and should be imposed instead. FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's more than just a touchy area, YRC has been genuinely offensive here. He shouldn't be editing in the LGBT area if he's going to offend LGBT people - surely that's obvious. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Youreallycan has done very good work, including cases where the question at issue was sexuality-related categorisation in accordance with BLPCAT. In one case it took multiple admins and an OTRS ticket, in addition to Youreallycan's efforts, to stop the nonsense. Youreallycan has been a tower of strength in such situations. (And I am sure he earned the wrath of those he thwarted.) --JN466 20:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the instances where I've encountered YRC working on a sexual orientation categorization topic, he wanted to suppress sourced information (exactly compliant with the standards of WP:BLPCAT) because "Wikipedia is not the gay times - get over yourself." (To be more specific, but without getting into too much detail, he wanted to decategorize as LGBT an actor who had very prominently come out as gay because there were tabloid rumors of his dating a woman. We wouldn't allow non-primary tabloid rumors as a source for the individual being gay, but because YRC's agenda is to pretend everyone is heterosexual rather than to enforce BLP, YRC claimed that it was sufficient to make him straight.) What is this mythical "good work" he's done in the BLP area? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, that was one of those cases I recall. The actor, once proudly out, either attempted to get back into the closet, or decided he was (at the very least) bisexual. All the queer media, like queerty and hunkandgayguys, gave him a roasting for it, and there were editors here who wanted to roast him too, and make sure he would remain categorised as gay. I find it absolutely distasteful how anonymous editors, sometimes described as the "tag-a-gay brigade", seek to claim ownership over notable people's sexuality. This has nothing to do with what someone's sexual identification is, and everything to do with not respecting the personal boundaries of BLP subjects. Sexuality is private, unless there are good reasons for it not to be, and BLPCAT says we go with public self-identification, whatever that is. Their sexuality is one thing that BLP subjects have the final say on, and rightly so. JN466 12:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • We didn't have a source for him saying he was bisexual, and we had copious sourcing of him saying he was gay. Precisely because BLPCAT works off of public self-identification, we don't use tabloid rumors of him dating a woman to say anything about his sexual orientation. But YRC wanted to use these rumors - with no comment from the subject about the girlfriend and certainly not about self-identification - not even to say that he may be bisexual, but to say that he was heterosexual. Again, the sourcing was completely inadequate for comments on someone's sexual orientation, per the very rules you cite, but YRC doesn't care about those rules; they're just a convenient smokescreen when he wants to put someone back in the closet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - High maintenance editor who is said to do good work. As his block log moves into well into doubt digits, its time for Rob to understand that it's time to cut the crap. Topic banning him out of one subject where he clearly "has issues" is a start. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - No merit to the proposal. The LGBT topic area has become increasingly problematic over the years, and if some toes are getting stepped on in cleaning it up, that's a price worth paying. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Translation: the queers are getting uppity, better bring in a homophobic blunt instrument to put them in their place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please spare me the Victim Card ploy. I oppose wiki-activism regardles of the ideology. I have been quite active in keeping the Tea Party and birther talking points out of the Obama articles over the years, for starters. It just happens at the moment that there is a lot of very bad-faith pro-LGBT activism going on in this project. From Ash's "gay bathhouse regulars" to the small-s santorum crusade to my torpedoing of the Marcus Bachmann hit piece, there's been a lot of bad articles to take care of lately. "Queer agenda" may have been an impolitic turn of a phrase, but the general gist behind it is clear and present. This stuff isn't being opposed and fought against because editors are gay; it is being fought because it is wrong for this project. Tarc (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
      • My comment was intended seriously. Why do you believe that the only way to deal with the problems you believe exist in the topic area is by making LGBT users feel unwelcome, and why do you believe that rampant and obvious policy violations on the one hand are the right tool to deal with what you believe to be policy violations on the other? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't want to make "LGBT users" feel unwelcome, I want to make "bad users" feel unwelcome, if one of the latter is also one of the former, that doesn't mean "Tarc doesn't want LGBT editors around". As for your last question, I don't see them as equal; WP:BLP trumps civility twaddle. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
          • The repeated homophobic attacks from YRC don't single out bad users, though; they single out LGBT users. There are many, many ways to call out bad editing without saying that LGBT people, as a class, are retarded, without invoking the far-right "homosexual agenda" meme, etc. Why is an entire class of productive users acceptable collateral damage for what you personally believe to be editing problems, while one user is not acceptable "collateral damage" (and I use the scare quotes because he's not a victim by the wayside, but the one causing the problem) in enforcing a productive editing environment for people of all sexual orientations? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose overly broad for one instance of being an insensitive dick. Also open to gaming, we'd be back here in no time arguing the scope. Kevin (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Please check out the noticeboard discussion linked near the top of the thread. It's not "one instance of being an insensitive dick" - these comments go back months. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: If a single homophobic or uncivil crack (and "queer agenda" is nothing short) was sufficient to elicit topic sanctions, I can think of some editors who should have been slapped with sanctions a hundred times over. Obviously Youreallycan has been offensive and uncivil generally, but there are remedies for that. Ravenswing 04:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said to Kevin, this isn't a "single" comment - this is months upon months of sustained attacks on editors whose sexual orientation differs from YRC's. I refer you to the last noticeboard report on the subject. I'm also not sure why the other cases are supposed to be relevant here: if you don't believe homophobic attacks on other users should be prevented, why is it a problem that other users haven't been restricted? And if you do believe such behavior should be prevented, why does YRC deserve special treatment? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support While Off2riorob/YRC has done good work, Wikipedia should make a firm stand against homophobia. I'd be in favour of a fixed term ban on LGBT topics and issues relating to gender and sexuality on BLPs. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: BLP and policy enforcement ban

Youreallycan has, unfortunately, a long-running behavioral issue. I previously discussed this in some detail at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan#Behavioral, not topic-based, problem. I recommend that readers of this thread should take a look. As I said on that occasion, I don't think a ban on a particular topic is going to be effective. We have seen this problem arising with a number of topics - this time it's LGBT, previously it's been British Jews, tomorrow it will be something else. Banning him from LGBT topics will do nothing to address the underlying problem.

The constant thread connecting all of these issues is that YRC has set himself up as a policy enforcer. The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan centred on his disruptive editing of a BLP under the aegis of "enforcing" BLP. A later discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232#Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob) involved his "enforcement" actions on articles related to Rick Santorum. On this occasion he has got himself into trouble over his comments in relation to an attempt to "enforce" NPOV via an AfD discussion. An LGBT topic ban would miss the point: it is not specifically the topic that is the problem, it's the pattern of behaviour related to his cack-handed attempts to enforce policy.

His contributions show that he focuses primarily on BLP and policy enforcement, areas which are notoriously prone to interpersonal conflict between editors. The bottom line is that his judgement and approach are both too flawed for him to be effective in this self-appointed role. There are many other editors who can and do manage to do this effectively. He is not one of them. For his own good as much as anyone else's, I think it would be appropriate to make him go and do something else - write new articles, contribute to DYK, help to rescue articles, whatever, but not participate in areas that are likely to lead to conflict. He should not participate further in noticeboard discussions concerning policy enforcement (including on AN, AN/I, BLPN, AfD etc) but should focus on building the encyclopedia.

I therefore propose that Youreallycan should be prohibited from (i) editing biographies of living people broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iii) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to the enforcement of Wikipedia policies anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues. The Arbitration Committee should be authorised to review this prohibition after a year, taking regard of his contributions to article space during this period. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support changing of account name may have given the impression that Youreallycan intended to leave the massive long term disruption he caused to the project behind and turn over a new leaf. Unfortunately not so, anyone concerned about his recent actions which have turned Wikipedia into a battleground, should review the long history of complaints on ANI about his edits as Off2riorob (talk · contribs). Wikipedia is not a playpen for Jew baiting and gay bashing; it is a pity that Arbcom and Oversight are so short of time that they seem unable to be of much practical help with these problems and some of their members appear more interested in spending their time writing replies and even creating discussions with banned users on badsites, rather than resolving their personal concerns on-wiki. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the other case of harassment against myself occurred on Boris Berezovsky article, in which I was using scholarly sources, Off2riorob took to stalking, accusing me of sockpuppetry, and generally harassing me. For context, there was an editor on the article who declared they had a close relationship with Berezovsky, and they were actively whitewashing the article in the lead up to a major court case in the UK between Berezovsky and Roman Abramovich. Here is the warning to him (in which he noted WP:DIGWUREN) and here is the trolling and harassment on my talk page. He tends to WP:OWN BLP pages, and thinks of himself as judge, jury and executioner on subjects he knows nothing about, thereby stopping knowledgeable editors who are mindful to NPOV and the like from editing articles. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 09:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. YRC/O2RR may have done some things wrong related to BLP articles (and he has certainly been too belligerent in support of his own position at times), but he has also done an awful lot of very good BLP work, and a complete BLP ban would be overkill. If there is to be any action or sanction, make it related to civility and NPA, not to the very important BLP work area. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I acknowledge that he's done good work, but at the same time he is racking up block after block for the same kind of thing, over and over again. At some point it has to be resolved. A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic. There are really only three workable options going forward. 1) An indefinite block, which really would be overkill. 2) Letting him continue what he's doing now but giving him some kind of civility/NPA parole. This would only partly address the problem, as the issue goes wider than that - note the edit-warring and disruption raised in previous discussions. Frankly I don't believe he has the self-control to abide by a civility/NPA parole (God knows he's had enough warnings.) 3) Requiring him to temporarily exit the fields in which he repeatedly comes into conflict with other editors, viz. BLPs and community noticeboards. I think the latter is the most proportionate and best-suited approach. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"A topic block is not going to do any good because the underlying problem is not confined to a single topic" - that'll mean no BLP topic ban then? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Talk about "back-asswards logic' - Wikipedia needs more who will make sure that WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are fully followed. Saying that WP:BLP should not have anyone who will seek to enforce it is absurd. And I need not point out that some who egregiously violated WP:BLP in the past per ArbCom decisions were not given this sort of overarching ban. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was a little shocked to see this outburst from Rob (I'd seen outbursts before, but not with this terminology in this area). Accusing someone of a "queer agenda" it really not kosher (Johnuniq, this may be the first time I disagree with you) and in this context I think it is homophobic. Then again, I probably also have a queer agenda, and I think Mrs. Drmies does as well; you don't need to be queer to have a queer agenda. Anyway, Rob is a valuable BLPitbull and I oppose a topic ban. I don't know what measures would be appropriate. Rob, will you PLEASE take the commentary here to heart? Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  It looks like I am out of step. In real life I have inadvertently offended people with plain talk that I thought was just asserting an opinion, and I have sometimes completely missed comments made by others that were apparently an insult of some kind, so perhaps my opinion is not the best here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I keep hearing all this praise for what YRC/O2RR does in the BLP area, but the only instances of it I've actually seen have been his campaign to delete or vandalize articles related to santorum (neologism) and his attempts to delete sourced information on non-heterosexual orientations. What is this so lauded BLP enforcement, other than a convenient excuse for people who think homophobic abuse on Wikipedia is perfectly all right and/or necessary? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't seen it because you haven't looked. [43]. Do you want a list of all the non-sexual-orientation-related BLP issues that YRC has worked on? Frankly, that comment is unworthy of you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything that outweighs the destructive edits he's made in the BLP area (but I do see POV-pushing under the banner of BLP, what else is new). Perhaps he was a good BLP contributor in the past but he has ceased to be one. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Insufficient grounds shown.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though YRC/Rob has made mistakes (who hasn't?), the evidence suggests that, in the difficult BLP area, he does much useful work - and frankly, it is desperately needed at times. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Enough protecting the real damaging elements to WP. I've had it with this "Oh, he's made mistakes, who hasn't?" He has made no mistakes. He knows exactly what he wishes to express.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So you are a mind reader now? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose In general there needs to be more support for those who enforce policy, not enforcement against. The behavioral/civility issues can and should be dealt with, but not at the expense of disallowing enforcement. aprock (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt. — Ched :  ?  20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andy, Wehwalt, Drmies. BLPN had tumbleweeds blowing across it before Youreallycan showed up. If it's a functioning board today, it is to no small degree due to the effort and application he put into it. --JN466 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Reply to Andy:' Andy, I am a post-reader, and came here to comment. I have already capitulated in good faith because I myself was out of order with the comment I made that I have since redacted. I suggest you do also begin to assume good faith. Now, I am outta here. Please do not place ANI notices on my page, or anything on my talk page, which I have specifically asked of you already.—Djathinkimacowboy 22:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

See the top of this page: "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so". I'll AGF when you withdraw the comments you've made about me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely not. I'm conflicted about the LBGT Topic Ban, and feel that weighing in there would require a lot more research than I want to do, but, for me, BLP-enforcement is nearly synonymous with Youreallycan (and former names). That "position", if you will, requires bluster and aggression, because I see YRC all the time have to put up with dozens of editors who simply don't understand that BLP is policy, that it is equal in policy to NPOV, V, etc, and that, no, they cannot site a gossip show to talk about an alleged scandal from 5 years ago that never actually turned into an established fact. This is extreme and unwarranted by anything I see above. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  "Requires bluster and aggression"? From the dictionary closest at hand: Bluster: "loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect." Aggression: "1. hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another. 2. The act of attacking without provocation. 3. Forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests." With the possible exception of the third definition of "aggression", are these really attributes to value in an editor? Are civility and patience unwelcome in certain areas of Wikipedia? Come on. Just over a month ago on this noticeboard, Youreallycan (after losing his cool, being reported, and immediately announcing a wikibreak) claimed to have "no topic focus at all". If that's actually true, then it shouldn't be too difficult for him to avoid either LGBT-related topics or BLPs across the board. Rivertorch (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Any ban proposal made by those who have had past altercations/disagreements with the subject is D.O.A. as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - the "queer agenda" comment was completely out-of-line, and I'm considering supporting the LGBT topic ban, but this proposal is completely wrong-headed. This is not the solution. LadyofShalott 00:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is too blunt a solution. Kevin (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I wouldn't object to the discussion of an LGBT topic band if any further comments are made in the future, but this issue has spiraled into this from something much more specific than BLP issues writ large. Though the history is admittedly checkered, the user has done enough positive for BLPs, which is probably "backlogged" more than any other problem on WP, that I simply can't support such an action as this point in time. Kansan (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm sorely tempted to support this in recollection of some comments like at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive739#Fleming Facebook post, but I don't want to set a precedent of suppressing WikiPolitical opinions, and I think it's overthinking the problem. We already have enough policies; we don't need new theories for action. When somebody violates a civility policy and a block under it is reversed as an error, it gives the impression that he's above the law, so why try to make new ones? Wnt (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I really do wish Rob would step away from the keyboard when his emotions are running high. But, if you watchlist WP:BLPN for any length of time, it is apparent how much gruntwork Rob performs in this area. Many, many violations of BLP policy would still be up on WP pages if not for his decisive (unfortunately sometimes divisive) edits. BLP issues are often intersections of the world's most contentious and insoluble ideological differences, and it's not surprising that they divide editors here, too. But, Rob, please, pretty please, stop dropping F-bombs on other editors, and try to be more sensitive in regards to sexual orientation. The Interior (Talk) 17:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log) figured in the departure of Blnguyen/YellowMonkey in late 2010. Since then, his persistent attempts to skew Wikipedia's coverage of South Asian history in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories has repeatedly sapped the time and morale of knowledgeable and/or expert contributors. As seen in the latest episode (and again in a previous iteration), YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial. Time and again in YK's career, this problematic editing programme is backed with non-pertinent and non-specialist sources in intense bursts of repeat reverts and talk-page spamming of questionable sources. He backs off for a time before returning, often to the same article and the same issue. This sporadicity has perhaps allowed him to dodge the blocks and other injunctions that befall other disruptively tendentious or revisionist editors not savvy enough to strategically time or space their spurious content challenges.

Nevertheless, the damage is done: again and again, as exemplified most recently at Talk:India#Aryan_Invasion_theory_oops_read_migration, experienced editors must tediously refute each of YK's formulaic challenges: fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic rewrites and removals backed by marginal or non-specialist sources. This would perhaps be OK if the editor in question were newer or less familiar with core content policies, but the episodic recidivism of YK is a different matter: a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite but otherwise of duration not less than six months, renewable upon occurrence of further disruption, would be a solution that would save time and foster more policy-compliant content contribution on both sides. Saravask 11:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some additional points:

• I recommend that the closing admin interpret "a topic ban for YK revolving around South Asian history, preferably indefinite ..." as taking the form of the first restriction placed on Zuggernaut (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log): "topic banned from Indian history, broadly construed. He is not permitted to edit or discuss these topics anywhere on Wikipedia." Presumably, as with Zuggernaut, a mentoring admin would step forward to guide/police YK with respect to the topic ban.
• Below, editors suggested that the proposed editing restriction should have been stronger, for example stating that YK's source misrepresentations and undue referencing and tendentious editing not be merely decanted from one topic (South Asian history) to another (British literature). Some seemed to hint that an indefinite site ban is required: "It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go."; "... but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke." In light of the further evidence of YK's persistent pattern of disruption (more detailed and disturbing than mine) presented below, short of a unequivocal promise to reform tendered by YK, I'd support a site ban, whether now or in future YK-related damage-control discussions.
• For now, the spirit of the proposed topic ban should ideally inform uninvolved admins dealing with YK-style disruption, whether the strict letter of this proposed ban cover the affected pages (say, on Pakistani or Indian history) or not (Dickens). If YK returns to disruptive editing (which, given his on-and-off history, is likely), the consensus that emerges here should help enact stronger future restrictions earlier rather than later in YK's next disruptive cycle.
• Several editors with greater sourcing expertise than I or more experience dealing with YK have corrected/clarified/expanded the observations above. Johnuniq, Truthkeeper88, and others point to the harm YK has done to the Charles Dickens articles by giving undue weight to sources or positions, driving away responsible editors, etc. Had I known, I'd have recommended a more wide-ranging editing restriction, perhaps by proposing enactment of point four of the Zuggernaut restrictions with respect to the Dickens articles as well as point three, allowing uninvolved admins to spot ban YK from talk pages/articles where he has been or is being disruptive.

Saravask 05:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have been watching this latest sequence and did on a couple of occasions try to explain to those who were getting drawn in by YK's fringe theories, but my experience of YK's methodology, which Saravask explains well, goes back for quite some while. Nothing is changing, nothing is being learned and the time-sink aspect is phenomenal. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• This gives an idea of just how many times Yogesh Khandke's POV-pushing/undue weight theories etc have been referred to this noticeboard. There are plenty of other instances that did not make it thus far and he was, of course, involved in the politically-oriented protest at the India Wikiconference last year when he tried to obtain a legal resolution to an issue relating to WP's depiction of maps of India. He disappeared when that failed and has only recently returned to editing. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources never say that they are 'fringe' theories by 'cranks'. These are assertions from editors on Wikipedia. I am little puzzled how Sitush is silent on this facet, even if that goes against his vote.

Also Sitush and other editors are well experienced to let know if content disputes can be taken to ANI or not. My understanding says that content dispute has to be dealt with first before concluding that these are 'fringe theories'. Considering your expertise on sources, could you present sources please that state clearly that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories'. Unless it is proven that views from the side of YK are exclusively 'fringe theories', such assumptions can be made against views presented by YK.

I don't think that much of what User:Saravask states such as "in favor of various fringe Hindu nationalist theories" etc holds unless any content disputes, if any, are resolved.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Saravask describes it well. I've seen editors spending huge amounts of time trying to explain to Yogesh Khandke how we use reliable sources, how we evaluate sources, how we can't add improperly sourced fringe ideas, can't add nationalist POV, etc, but it's just not getting through and a lot of time is being wasted repeatedly going over the same kinds of things. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that there are no sources presented by the involved admin himself that state the sources presented by YK are exclusively fringe theories. Per me, this is in contradiction to his statement above about his own idea of reliable sources and loses much weight especially in absence of any discussion as such on 'fringe throries' which could not be discussed on this noticeboard.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing the original content disputes and this discussion of YK's behaviour. Saravask has provided links showing evidence of YK's behaviour, and the sources/fringe/POV issues are covered at those links. In order to evaluate YK's behaviour and Saravask's recommendation, I do not need to restart the content arguments here and now or provide any content sources of my own (as the sources used were presented and discussed at the time), I simply need to evaluate the evidence of YK's behaviour in those content discussions. (And by the way, I really don't think your badgering everyone who supports this recommendation is doing you any favours, you know). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - My understanding here is that the views per YogeshKhandke are not 'Hindu nationalist theories' or 'fringe theories backed by marginal or non-specialist sources; Hindutva-sympathetic' etc. I can say this by words present in the discussion itself such as 'contemporary scholarly debates', 'some Indian scholars', 'Some historians and Indian nationalists', 'The Aryan migration theory has been challenged recently by several archaeologists', etc. Words like scholarly debates, Indian scholars, Some historians, archaeologists etc. can hardly be described as 'fringe' groups etc - I think all the participants here in this debate need to understand this well. In any case, this is about history long ago which no one can directly prove much at all directly with certainty; much less if there is indeed a debate on such topic ongoing - more so hotly debated topics such as this. Also, western sources per my understanding do not represent exhaustive views, and quoting someone of higher repute is considered sufficient for substance, without actually going into details of all sides. For me therefore this does not merit such action, especially when sources can have diverse views and are not bound to present all views (- this needs to be better discussed per me). As far as other edits are concerned, undoing an edit is no big deal especially compared to edits put in especially with sources mentioned. I would also suggest people here, learned and experienced too, to avoid name calling on personal perceptions. An example would be 'crank' which is per individual editor's (here Fowler) choice of words to describe what he calls nationalist historians/archeologists. While being experienced and reputed on Wikipedia, this wouldn't affect the seniormost editors but it would definitely affect any not-so-senior ones in case views from one side is made to look worthless, leading to bans etc. If senior editors do it, others will learn to repeat the same behavior. I am reminded of one instance when I was involved in an ugly exchange with some senior editor who suggested something like I have sympathy for 'saffron terror' or 'saffron terrorism' or whatever, while reopening a closed vote in my absence; and got away without even a warning and that lead to a ban on me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 12:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Where were you banned or even blocked? I don't see anything in your block log. Would you mind supplying a diff? JanetteDoe (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• JanetteDoe, Thisthat2011 was topic banned per this. It has expired now. - Sitush (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sitush, I didn't see that. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about this topic ban [| link], the one mentioned by Sitush is incorrect. It is where I was accused one the lines of saffron terror as a reason reopening a vote which I think is not a correct way to reopen a closed vote. No one corrected either the editor not the reopening of voting.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The topic ban link to which you refer appears to be the same ban to which I referred. Am I mistaken? The fact that you more or less sat out that ban and then returned to similar topic areas and, in a fairly short space of time, end up here ... well, it does not look great. I would not have raised the issue if you had not volunteered it. My suggestion would be that in future you do not refer back to that topic ban: it had consensus and it is over and done with. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please check again, these are two messages with same header for some reason! Also, my ban is over. Per instructions of the person who banned me, I am discussing this on talk pages, I have not indulged in any edit war which you may imply. I have presented my views on talk:India page too. If you have anything against it, please reply there because I have neither edited anything on that page currently, nor edited even if sources requested by me are not presented, even here.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 06:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made my position clear here. I will not make any further comments other than saying that I think this discussion has turned rather fragmented, with little smaller discussions on sourcing when it is not being discussed at reliable sources board even for dispute, and more. I could have said a lot more with sources on various topics on each topic but but I think that won't be possible here with an open mind for all sides so I won't regardless as also that this looks too confusing to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see anything wrong being done by Yogesh, first you may argue that he had edited the article before discussing but that action alone would not merit a ban. He did not push aside the sources presented by other editors all he displayed was that there are other theories so the sentence needs to be changed. Editors like fowler are considering few historians a cranck case and thus not considering those historians work, now this is something that can be debated. Coming to the point of Yoges pushing few Indian nationalist theory; Yogesh did provide few other sources and none of them were Indians, if he is wrong you can discard the sources but not initiate a discussion to ban him.--sarvajna (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is going no where and its getting murkier with every reply from either side. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Its high time he is topic banned. His POV pushing is wasting everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what can be added here and what cannot. This is not the first time he is doing it. He knows well that the POV he pushes cannot get consensus through discussions, so his method is to first add unilaterally, then edit war without breaking 3RR. When thwarted he will try to argue it in the talk page. He usually doesnt get his way and comes back a few months later repeating the same point or similar points. He is a colossal drain on the community's time and resources.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• 'Yogesh Khandke replies:(1)Some of those voting here Soda, Sitush, and admin Zebeedee, a long history of conflict with me regarding content, Sitush has been hounding me for many months but I have ignored him, not to create conflict. (2)ANI isn't the forum to bring content disputes so I will not justify my edits unless asked to do so. (3)Regarding gaming the system: I don't have computer access at work, so my editing is subject to the time I have leisure, that cannot be held against me. (3)Since it is year-end, (financial year), I have limited time, so that should be considered, I mean I will not be able to watch this page, I could know about this discussion only because I received an email alert because of the message left on my talk page. (4)This ANI is used as a tool in content disputes, which is unfair. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Holocaust denial: Saravask writes: "YK is adroit in promoting a non-consensus position—one that can hardly be said to enjoy more currency among reputable historians than does, say, Holocaust denial.", which is nothing but a lie, all I wanted in the article was the mention that the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory is disputed for which I have presented evidence, I repeat my position which is that the India article which mentions the Aryan Migration theory should also mention that the theory is disputed by academics - historians, archaeologists, experts on genetics, cultural and language scholars, I am not disputing the mention of Aryan Migration in the article, my position is that this theory is diputed by numerous NON-FRINGE, RELIABLE SOURCES, for which I have presented evidence which I have collected on a sandbox and so the India article should take cognizance of the dispute as it is NOTABLE. (sorry about bringing up the content dispute but the fatuous reference to Holocaust denial needed to be scotched.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Fowler I should add his name in the list of content disputers and one who has been frequently abusive and uncivil, however since I don't believe in formal action against fellow editors I dropped the issue after he tendered an unconditional apology - twice. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The language that Fowler uses: "Hindu nationalist fringe "scholars" ", "Indian cranks" in the latest discussion.[44], when administrator Regentspark was requested to reign in the abusive Fowler (for an abuse a short while before the edit presented by the diff), admin Regentspark excused himself as an involved editor,[45] here he has no qualms in rushing to support a topic ban, he was an opposite party made by me in the historic YellowMonkey case and was admonished for batting for YellowMonkey. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that Mr. Khandke is cornered he has suddenly turned saintly and is accusing me of being abusive. He conveniently forgets his own transgressions. Long before I entered this latest fray, when user:AshLin asked for my input on the current state of knowledge on the Indo-Aryan migration theory, Mr. Khandke, unsolicited, offered a Marathi language proverb which he offhandedly asked AshLin to translate if requested. Well, why don't you translate it for us now, Mr. Khandke? I am requesting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

PS Perhaps someone else who knows Marathi could translate it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know Marathi, but found the proverb here. JanetteDoe (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Not sure what to make of it, but YK has a history of using vernacular expressions (which I don't understand) in exchanges with me. See, for example, user:Sodabottle's post at the bottom of this ANI thread titled Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Fowler even before you entered the discussion YK had suggested that you would ardently oppose the inclusion of the other theory(that is what the proverb mean but indirectly) which proved to be right. Yes there are incidents were your language can be very objectionable for example [[46]] where you say that it is the last time that you would consider ppl bringing other sources, I guess if I had pursued it may be there would have a been a discussion about banning me as well, calling historians whom you don't consider worthy as crank case is also objectionable anyhow the discussion here is not about Fowler's language but about YK. I feel that this whole discussion is biased against YK--sarvajna (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is more likely to be the case that the comments here reflect an emerging consensus, but time will tell. However, even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully. For example, compare this new article by him with its current state. I am still trying to fix the gross slant that he put on the thing, using for now just the sources that he has identified. It is the usual subtle "all the fault of the Brits" stuff in which he seems to specialise. - Sitush (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems that everyone is being vindictive of YK and everything that was edited by him is being dug out, this discussion was started after he had given some evidences of sources on the India talk page. Few admins/editors have declared that nothing would change as long as they are the administrators and I feel the point of banning YK has come up because he annoys few admins POV(This is what I think after seeing the talk page of India and few other AN/I involving YK, I also know that this would not matter a lot) --sarvajna (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

From Sitush "even when not indulging fringe theorists etc, Yogesh Khandke has to be watched carefully", does this mean that opinion of User:Sitush is more likely that the editor YK is not indulging fringe theorists in this case? just for clarity. In that case, the entire discussion may be seen in another light - perhaps a content dispute, and not what this looks like.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You ask for clarity. If I could understand the rest of your message then perhaps I could provide it. Can anyone assist? Perhaps I am a bit more than my usual dumb self today. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern is that YK has failed to observe WP:SPEAKENGLISH with me more than has any other editor I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. His command of English is not that poor that the vernacular (Marathi) is his only option, that he can't provide a translation, when he knows perfectly well that I do not understand a word of the language. How come he is not using Marathi (with offhanded remarks about translation) in the frenetic edits he is making on the Charles Dickens page? How come there are no "frog in the well," or "wrestling with a pig" expressions there? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite topic ban for one of the most bizarrely tendentious editors I have encountered in my six years on Wikipedia. user:Saravask has eloquently and precisely summarized what many of us have felt about YK's edits (most of which are on talk pages) ever since he first arrived on Wikipedia. People have cut him more slack than any definition of slack allows. It is time to end this; otherwise, productive editors will feel disheartened and be rendered unproductive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think User:Fowler&fowler needs to rethink his stance on various issues he considers as fringe. His views are consistent that many theories are projected by 'by Indian jingoists', 'cranks', etc. Examples: [| 1], [| 2]. He is not ready to consider that there are debates on it ongoing even though sources mention so. About this comment from "The minority is too small and, in many cases, unrecognized as scholarly, to gain mention in the summary history section of a Wikipedia FA. None of the people you have quoted including Edwin Bryant or Laurie Patton are historians. As scholars of India none are even remotely in the same league as Colin P. Masica, Barbara D. Metcalf, Thomas R. Metcalf, Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel, Burton Stein], Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Patrick Olivelle or Stanley Wolpert, all of whom have lent their support to the notion Aryan migration." I am not sure if this is the place to reply to this comment as discussion is also going on talk:India page in parallel. The sources themselves mention 'scholarly debates' etc.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Tendentious doesn't begin to describe this user, from the looks of things. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Tendentious in the extreme and here only to push a fringe POV which he does aggressively and relentlessly. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

  The alteration of quotes, misrepresenting citations by cherry picking comments, misidentifying sources, reframing the debate as something it is not, etc. demonstrated here by Fowler are classic examples of tendentious pov pushing behavior. --regentspark (comment) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is hardly any discussion to support the assertion that the views presented by editor YK are 'fringe theories', etc. The discussion is still going on on talk:India page. If the user regentspark finds sources that say the theories are from 'cranks' & 'Hindu nationalists', please mention sources here or on talk:India. Such assertions from experienced users without sources, without going to reliable sources noticeboard, without concluding discussion on talk:India are hardly considered appropriate on a vote according to me.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, as per all the reasoning above. Given Yogesh's lack of concern and non-constructive edits to the respective articles, he deserves a Topic ban. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned about this user just adding one-sided comment here without being involved at all. Examples of his talk page are: [| 1], [| 2]. I would therefore have comments from this user ignored.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed the whole discussion is being conducted like "my way or the highway " as mentioned above by me few editors are hell bent to ban YK --sarvajna (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, attack the editors taking part in the discussion - that's sure to get people on your side ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this right, people who haven't been involved with the dispute can't add their opinions; while those who have been involved with their dispute but are in support of a topic ban are "hell bent" on getting their way. Riiiight. If anything I think its the defence that is going overboard... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

1st Boing! said Zebedee if you think you are being funny you are not 2nd. I did not say that people who are not involved should not add their opinion all I meant was "they should not form an opinion just on the basis of what it is being discussed here but rather check out the matter properly" (apologies if I was not clear) --sarvajna (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This part, started from the user User:Abhijay nowhere involved in this and apparently not too well versed with Wikipedia, is going nowhere. Look just two topics above this topic [| here on the same page], which perhaps has led to the other user User:Strange Passerby here. As an admin User:Boing! said Zebedee who is on one side of discussion here could have avoided passing comments on someone on the other side like this, when it is clear which side which editor belongs to.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

My comment here had nothing to do with Abhijay so you'd do well not to assume. I've watched this from afar for a long time, having previously had pleasant interactions with Sitush and Boing. Wait, I suppose in your eyes that makes me involved. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about User:Abhijay, see where this is going? Editors on one side writing about editors on the other side and then more!!इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. You're not making coherent sense. You suggested that I was "led here" because Abhijay posted about me to the board. I'm saying my taking part in this discussion has nothing to do with that. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 20:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I stand corrected then. I suggested that perhaps you were checking on his edits and then saw this discussion and then added your opinion. In any case, it does not affect your view. Though still I am not sure how much weight is carried by the opinion of User:Abhijay. Perhaps your could clarify about it, even if his comment does not support your view.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 20:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Guys c'mon. Abhijay is a good faith, but new, editor. He has obviously not long found this board and has tried to comment and contribute. Any competent closing administrator will be able to see that train of events and weight his contribution accordingly. Piling on each other, based on his comment, is not going ot help either him - or you. In fact it's probably pretty off putting all round. Lets chalk this up and move on. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as I have seen the POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period—it will never end voluntarily. However, I am concerned that a topic ban from South Asian history would leave YK more free time to cherry pick negative commentary to inflate stuff like Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism—the central problem is not so much South Asian history as a misunderstanding of what is DUE. When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place, and an article highlighting alleged racism and anti-Semitism of Dickens completely misses the point, and should not be tolerated at a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The editor himself says that "When Dickens died (1870), the world was an extraordinarily different place", but does mention the topic here, without commenting on whether the editor disputes any sources and how the sources 'inflate' stuff etc.. The topic in that era, 'inflate stuff', etc. do not matter in any case; and so would be the editor's perception of POV based on Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism article.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

  The central problem is that for any major topic like India or Charles Dickens there will be literally thousands of sources that could be argued to satisfy WP:RS (and similar sources might be adequate for unsurprising text in other topics). However, when a thousand sources have written about Dickens, it is inevitable that some of them will have chosen to interpret Dickens' writings as racist or whatever. It is not satisfactory for an editor to find such sources and create articles based on them (that is undue cherry picking, aka WP:SYNTH). For major topics like these, there are hundreds of high-quality scholarly sources written by acknowledged subject experts, and it those sources that should be used for a neutral encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that YK has stopped anyone from editing the page. If you think it is biased, then use the talk page of that article. Have you added any content or made any efforts at it to dispute sources etc. before claiming that he is cherry picking, even without any discussion.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is this discussion heading to? Some dispute that needs to be settled on the talk page is being brought up here in support of a topic ban --sarvajna (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to "POV pushing and use of UNDUE sources over an extended period" and explaining that it is easy to cherry pick POV commentary from sources for major topics—that is why a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Really? You imply here that 36,031 bytes page size with 39 references used in it is a baised point of view? Forget the page size. I can stretch articles to huge lengths (just like Dicken's writings). But 39 valid independant references does not seem like something that can be ignored and not included in an article. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If the Johnuniq has consistently made, for which he has not provided any sources, the similar/same assertions about all users with views on the side of YK on the topic Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism, his opinion would have weight per me. Otherwise his views are not consistent w.r.t. editors.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 19:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Two points i want to say....
  1. As i see, most of the comments by editors here are complaints based on content dispute on various articles. I have observed a few threads here at ANI which keep on saying that content dispute should be addressed on a seperate forum assigned just for resolving those and ANI shall not be used to deal with it. So... if all the complaints are based on content dispute, this is a wrong place! Furthermore, I do not understand why the editors against YK's edits are actually against YK. Most of his edits which are called as "Undue" here actually are well referenced. 50:1 ratio will be called as undue. But i dont see such a huge ratio here. He clearly cites more than one references about various points he includes. I dont call it undue. All editors here should understand that Wikipedian editors should be neutral about the subject, but at the same time keep in mind that Wikipedia's aim is to be information bank which can be used for research. If contradictory views of reliable sources present on the topic are not mentioned in the article, i will call that as undue. Also, wikipedia articles are never complete. One must hence always assume good faith in other editors and not disregard the chance that something more of same sort might exist in other places which is yet not covered and brough to wikipedia. Building of articles might take long time and as wikipedians are not bound to do anything for wikipedia, it is unfair to assume that facts mentioned are Undue.
  Come on! Isnt it really good to have all views about a topic mentioned?
  2. As few ediotrs have pointed out above, other few editors who have not been involved in these topics should not vote here as Support or Oppose. I request them to change their views from Support or Oppose to "Comments". Although i do trust that admins who go through this would "read" carefully, i also trust in errors that humans can do. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 1) No, this is not itself a content dispute, it is about YK's chronic tendentious *behaviour* in content disputes and his repeated attempts to push his own POV against policy and against consensus. As a behavioural issue, this is a perfectly valid venue for it.

• Meant to add - A Wikipedia article is not a repository for every opinion ever aired on a subject or a place to publish all views, with each given equal weighting - that's not what balance is all about. A Wikipedia article is supposed to balance various views in accordance with the weighting given to them in the real world, by academics and experts as published in reliable sources. Fringe theories and minority views should only be included in proportion to the support they get in the real world, as support by reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• 2) Anyone is allowed to support or oppose the suggestion as they please, even if they have not been involved in these topics. In fact, previously uninvolved people examining the presented evidence with fresh eyes can be of great benefit - if YK is innocent of the charges, surely that's what they'll decide when they review the evidence, isn't it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We live in an age when even the craziest assertions can be traced to someone who has already made them in a public forum. It doesn't make the assertion sourced, especially not to a reliable source. I have written most of the history section of the long-standing FA India. It is sourced to impeccable sources. I have tried to use textbooks on the history of India that are used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the best universities around the world and published by well-known academic publishers. The reason for this is that such textbooks have been vetted for balance. Many editors try to insert one-sided points of view into the India article, sourced to poor unreliable sources. They are usually dealt with on the article talk page. However, when an editor does this relentlessly, dozens, indeed scores of dozens, of times, it becomes a behavioral problem. When an editor does this with full knowledge of what he is doing, it becomes a behavioral problem. I don't appear at ANI that often. Perhaps one or twice a year. Let me state very definitively: Yogesh Khandke is likely the worst (and certainly one of the worst) of the tendentious editors I have had the sad privilege of encountering in my six years on Wikipedia. If editors here seem against him, he has only himself to blame. He has wasted an enormous amount of time of law-abiding, content creating, editors. It is time for Yogesh Khandke to go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that these days we can find source for assertion made but who is to decide what is crazy and what is not? call it crazy if it not in match with your POV? --sarvajna (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not exist if this sort of solipsism were the norm here. Figuring out what to include and what to exclude is not a question of "matching with your POV" (unless a POV is the only thing an editor brings to the encyclopedia). Rather, it is a question of incorporating whatever is the consensus view amongst scholars. "Most historians" captures that adequately. However, the larger issue here is Khandke's tendentious behavior rather than what is "right" or "wrong". I'm perfectly happy to discuss insertion of new material but, when it involves misrepresentation, an "us and them" attitude, alteration of sources, stuff like that, I think it is time to say thanks but goodbye to Khandke. --regentspark (comment) 14:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's decided by consensus in discussion (see WP:Consensus), and once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

you are right Boing! said Zebedee, but a consensus was never reached, all the sources provided were discarded by few editors neither there was any third opinion on the matter --sarvajna (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a unanimous decision with everybody agreeing, it means an evaluation of the arguments made in accordance with policy. Having re-read a number of previous disputes, I see YK repeatedly trying to misrepresent sources, and pushing minor sources against arguments made in full compliance with Wikipedia's Reliable sources policy. And I see far more than three opinions offered in those disputes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, that was extremely dramatic of HumorThisThat to over-react about my comment about Yogesh. Do not assume things the way you think them to be HumorThisThat. So stop being such a dick. Ab hijay  ☎

sarvajna, The history section of the India page was rewritten during a few months in Spring (April through June) 2011 during a lengthy FAR of the page where dozens of experienced FA and FAR hands were watching, and finally supporting. If that is not consensus, what is? Where were you guys then? It has been a year since. All the Hindu nationalist fringe theorists whose opinions you are impaling us with had already had their various epiphanies about the topic by then. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fowler you are talking about a discussion that had taken place almost a year ago, are you suggesting that nothing should change after the edits that were made? Consensus was never reached during the last discussion, I am not referring to something that happened over a year ago. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Replies to Boing! and Fowler: "Once a consensus has been reached, one should not keep restarting the same content war over and over again" is wrong. Consensus can not be necessarily permanant. New experienced/inexperienced editors keep on coming to newer topics. Newer sources can be found. Thus consensus can very well change. (Its written somewhere in some policy. You all probably know where.) I dont understand how re-raising an old point again is a problem. You all very-well give references to age-old fights when you want someone blocked! You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you? An editor who believes in something and wants in it the article has every right to discuss it to introduce the content he wants. He ofcourse needs consensus. When YK (or anyone) re-raises the discussion, the editors who said no to it last time jump in again and again say no. The intention of re-raising the subject is to partly see whether old editors' views have changed and partly see if new editors have arrived who agree with him. If old editors' views are still same, they need to say that. But that does not mean they close the discussion and not allow newer editors to ponder. Hence i find you all also faulty here. It takes two to fight.
As to my 2nd point above.... Editors are surely welcome to post their views here. But the main topic here is discussion on "topic" ban. Its not a montly meet of I-Hate-YK Club. User:Abhijay is supporting ban for some reason. I havent understood what the reason is. (& why is he now poking in my space?) User:Johnuniq is also supporting ban for some Dicken's article. How is that related? Its like, "Yesterday he bumped me and my icecream fell. Let me say that this has nothing to do with the topic. But i say Block him!" -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good point about consensus not being unchangeable - and yes, past consensus decisions can be revisited. But when it's the same points, with the same old arguments, and the same old sources, brought up again and again and again, it really starts to move away from the fair re-examination of past consensus and towards tendentious disruption. As for "You don't let bygones as bygones then! Do you?", if they really were bygones I'd be delighted to let them go. But the whole reason for this proposal is that it is YK who won't get them go, and instead keeps starting up the same old POV-pushing and refusal to follow sourcing and NPOV policy over and over again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And PS: As for why User:Abhijay has offered an opinion, I can't answer for him, but how about the possibility that he clicked on the links provided, read what they linked to, and formed his opinion based on that? You know, try a bit of WP:AGF? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• What the hell is the matter if I just support a ban. It's my account (yes, i just renamed) , I have the right to edit, so what on earth is the big deal. I've had a view of Yogesh's contributions, and you have to admit that they are extremely disruptive in nature. Now let's stop creating such a huge battleground situation here. It is purely unethical. Arguing all over and moving all over the place isn't helping anyone, nor it is helping yourself. Oh god, this stuff just turned a lot more all-over. First a discussion about a ban about Yogesh, then some guy over-reacts about my comment and then moves on to a blocking of another editor. Good grief guys. Well done for screwing up this whole thing. I will contact an admin about your behavior if this condescends into a more stupid matter. Soviet King (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC) (Moved this comment up to the appropriate section so it's clear what it's replying to - hope you don't mind, Soviet King -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

@Boing! and also others: Lets take this example.
User:Spanglej on 22 February 2012 says at Talk:Charles Dickens "Yogesh, you have banging this drum for more than two years. It seems you are advancing a personally held political position. The article is not a soapbox nor a vehicle for political promotion."
What we have after YK's so called "drum banging", "advancing personally held political positions", "persistent and tendentious modus operandi", etc. is Charles Dickens' Racism and anti-Semitism with numerous reliable sources and a completely valid self-standing article. Various editors opposed him when the Dicken's discussion started. But looking at the present condition of the article we see how YK's editings were right and other editors were just not ready to accept that. I know that they still disagree with points of undue weightage and POV. But numerous independant references on that article give different image than what these other editors hold. The conculsion here is, all the so-called YK's views on Dickens are not really his views. Had other editors been considerate enough to view this material properly at the start, YK wouldnt have needed to be tendentious. Again, it takes two to fight! And after proving himself right at Dickens one should seriously think that others, and not YK, can also be wrong. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not about "right" and "wrong". It is about consensus, reliable sources, correct quotations, balance, cherry-picking, pov-forking and numerous other issues. I'd wager a bet that there is much that is dubious in the article to which you have linked, simply because that is YK's modus operandi (and it can be seen in umpteen comments he appears to have made a various blogs, news websites etc). However, any review of the article by me will have to wait until Sunday. Suffice for now to say that his recently created articles concerning Indian news media/people have been pretty woeful and, yes, non-neutral. - Sitush (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, it is about being right & wrong. Other editors repeatedly said he was wrong and these were his own opinions on Dickens. When given time, he proved his points were not his own but of other reputed writers backing with sources. And to his modus operandi of being tendentious and sometimes aggressive and annoying one should blame opponent stubborn editors. Frankly speaking, if YK is able to fight all these obstinate editors he is doing a brilliant job. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Animesh, you're generally a reasonable editor. But, classifying misquoting and cherry picking sources as a "brilliant job" does not become you. I don't see any problem with reasonable discourse but, when an editor cannot be trusted to correctly quote sources, then we're better off without that editor. It is this 'no holds barred in getting my POV across' attitude that is detrimental to this encyclopedia. And, when that 'no holds barred' editor also calls the theory he does not like a fairy tale or attempts to recast it as an obviously discredited theory, then there is little doubt of that editors intentions (and little doubt that the net result is going to be not good for wikipedia). I should also add that Khandke's tendency to frame debates as an 'us Indians' vs 'them colonialists/westerners/whatever' is also extremely bad for the encyclopedia. Not only does it make otherwise well meaning editors think that 'India' is under attack, it also leads to a tendency to discount scholarly sources and research. And, scholarly sources are the only independent yardstick by which the quality of this encyclopedia is measurable. --regentspark (comment) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Firstly sorry that i did not reply to your upper post. I did not notice it. Usually when debatable discussions get this long and non-followable i quit them and say do whatever you want. That is a reason for me calling his work as brilliant. Cherry-picking and misquoting is obviously wrong. But thats what other editors can check and correct. That doesnt mean indefinite ban. I dont see "We have to rework on whatever he does" as a reason for ban. As to tendentious behaviour towards a group of editors i have already said before that those editors are to be blamed for it. It seems to be natural that he has to be aggressive while fighting alone against many others. That is not a reason for indefinite ban. But that can very well be a reason for controlling/monitoring discussions on these topics between YK & those editors. Does it mean over work? Yes! But over work is not reason to ban. These matters are all content disputes which can be handled without ban. Considering the fact that all of his edits are well sourced, we know that he is usually not writing something wrong but is surely bringing a contrasting view than the one that dominates the whole article. I see that as a good thing as it makes article unbiased. If he is banned, how do you propose to handle these points when he is not supposed to talk about them? Wont that be a lose?
When i read Wiki articles i mostly consider them to be full. Even after becoming an editor here i mostly find it difficult to add something to an article which seems full. If YK is being able to add something new to a long standing FA (which one can call as stagnant and something that the then-editors thought of), it is a good thing. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support solely on the basis of behavior. User's modus operandi is persistent and tendentious; had experience with YK on the Ganges-move odyssey. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I have just reverted the latest personal jibe from Humour Thisthat2011 against User:Soviet King (formerly Abhijay), which raised events that were nothing to do with this discussion. I would caution Humour Thisthat2011 to remember his previous bans for aggressive behaviour, and stop the unwarranted personal criticism of a good faith editor who has every right to offer his opinion in this discussion. Humour Thisthat2011, you need to calm down and stop throwing mud at people, stick to discussing the issue at hand, and try assuming good faith occasionally. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee I would like to disagree, Humour Thisthat2011 had to support his previous argument about Soviet King's unwarranted display of support for the ban without really looking into the matter properly and it was also very much required in view of Soviet King's indirect threat(as written above by Soviet King) and its very much required now--sarvajna (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And you are guilty of exactly the same kind of Bad Faith behaviour - there are no justifications to the accusations that other contributors have not "looked into it" properly, and nobody has to satisfy you or him that they have. If your only tactics here are to throw dirt at those with whom you disagree, then you really are only damaging your own case. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Boing! said Zebedee Humour Thisthat2011 provided proper justification but you reverted it --sarvajna (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know? Because that's all that's happening here with the attacks on Abhijay. How about discussing the actual arguments people present here rather than trying to throw dirt at them personally? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I had already given my closing comment under my vote but I felt I have to reply, what do you mean by "Are personal attacks on the competence of your opponents the only kind of argument you people know?" please refrain from using such language. I was referring to the evidence(the page history) that was given by ThisThat2011 which atleast shows that Soviet King made a decision in a hurry. I will not drag it further, I feel I have made my point. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"You people" is a second-person plural phrase, referring in this case to you and ThisThat2011. What on earth is wrong with that? And no, the "evidence" given by ThisThat2011 showed no such thing - no number of diffs can possibly show anything about when somebody read something or whether they were previously aware of an issue. But having said that, I've spoken to ThisThat2011 on his Talk page, and I will accept that he did not mean it as an attack. However, if you wish to carry on criticizing someone else's ability to form their own decisions, then I'll leave it to the closing admin to judge. The closing admin will be someone uninvolved, and will judge consensus based on the policy-based arguments presented on the subject of YK's behaviour, and I would strongly recommend that that's what you should stick to if you wish to influence the outcome. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sarvajna, stop using such language against Boing. He's clearly trying to help mediate, and I did not use a indirect threat. If I gave you a threat, I would end up getting blocked by Boing! right now. I've wasted enough time here. Good luck to the next person reviewing this.

• Comment - can't comment on the topic ban, but something needs to be done, and I think a RfC/U might the direction to take. Yogesh's edition style is clearly tendentious and off-putting. Charles Dickens is a page with between 8000 to 10,000 views per day, yet his edit warring there and the pattern of his contributions to the article and talk - page has driven away editors who would have pitched in for a rewrite of the page [47]. This goes far beyond a content dispute, it's a pattern that drives away editors who are willing to make useful contributions. That's a problem in my view. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the number of times YK has been here, I don't think an RfC/U is needed. Specifically, I call attention to the comments of the last person who blocked YK:

I've blocked Yogesh Khandke for one week, both for the utterly unacceptable comment he made regarding MatthewVanitas's edits and for the other evidence presented above of his ongoing WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to editing. I had considered an indefblock because I strongly believe that users who make the editing atmosphere unpleasant for others are a net negative, no matter what content edits they've made, and we're better off without them. Editor recruiting and retention is a growing issue and combative attitudes are actively destructive. However, I decided to to err on the side of caution... although I consider any return to editing after the week is up in the light of WP:ROPE. Review welcome as always, EyeSerenetalk 11:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

An RfC/U would ultimately just waste time, since they can't result in any formal sanctions, and the ANI history alone should be sufficient for a full topic ban. And if that's not enough, then I strongly recommend reading the discussions on Talk:Charles Dickens. I'll admit I've only read part of them, because it's extensive.

Disclaimer, just to save YK and his defenders time: I'm one of those involved editors who is unfairly prejudiced against YK from the past, who has been engaged in a long-standing witch-hunt against him and others, and who is a part-time member of the Sitush-Boing-Fowler-MatthewVanitas cabal (you know, that cabal that wants Wikipedia to follow devilish rules like WP:NPOV and WP:RS). Qwyrxian (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Do an RfC/U, if need be. JN466 13:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• As Qwyrxian says, a RfC/U is not likely to achieve much. We've gone past the point where it would be useful. Yogesh knows exactly where he stands with regard to his Wikipedia life and has known this for some considerable time now, but nonetheless chooses to continue with more of the same. Classic battleground stuff, in fact. As with Zuggernaut and MangoWong (both of whom seem to have decided to retire), he holds some very firm anti-colonial etc views and they massively affect his ability to understand that there are other viewpoints, let alone that his own are fringe-y. His cherry-picking and misquoting is also not a new thing and does rather suggest that it is a deliberate attempt to subvert our policies. RfC/U will merely result in another visit to this noticeboard at some point in the near future. If we're lucky, it may not be until July but past history suggests that he is likely to be around in April and then absent May/June, so I wouldn't bank on it being so long before we are back here. This might be interesting, although I am deaf & cannot hear it. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The Ganges move debacle was a long time ago. If Yogesh hasn't learned how to contribute constructively by now, he must have decided not to change. Tendentious editors like Yogesh are a poison to the community, as Saravask's evidence shows. --JaGa^talk 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive user AuthorityTam, who thrives on dispute and antagonism

Does Wikipedia actually need editors who go out of their way to goad and antagonize others? User:AuthorityTam is by an measure a disruptive user, thriving on dispute, insult and provocation, fueling arguments, conceding nothing and learning nothing but new ways to antagonise. I’ll admit I’ve fallen into the trap in the past of getting personal in editing disputes, but at some point one realises the pointlessness of that behaviour, moves on and tries to demonstrate respect and civility when dealing with other editors. AuthorityTam, however, remains locked into a pattern of antagonism and escalation.

The barrage of juvenile responses still continuing at the Jehovah's Witness talk page from AuthorityTam is a pretty good indication of his unhelpful, provocative behaviour, with self-justifying edits such as [48], [49] and [50] demonstrating his usual response to appeals from editors that he cease focusing on individuals and concentrate on content.

I’ve now accepted that edits I make will generally produce more windbaggery and invective from him. But he goes to great lengths to antagonise, and I’ve had a gutful. Two years ago I changed my username from LTSally to BlackCab. I advised editors with whom I had most interaction, including him.[51] Since then he has formed a pattern of referring to me as “BlackCab aka LTSally”, commonly linking to my former name as well (which of course links back to BlackCab). I actually don’t know why he does it; it could be to imply that I am being devious in hiding my previous username; my suspicion is that it’s just to rile me. Though it initially may have served some purpose in creating a link to comments I had made under the previous username, the use of the “aka” phrase now serves no purpose. Examples of his use are [52], [53], [54] and [55].

I’ve counted at least 27 occasions since my user name change that he has used the phrase "BlackCab aka LTSally"; (User:Jeffro77 pointed out to him that he had used it three times in one thread, [56].) On February 11 this year I asked him, politely, to explain why he continued to do it, and requested that he cease.[57] He ignored the request, did not respond and has continued to do it. (Again, this week. [58]) On its own, it's not a grievous offence by any measure. What it is is a demonstration of his determination to irritate and rile, once he knows I want him to stop. He knows that behaviour is not in itself likely to result in a block, so he carefully ensures his offence is always just below that threshhold.

Three weeks later he returned to his tactic of dredging up years-old comments and using the phrase again,[59] this time to berate me about objecting to his conduct. He derides my protest by saying that "BlackCab aka LTSally hyperventilatingly caterwauls about supposed slurs". All past requests that he stop this crap result in accusations against me that "you've done it too." Two years ago I deleted sections from my user page after complaints by a Jehovah’s Witness editor who took offence. I have lost count of the number of times AuthorityTam, a stout defender of the religion, has repeatedly re-posted those deleted comments when deriding me on talk pages.

If direct, civil, adult appeals to him to cease such behaviour have no effect (and his talk page has a number of such requests), I think it’s time for admin intervention. Wikipedia should be a place of collaboration; AuthorityTam, who seems to thrive on dispute, insult and provocation, is the very antithesis of cooperation. BlackCab (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam persistently rehashes long-dead arguments on article Talk pages, as he as again done at the JW beliefs Talk page already linked by BlackCab above. I have attempted many times over the last couple of years to engage AuthorityTam at his User Talk page, but he simply ignores those requests, and instead makes irrelevant longwinded responses at article Talk pages. His diatribes, almost without exception, are not directed to the editor with whom he's disputing, but directed in the third person as if appealing to some hypothetical audience to side with him in opposing editors rather than discussing article content. AuthorityTam frequently dredges up edits, often from years ago, often out of context, and sometimes from discussions in which he was not even involved, in his attempts of character assassination of editors who do not take his position in matters related to articles about JWs. He has been told in the past by an admin that his behaviour of dredging up old comments of editors he doesn't like has the appearance of harassment, but he has made no attempt to rectify his behaviour. I have avoided lodging a formal complaint against AuthorityTam because there are a limited number of editors involved the JW WikiProject and, when he is not focussing on attacking the motives of other editors, is also capable of meaningful edits. However, his continuous irrelevant sidetracking at article Talk pages and refusal to attempt to discuss perceived problems with other editors at User Talk make it almost impossible to work with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam and the admin response at his user page at User_talk:AuthorityTam#Notice.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty of sin to go around here, at least as seen in a cursory inspection. The three users here have been locked in struggle over this article for several years now. When I get some time I intend to go over the whole thing; however, it seems to me that all three of them really need to get some outside evaluation of what they are doing. Mangoe (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already accepted that my conduct in the past has contributed to the tensions that often exist among editors at JW-related pages. Though AuthorityTam is fond of responding to criticism with diffs highlighting my past intemperate comments, he is now forced to retreat further back into history to find them. Certainly in the past year I have committed myself to staying on-topic without personal attacks, and I invite anyone to examine my edits in that time to find any examples of the "sins" you speak of. It's now up to him to do the same. AuthorityTam's talk page shows numerous appeals from editors to modify his behaviour. The fact that he has not just ignored my last direct approach about his "aka LTSally" tactics (which invariably go the trouble of including a link and often diffs of my old "sins") but stepped up its use, shows he is not prepared to move on, but instead is bent on causing irritation and justifying his present antagonistic behavior by citing my past comments. The situation simply needs admin intervention as a circuit breaker. BlackCab (talk) 19:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have never claimed infallibility, however, I have made reasonable attempts to reconcile things with AuthorityTam. At times, I have simply removed AuthorityTam's irrelevant forays into personal attacks and other irrelevant opinions about editors on article Talk pages (per WP:TALKO, e.g. [60]), however, he restores the offensive irrelevant content and then complains even more[61], making it necessary to reply to his accusations of me at article Talk, rather than my preference of sorting out such issues through other avenues of dispute resolution. I have repeatedly requested that AuthorityTam stick to content on article Talk pages, and suggested that if he has problems with other editors, that he contact them at User Talk or follow other Wikipedia dispute resolution channels. At times when AuthorityTam has complained about some real or imagined offence caused by me, I have struck comments as a concession, after which AuthorityTam repeats (with no regard to context) and complains further about the alleged offensive comment at article Talk. On the flipside, AuthorityTam consistently claims that he has never done anything to cause offence, and ignores all attempts to reconcile at User Talk. It is quite clear that AuthorityTam has little interest in resolving differences, and instead is merely interested in promoting his own tangential opinions of other editors who do not share his religious views, at article Talk pages (likely for a wider audience than User Talk). Non-exhaustive examples of AuthorityTam's conduct in just the last month include claims that "editors [myself and BlackCab] are "beyond predictable", "jaw-droppingly disingenuous", "juvenile",[62] (when this edit was raised with AuthorityTam he claimed that he only called BlackCab 'juvenile' because BlackCab called him 'juvenile' first [sigh]), an attack on BlackCab's motive for properly removing a violation of WP:FORUM[63], and then reinstigating the ensuing irrelevant dispute[64], a further attack on BlackCab's motives[65], dredging up irrelevant edits by LTSally from 2009,[66], and falsely attributing comments to me[67]; AuthorityTam also frequently makes snide comments retributively mimicking comments of other editors, as shown in these edit pairs from the last month: after being told to stick to content[68][69], after indicating something was only his opinion[70][71], after he had unnecessarily attacked a source[72][73], and also claiming that a comment referring to sourced material presented at Talk was not related to the discussion[74].--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I put this delicately... For years, it has seemed to me that these two complainants have performed tag-team edits tending to portray Jehovah's Witnesses as unfavorably as is possible in Wikipedia. I am knowledgeable about the religion, and I have been willing to share my expertise to improve Wikipedia's encylopedicality (encylopediality?). Though I have never done so myself (and though I have repeatedly and plainly stated that I do not wish to be), both BlackCab and Jeffro77 refer to me explicitly as a "JW editor"; when they do so it seems relevant to contrast my lack of such self-identification with these editors' own choices to self-identify: [75],[76]. At other times, it seems relevant to note the evidence of their nonneutrality; I have occasionally linked to their past disparagements against the religion and its adherents (such as Jeffro77's opinions that "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored" and that JW publications and JWs evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic" and "morally bereft"; and BlackCab's opinion that JWs are 'sickening' and "sycophantic, incestuous"). WP:COI#Overview states, "editors' behavior and trust-related tools can be used to evidence COI or other editorial abuse" and "An editor's conflict of interest is often revealed when that editor discloses a relationship to the subject"; the WP:COI guideline also states, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". When an editor demonstrates conflict of interest, he should expect that others will approach that with "direct discussion" at the pertinent thread. Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines are much more tolerant of edits tending to defend an institution than edits tending to defame an institution; per WP:COI#Defending interests, "defamatory material appearing in articles may be removed at once. Anyone may do this, and should do this, and this guideline applies widely to any unsourced or poorly sourced, potentially libelous postings. In this case it is unproblematic to defend the interest of the person or institution involved."
Did you look at the links/diffs cited in this thread above by these two editors? Half of them are to a single Talk thread where my comments are about half that of these two editors-- yet they disingenuously refer to my comments as "longwinded" [77] and "windbaggery" [78]. These two editors are veritable posterchildren for thinskinnedness and paranoia (eg "it’s just to rile me"[79]). Despite their personal bugaboos, the facts are plain:

• It is not offensive to matter-of-factly refer to an editor's former username, a username which plainly appears in Talk archives and article histories; infrequent editors have explicitly appreciated this information. It's understandable User:BlackCab should wish to distance himself from his history, but there is no reasonable rationale to hide his former name.
  
• It is not offensive for Talk comments to be "directed in the third person". I make no apologies for using perfectly banal terms such as "editors" and "the editor". Per MOS:YOU, "the second person (you, your)...is often ambiguous", so my choice to use the third person is easily defensible (and frankly, complaints against it are picayunish and timewasting).
  

For years these two editors have pretended that I "attack" them, but the truth is that one or both tend to follow me around and re-edit or react to most of what I write within hours (eg [80],[81],[82],[83]). Go back to that infamous thread (which contains many or most of this thread's linked diffs); these two editors are deleting others' comments and flinging insults, yet they launch a complaint against me. And, while it becomes increasingly silly to rehash yet again, my use of "juvenile" was purely a comment upon the term's earlier use by BlackCab, while Jeffro77 has indeed namecallingly referred to me with both the terms "hostilely" and "hostile" (among others). Of course editor BlackCab aka LTSally must acknowledge his own descent into personal insult (as he does above), for the evidence of it is overwhelming. By contrast, the one editor above lists the worst insults I've used are "predictable" and "disingenuous" (terms well within any reasonable threshhold for vigorous discussion) and the other editor openly admits, "[AuthorityTam] carefully ensures his offence is…below that threshhold." [84]
Obviously I'm not disruptive! It is nice to see my efforts are recognized even by the editor seeking to ban me, since I do endeavor to be careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines. In fact, I tend to avoid interacting with BlackCab and Jeffro77 largely because I respect Wikipedia's guidelines; editors may wish to consider WP:Etiquette#A few things to bear in mind, which states, "If you know you do not get along with someone, do not interact with him or her more than you need to do."--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To restate: AuthorityTam relies on self-justification by rehashing old, old discussions and edits. If other edits admit they have erred and have now ceased that behavior, why can not he? Once again he uses the "aka LTSally" expression. Why? Oh, and he is now canvassing support, [85] where he claims I am seeking to have him blocked. I just want his unacceptable behaviour to stop. BlackCab (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

AuthorityTam claims above that I have 'self-identified' on Wikipedia, and he cites this ambiguous edit from over 6 years ago (a few years before AuthorityTam was an editor). He also attempted to use this edit in a previous personal attack when he irrelevantly tried to discredit me at some AfDs (linked in my previous comment). AuthorityTam has been explicitly told that the statement in question is not an expression of 'self-identification', but was intended to indicate my awareness of first-hand experiences of people who were expelled from the religion. The vague statement was made several years ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and was intended a little dramatically, but did not express personal affiliation with the religion in question. Because AuthorityTam has been explicitly and unambiguously told this (see User talk:AuthorityTam#Notice), his reposting that diff is entirely dishonest.

AuthorityTam further claims he feels it is necessary to bash other editors over the head with AuthorityTam's opinion that other editors are not neutral (though apparently this must only be done to editors who disagree with AuthorityTam, and certainly never of AuthorityTam himself). AuthorityTam also conveniently ignores many debates on JW-related articles where I have defended the religion, particularly in regard to definition of the religion as 'Christian', removal of spurious claims about racism, murders, mental illness, and many other such arguments. Instead AuthorityTam seeks to paint editors as biased if they do not happen to agree with every positive view of the group in question, cherry-picking for comments without regard to context.

Further, AuthorityTam notes a policy that states that editors should direct discussion of the issue with the editor. However, AuthorityTam has not done this. He has almost never contacted editors at their User Talk page (usually only when such has been mandatory), and from the outset has instead sought to debate editor behaviour, addressing a hypothetical audience in the third person, at article Talk pages. The claim that I have 'pretended' AuthorityTam has made attacks is fairly humorous, and contradicted by User:Fences and windows' observations (same 'Notice' section on AuthorityTam's talk page, linked above) that AuthorityTam's behaviour seems to constitute "harassment".

AuthorityTam also falsely claims that editors 'follow' him. I have been involved with the JW WikiProject for a few years longer than AuthorityTam, so naturally, articles relating to the subject are on my Watch List. Characterisation of AuthorityTam's edits as 'hostile' is indeed accurate. He has ignored all attempts to resolve things amicably, and has now falsely claimed at an article Talk pages that BlackCab and I are trying to have him 'banned', which is not at all the same thing as my actual requests for him to improve his behaviour and stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am a pretty young editor, both in terms of my age and experience in Wikipedia, however I have been observing the talk page of Jehovah's witnesses for the past 2 years. I have often admired User:AuthorityTam's in depth knowledge in the Jehovah's Witness' religion, its history and his contributions to Wikipedia. However some times his sense of humor in talk pages (example here) are misunderstood by user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 because they assume it as a personal attack against them. Silly things turns out to be a big unnecessary discussions. I do not find any editors other than user:BlackCab and user:Jeffro77 having problems with him. Hence I don't think any action is required. I would advice all three editors involved to keep a mature positive attitude and show respect to each other. Sometimes keeping silent is a good way to solve unnecessary disputes--Fazilfazil (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fazilfazil's characterisation of AuthorityTam's inappropriate edits as 'sense of humor' is inaccurate. The actual edit in question was this, and BlackCab and I have been around Wikipedia long enough to know that it was a dig at BlackCab's motives. More generally, it's pretty hard to interpret the edit as merely 'humorous', though Fazilfazil, as a fairly new editor, may simply be giving AuthorityTam the benefit of the doubt.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've followed a few of the JW-related pages for a while. I won't defend every aspects by AuthorityTam, but the absurd thing is his defence of JW makes some balance to the article, as it appairs that Jeffro, and to a certain grade BlackCab, is using wikipedia to portray Jehovah's Witnesses unfavorably (I hope you will forgive me if I'm totally wrong, I wouldn't bring it up outside this room, as such accuses breaks with the good-faith-policy), as they don't like "critic"-oriented statements or sources questioned. I have to add they both have appaired fair and polite to me and most other users during the discussions. AuthorityTam, and sometimes another user as well, (I don't need to mention him here) appairs to pretty much defending "JW-friendly" interests. I think, blocking AuthorityTam and him only, would be a fatal mistake, as I don't concider him worse than certain others in this tread. I think AuthorityTam is adding a lot of value to JW-related articles, and my guess is the articles would be pretty unbalanced without him. I find the change of word between AuthorityTam and Jeffro childish, and I do give heavilly support to user:Mangoe's statement. When it comes to the use of "aka LTSally" expression, I do think it is unnecessary to state that those are the same users, as most of the users who dig into the archive in search for earlier discussions, would accidently bump into that statement about... 27 times? Isolated, I support BlackCab's concern of the use of the "aka LTSally" expression , as it, unintentionally or not, could be used for adding BlackCabs statements negative value (pretty much by pointing out (the need for) a changed alias). On the other side, I would ask why AuthorityTam uses the dirty trick. He's under heavy gunfire pretty often, as Jeffro and BlackCab appairs to collude in some way, and even at least once recently have invite the other to comment in certain discussion for support (the word "support" wasn't mentioned, but it was pretty clear what the invitation was about). Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, Jeffro and I have never colluded, which is an offensive suggestion. Nor are we a tag-team. That is completely wrong. We often agree, but sometimes disagree. AuthorityTam has recently found a supporter who agrees with everything he does, but I wouldn't suggest they are colluding. Yes, AuthorityTam and I are on different sides of the JW fence. I endeavour to be civil to him. I want him to cease his practise of antagonism and goading, which is exemplified by his use of the "aka" phrase after being specifically asked to explain (which he ignored) and cease (which has prompted him to use it more ... including in this very discussion). BlackCab (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with user:Grrahnbahr particularly for using "BlackCab aka LTSally". It might be useful only when some editors who were inactive for long period of time were needed to be made clear that BlackCab is the same old editor LTSally. In my opinion everyone are aware of that because BlackCab have notified it to many editors' talk page regarding the name change. --Fazilfazil (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that I simply want to portray JWs unfavorably is completely inaccurate. I have explicitly stated here and elsewhere that the primary reason I have not reported AuthorityTam's conduct is that there is a shortage of regular editors on the JW:WikiProject, which would certainly be counter to some 'agenda' of 'silencing' a 'pro-JW' voice. Further, I have explicitly stated that I would like AuthorityTam to improve his behaviour, rather than AuthorityTam's false allegation of 'wanting to have him banned'. I have also explicitly stated that AuthorityTam, when not venting his irrelevant opinions of other editors, is capable of beneficial edits. I have also explicitly stated elsewhere that AuthorityTam's pro-JW position adds balance to the article. Grrahnbahr notes above that I have been generally kind to him and other editors, again suggesting that AuthorityTam has uniquely done something in order to receive what is perceived as different treatment (but which is generally actually in response to AuthorityTam's negative remarks about me or other editors, which he insists on labouring over at article Talk pages instead of proper dispute resolution channels). As stated previously, I would rather not have to continue AuthorityTam's irrelevant tangents at article Talk pages—which are indeed a waste of time—but nor will I simply let his attacks on my motives stand undefended. The alternative is removing the irrelevant material, but then AuthorityTam complains even more.

The accusation of collusion is entirely false. I do not know BlackCab personally.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - AuthorityTam is now also canvassing for support at an article Talk page. I see this has already been linked above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your assumption that AuthorityTam is canvasing people is entirely based on your presumption. I find nothing wrong in notifying other editors to this discussion and he was not definitely begging for help. Because I can see that he have strong arguments against user:BlackCab's accusations. --Fazilfazil (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry1975 and accusing others of being socks

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

---

I'm a self admitted reitiree. Having seen above the drama about Carlingford Lough, I re-registered to request an edit to here and then got carried away and decided to start this move request based on the silliness that was going on at the talk page. In that request, BJMullen said '"Not another bloody sock!" in reference to me apparently. I am not a sock, and resented this casual labelling of me as one as if it was a perfectly normal thing to do (who knows, perhaps the Troubles area has become such a cesspit this is perfectly normal). When I last editted though, calling others socks without doing anything else about it, was classed as an attempt to smear another editor without justification. Accordingly I struck it out and warned him about making such allegations, and advised him of the right way to do it if he wanted to pursue it, and to be fair BJMullen hasn't editted since, so I don't know if that was the end of it. What's pissing me off though is that Murry1975 decided to take up the cause and has been accusing me of being a sock ever since. I've informed him that he's wrong in policy and told him to file a report or stfu, and he's totally and utterly ignored me and just kept going and going, like a total asshole frankly (before anyone objects to this sort of language, just go and see how many final warnings I gave him, he has well and truly wound me up to be sure). Despite making it very very clear that I considered what he was doing was now entering the realm of deliberate aggravation, and having advised him to go and get an admin and back him up if he still disagreed with the striking (he had been removing it), he has just persisted in poking me, finally with this edit antagonise me. Now he's giving me more shit trying to pretend nobody is allowed to strike comments on talk pages, which is obviously false - I consider being called a sock without evidence and without any apparent willingess to file a report, as the sort of trolling and personal attack that WP:TPO allows to be removed (not that I even removed it, I struck it). I sincerely hope that admins agree at least on that score, otherwise I think we've probably found the answer to why nobody sticks around beyond their 10th edit anymore. The guy obviously knows nothing about the relevant policies, about what is and isn't a sock, or what is and is not the right way to deal with one, but that's not the issue per AGF etc, the issue is he persists even after he's been told of such things, to the point of deliberate aggravation. Neetandtidy (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where have I accused Neetandtidy of being a sock? I have said Neetandtidy should connect your accounts so that we know thier contribution history. Neetandtidy has used foul and abusive langauge, I have kept calm and requested they show their previous account, even suggesting to an admin not to the community, Neetandtidy has rejected these claiming bad faith, yet accused me of calling them a sock. I have stated that I have never called them a sock and asked to show me where I have, they have not done so, bad faith indeed.

Neetandtidy has striken part of a comment by BJmullan, I have unstriken it with the proposition that Neetandtidy ask Bjmullan to strike it. AS Neetandtidy struck it again using WP:TPO in the summary I qoute it to him.

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request "

They have not answered in good faith about thier previous account and have used abusive language and tried to intimidate me with threats. The account is new, admits to have a retired account yet refuses to be transparent. I understand if it is a privacy issue he would be protective of it and have no problems with the editor disclosing the relevant information to prove what the previous account was and the reasons for leaving it behind and the admin declaring it clean. Their actions and words do not seem to me of an editor who is transparent and acting in the best interests of the project. Murry1975 (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Neetandtidy: You certainly share some Spotfixer characteristics, creating your userpage with a single sentence and jumping onto this noticeboard so quickly. Calabe1992 21:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If spotfixer means 'suspicious user', then for what must be the fifth time of saying it, I am not a new user, and never claimed to be. I even said it in the first sentence of this report. What I am not, is a sock. And whether Murry1975 realises it or not, this is what he is not so subtly accusing me of. And whether he likes it or not, TPO allows the removal of trolling or attacks, which is what I take unsubstantiated accusations of socking as. He's had all day to file a report on me, but as I pointed out to him, it would be rejected, as he hasn't got any grounds at all apart from ABF. Anyway, I'm beginning not to care at all, it seems this whole area is screwed up - the admins getting involved either don't know or don't care what's going on and just take snap decisions. Floquenbeam basically admitted it. And take a look at EdJohnston's page, you can hardly tell who is the admin and who is the guy under probation - he's actually just asked him if it's still in effect!?!? Was that not what was being argued about above or what? Who's in control here? Domer and BJMullen appear to have this area all sewn up, the admins seem to be dancing to their tune, and editors like Hackney who are to all intents and purposes no better or worse than them as far as being disruptive SPAs goes, are just given the finger as they're automatically tagged (like me now) as automatically presumed disruptors/socks/SPAs, whatever they say and whatever they do. I haven't even editted a fucking article yet. Hackney/Gravy started an Rfc on the talk page as is directed by policy in the face of edit warriors like Domer and BJMullen, and it's then filled with total bollocks and fillibustering, which of course has but one effect - to restart the POV edit warring again, meaning my request for a simple uncontentious edit to the Loch article has gone unanswered for 10 hours now due to a protection. 10 hours! All I've done since then is deal with this accusatory shit from Murry1975. No admin gives the tiniest of fucks about the actual content or long term problem users in this area. Not one. It's been totally abandoned to the mercy of whatever the likes of EdJonston or Floquenbeam can be bothered to pull out their asses when they feel like it and have a spare 1 minute to look at one diff maybe. When you see what Ed seems to thinks represents good faith collaborative consensus building on that talk page, your eyes bleed at the incomptence. It's a joke, there is no hope of any quality content, not in this topic area. Neetandtidy (talk) 22:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend not to file reports (only 1 done so far), believing that discussion should be placed first as a means of resolving any dispute. The fact that this began here would be another reason to just continue it in the original section rather than clogging up the boards. I am still waiting for the diif of me calling Neetandtidy a sock. All I read is foul langauge and blatant battlefield mentality. Murry1975 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

MickMacNee is back

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

---

Resolved

 – MickMacNee was stale and SPI believes it is a Joe Job by an unrelated troll. However, may other socks of Neetandtidy found and blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

A new user registered yesterday, Neetandtidy (talk · contribs) and immediately has become involved in heated discussions at articles which has seen another editor (Gravyring (talk · contribs)) blocked. The user has already confirmed that they have previously edited here using a different account. On seeing that this new user was spelling my username incorrectly some alarm bells starting ringing and after a quick search I came across this edit of one of the very few people who has gotten my username wrong. I then had a look at this new users contribution today for other signs of MMN MO (policy and swearing) and it wasn't hard to come up with...

Mention of policy: TPO OSE

Swearing: [86] [87]

Of course I may be wrong but I would request that admin action is taken immediately to investigate this user. Question for all; do we really need a editor who is not only abusive to other users but has displayed a battlefield mentality from day one? Bjmullan (talk) 06:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the same guy. I suggest that you take it to WP:SPI so that a checkuser can have a look at it; there may be other sockpuppets lurking on that IP address. Prioryman (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a little bit "too clear" or "too Neet and tidy". It's possible that this may be a Joe job. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have now opened the case at SPI as requested. Bjmullan (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

User:ANKMALI

The user is apparently a huge fan of Alka Yagnik, and that is why he keeps turning her page into a fansite of sorts. I had made a short cleanup on the page, and since then the user has been reverting the page to the same version - which goes in violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL, WP:PEACOCK, WP:CITE (with some bombastic claims, really, which must be sourced). Their argument is that the info is true, and they keep doing that in spite of having been warned and despite seeing other users reverting them as well.

Another instance is the Screen Award for Best Female Playback article, where they change the winner of the 2002 award to, as expected, Alka Yagnik. I cited a reliable source (The Tribune) to prove them wrong, but they keep changing it to their own version, citing some very poor sources (clearly unreliable). I started a talk page discussion where the user, instead of trying to discuss the matter, just removed my message from the section (!).

I request that something be done as soon as possible - this is becoming insufferable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This User:Shshshsh is trying to repeatedly delete my hardwork done on page of Alka Yagnik. All info added by me was verifiable ! Further Screen Award for Best Female Playback was won by Alka Yagnik thrice whereas this user insisting on Asha Bhosle winning the award although 2 of the 3 available sources sight Alka Yagnik as winner of the award in 2002. Further the user is repeatedly threatening to block me though I've committed no offence !! It is user Shshshsh who should be blocked !!! ANKMALI (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC).

You say that all of your work was verifiable. That may be, but content really needs to be verified, not just verifiable. Please don't add content without a solidly reliable source to back it up, and please don't remove something that's already reliably sourced (e.g. the 2002 award winner) without discussion with other users. And DEFINITELY do not remove other people's talk page comments; doing that is highly disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've used extremely reliable sources for everything. As per rules of wikipedia content must be verifiable which I've always complied with. Definition of reliable can be subjective. ANKMALI (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No, WP:RS is not as subjective as you think, nor does the reliable source noticeboard take things lightly. You cannot remove a info from a known RS and insert opposite information from a non-RS, period (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources cited by me are well within the purview of reliable sources as stated by wikipedia. Infact I've added a live video as the source ! ANKMALI (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. Rules for articles about living persons are much more strict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have do nothing wrong or nothing which is against wikipedia rules. Each & every info added by me is evidenced & from reliable sources . Nobody can prove what I've written on Alka Yagnik page is false. It is this User:Shshshsh who does not have reliable sources . ANKMALI (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable just because you say they are reliable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Shshshsh

The user has been constantly editing my immense hardwork put in page of Alka Yagnik. Infact he has not cared about pages of other singers which are more like fan-pages. Each & every info added by me is verifiable & through very reliable sources. Further the user is threatening to block me since a while though I am haven't done anything wrong. Infact the info added by the user about Alka Yagnik has far less reliabilty in comparison to info provided by me. Would request action to be taken against the user. ANKMALI (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The existence of other problematic pages is not a problem per our policies — we're all volunteers, so the fact that he's not worked with other singers' articles is not a problem. As I told you above, verifiable and verified are two very different things. Moreover, your user talk page has at least one message (20,000 songs) discussing a situation in which a reliable source contradicts your writing, and the bit about the 2002 award is the same thing. Finally, did you read the message just below the "save page" button? "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" — it's not a problem that someone or someones edit your writing. Overall, Shshshsh has been editing your hard work because your hard work is reducing the quality of our articles; his edits are necessary and helpful. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

20000 songs of Alka Yagnik is supported by the live video of Screen Awards. Further User:Shshshsh has no reliable source to prove his claim. He is just a huge fan of Asha Bhosle . My hard work is enhancing the quality of the article & it is Shshshsh who's reducing the quality of the article !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANKMALI (talk • contribs) 02:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IPs putting improper tagging on editor's talk page.

Resolved

 – IP rangeblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

85.210.187.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
88.109.31.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
(WHOIS indicates it could be the same person, I didn't ask)
Both have been giving/reverting back a Level 4 warning on User:Alison Buchanan's talk page about being a vandal and a sockpuppet. No Level 1-3 were given. There was a CU requested for Alison, and refused at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alison Buchanan. I have reverted twice and left notices on their talk pages informing them they can't just make accusations without providing diffs and/or other proof, and decided it should just go here instead of getting into battle after they keep adding it back. The only diffs they have provided are on Alison's talk page (they finally put them there), with most being IPs and none of them being obvious vandalism, and instead being a content dispute. Making claims of vandalism on user talk page as well as being a sockpuppet without substantiation. I have no idea if there are merits to their claims, but this is a disruptive and improper way for these IPs to handle the situation. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• IP:88.109.31.145 just deleted this ANI report at [88], so I'm thinking a short term block may be needed. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Look, when I reported the other IPs, which made the EXACT same disruptive edits, in exactly the same style, nobody complained, and they were blocked, instantly. I reported them each and every time, and every time, someone responded in the appropriate manner. Why can't you? This edit here [[89]] is EXACTLY the same as this edit here [[90]] and that IP was banned as a sockpuppet....in fact, it was discovered that that IP WAS in fact a sockpuppet, right here [[91]]. Look at these IPs edits. They are EXACTLY the same. Alison is the same person. And stop preventing me from defending myself! 88.109.31.145 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The way you are going about it is disruptive, calling someone's edits vandalism without providing evidence, starting out with a level 4 warning. The IPs were blocked based on WP:DUCK, but nothing has been done to the USER, and it is the USER to whom you kept reverting the tag. I didn't say I disagree (or agree) with your assessment of socking, but there is a proper process to follow, and posting a level 4 warning with no diffs, no explanation, just claims, is NOT the right process. And furthermore, you deleted THIS report on ANI, which is enough reason (imho) to block you for 24 hours to allow others to review the situation, for the purpose of preventing you from being even more disruptive. You never gave me a chance to agree with you because you were too busy going about it wrong, and you still fail to see that now. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with me. I'm asking you to open your eyes. Anyone else who has seen this sockpuppet before KNOWS exactly what they're dealing with. Don't believe me? Ask the guys who blocked the last IP account, or blocked the other IP accounts. In my book, they received their warnings in previous accounts, which means that they are STILL valid. When it is painfully obvious that the user is not only a sockpuppet but has no intention other than to vandalise, then I think it's pretty clear that they don't deserve to be given warnings, when they can leave their account before the crucial warning and create a new one. No one else who I have reported this user and their many IPs to has had an issue with me reporting them. It is only you. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked 88.109.31.145 for 24 hours for repeating the disruption after Dennis made his last revert. Nyttend (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop disrupting my replies!! I'm sick of this, every time!! 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And don't you dare accuse me of being a sockpuppet. My IP changes every time, I can't help it. 88.109.23.136 (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

But to use a new IP address, knowing that your previous IP address has been blocked, DOES make you a block-evading sockpuppet, so you are rather destroying what credibility you may have had in making such accusations about others. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

88.109.16.0/20 has now been blocked for 31 hours. --MuZemike 21:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Manveer-ampm (talk · contribs)

• In this diff the user named above makes a somewhat confusing series of comments, among them commenting that "the police are the next stage" - does this rise to the WP:NLT level? I'd say yes but the rest of the context is (at least to my decaffinated mind) as I said confusing, so I thought I'd ask before doing, or not doing, anything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a threat. Nobody Ent 18:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, then, NLT blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Angle trisection

Hello,

On Wikipedia's following webpage, the seventh heading down is entitled, "By infinite repetition of bisection".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_trisection

Over the last year or so, user(s) have added this heading to this webpage and contributed to its contents.

Using Wikipedia's VIEW HISTORY, I notified the following users of employing proprietary information contained in United States Copyright (TXu 636 519), dated 7-17-1995 and entitled, "Trisection, an Exact Solution -- Revision A".

Joel B. Lewis -- grad. student AND

D.Lazard

At first, I simply corrected their unknowing infraction by attempting to give the user(s) full credit for their portion of contribution(s) to the article and maintaining them under same heading.

User(s), just deleted my input several times and effectively told me to "get lost".

Thereafter, user(s) asked what my basis was for my input and I informed them of:

a) The US copyright information noted above AND

b) http://truescans.com/Trisection.htm webpage which contains full disclosure, rationale and proof.

After then being deleted AGAIN, I informed user(s) that they had no basis, claim, or proof for their their own portions of contribution.

After again being deleted, user(s) continued to re-enter his/their information. I then notified user(s) of POTENTIAL COPYRIGHT VIOLATION.

After a further repeat of this, I notified user(s) of PARTICIPATING IN COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT by means knowingly publishing information on Wikipedia that is considered to be in conflict with a cited United States Copyright; and further refusing to render substantiation for their own claim(s).

Lastly, I notified user(s) of Wikipedia copyright policy and informed they could be BARRED from future editing rights on Wikipedia by continuing their same course of action.

After all of this, the user(s) again DELETED my input; which is where we presently stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIKI-1-PIDEA (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There's no merit to this; I'll leave a note on the editor's talk page about WP:3RR, WP:NPLT, and ways to avoid getting blocked from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I've already reported this to WP:AN3 William M. Connolley (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am having trouble finding where the material in Wikipedia's article (angle trisection#By infinite repetition of bisection) infringes the copyright of the outside document. While copyright does protect an author's written description of an algorithm, it does not protect the algorithm itself. In other words, copyright covers a particular description, but not the method described; any other author is free to describe the same method in their own words.

That said, any assertion that the algorithm in question was discovered in 1995 is laughable. I suspect it is centuries old, and trivial searching demonstrates that high school mathematics teachers were talking about it with their students at least as early as 1963: [92]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if the original poster had some sort of connection with the true-scans website. Observe this addition to Around the World in Eighty Days and these to Jules Verne and the remarkably similar editing style (use of underlining and html code and always bolding the website title) of this editor who has added it to Daniel Defoe, Palisot de Beauvois, and er.. Gettysburg Address. The website is so off the radar that google doesn't even pick it up. Voceditenore (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason WIKI-1-PIDEA and Joel B. Lewis should not have tried discussing with each other on Talk:Angle trisection instead of continuing to edit war and yell at each other via edit summaries. Both users blocked 24 hours for the edit war. --MuZemike 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of speedy deletion tag?

Resolved

 – Image deleted per CSD-F7 -- Dianna (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg was nominated for deletion a few days ago, with discussion proceeding. Last night, I discovered that the file's uploader had mistakenly identified the file as a publicity photograph; it is in fact a news photo controlled by Getty Images. It is therefore required to be deleted under our nonfree content policy (there is no question that the "sourced commentary" exception is inapplicable). I placed the appropriate speedy deletion tag on the file page, Shortly thereafter, User:Hekerui, in good faith, removed the tag from the file page, citing the ongoing FFD discussion. While an ongoing XfD with arguments on both sides is ordinarily enough to forestall speedy deletion, my understanding of practice is that in a few cases, like the undisputed copyright/NFCC problem here, the speedy tag should not be removed unless the copyright/NFCC issues are themselves subject to dispute. (Otherwise, the existence of an FFD on other matters would delay the removal of such copyvios, which we pretty much want expunged as quickly as possible.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusation of antisemitism

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

---

In what has already become a heated debate, User:Djathinkimacowboy has chosen to accuse User:Youreallycan of being an "an anti-Semitic, homophobic abuser" [93]. When I asked for this to be struck out, or justified [94], Djathinkimacowboy's sole response was "I suggest you read back and find the mention of the editor being anti-Semitic toward British Jews. And stay off my talk page, will you please!—". Given that there is no mention of any allegations of antisemitism in the thread, and given the inflammatory nature of the accusation, can I ask that this be looked into, and appropriate action be taken: such unfounded comments have no place on this noticeboard, or indeed anywhere on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that Djathinkimacowboy had redacted the comment while I was posting this: but in the process has chosen to try to lay the blame for this on me, accusing me of "make things more personal": [95]. Frankly, this is beginning to look like trolling, or at least a severe lack of clue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Rumor has it that he hates gingers, too, so....JoelWhy (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You probably could've waited before bringing this up here, while the other thread is still ongoing. He's redacted the comment, and I think this is best left alone. Temperatures are running pretty hot in the other thread, and by using a little empathy I can understand why User:Djathinkimacowboy is upset. This is only going to make things worse. Oh, and if you're going to talk about unsubstantiated accusations, don't follow it up by accusing someone of trolling. That's not very sensible. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Does your 'empathy' extend to those accused (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) of antisemitism? As for my comment re trolling, it might be wrong, it might even be considered uncivil. It is not however unsubstantiated. I have provided the necessary diffs. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, you haven't provided any evidence of trolling. Just an upset user making an accusation that they have already struck out, and a user getting annoyed with you since you posted on their talk page. That doesn't look like trolling to me. And yeah, my empathy does extend that far but the comment has already been struck. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 21:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I left Djathinkimacowboy a talk page message asking him to be careful in future, and reminding him that certain comments are more inflammatory than anything and won't help calm down the situation. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 22:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, the comment (or at least the 'antisemitic' part of it) has been struck - but only as a result of me bringing the matter up on Djathinkimacowboy's talk page in the first place - which resulted in further attacks, this time on me. Still if no action is to be taken on struck-out comments, presumably the thread above concerning Youreallycan can be closed.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In fact as I redact and retract my anti-Semitism suggestion, as said by Djathinkimacowboy. This suggests to me that he knows he was mistaken in saying that. But if it's not enough for you, what do you actually want done? ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 22:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What do I want done? Well, judging by the thread above, the appropriate response to a redacted offensive comment is for everyone to pile in and see how much else mud can be thrown. Still, since I've made it perfectly clear that I don't consider that sort of behaviour appropriate, I'd ask that at minimum Djathinkimacowboy be formally warned that such behaviour is unlikely to be tolerated again, and that it isn't remotely acceptable to attempt to blame others, and make further attacks on them instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so you're implying that the cases of Djathinkimacowboy and YRC are completely identical...which they are not at all. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 22:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

True - there is at least a possibility that a reference to a 'queer agenda' might not be a personal attack (not that I would suggest it was appropriate even if it wasn't intended that way, as I've already made clear) an outright statement that someone is an antisemite (based on precisely nothing) can only be a personal attack - and a particularly offensive one at that. Still, we aren't here to discuss the other thread - so can you explain why Djathinkimacowboy should not also be asked to redact the personal attacks he has made on me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And incidentally, I think that the 'retraction' wasn't exactly the most sincere, was it? "Since Andy the Grump decided to make things more personal, I will strike the anti-Semitism comment"... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"I myself was out of order with the comment I made that I have since redacted." another quote from Djathinkimacowboy, that I take as sincere. He also noted his intentions to disengage from the thread. He's not acted perfectly, he shouldn't have made the anti-semitism comment and he shouldn't have said that you give this place a really bad name, but then you also should've honored his request to stay off his talk page (for instance, you could've put a note on this ANI thread saying that you were asked to stay off his talkpage and requested that someone else inform him - would've been done in no time). Why don't you just drop this? It's not getting anywhere, and we all have better things to do with our time. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's see the context of his 'request': "I suggest you read back and find the mention of the editor being anti-Semitic toward British Jews. And stay off my talk page, will you please!—" Note that I'd never posted on his talk page before - and note that at this point he was still repeating the allegation of antisemitism which led me to start this thread, and per the explicit instruction at the top of this page, notify him of it. I think that part of the problem was that he posted a second 'request' to me in the 'Unacceptable homophobic attacks...' thread while I was posting here. [96] And note too that this 'request' included yet another personal attack. The simple fact is that Djathinkimacowboy has a history of such behaviour, and fails to see that it is problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, you believe that one offensive comment is sufficient to get someone blocked now? I don't see that that's reflected in your comments above, where months upon months of homophobic comments didn't stop you throwing down the gauntlet in defense of YRC. Or perhaps the only real offensive thing is to call someone out on their behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • No. I don't think that "one offensive comment is sufficient to get someone blocked". I haven't called for Djathinkimacowboy to be blocked. Still, never let the facts get in the way of a good trolling session... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack - accusation of being a racist

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

---

• ...Please find reliable sources for your racism." Admins, please correct the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are *you* bringing this here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have been editing that article. That diff is actually the culmination of a series of personal attacks by Hipocrite on that editor:
    • "THAS RACISS"
    • Threat
    • Again, admins, please correct the behavior. Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh...what do you want them to do? Levy a fee?--MONGO 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologized to the user I inappropriately called a racist, and I'll do whatever that user wants me to do to make it up to him. I'd like Cla68 to stay away from me. Could someone institute a binding interaction ban? I don't think trolling my talk page with his "threat charges" is in any way an attempt to deescalate - in fact, it seems more like he was trying to piss me off so I'd do other stupid things. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Redcorreces

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

---

Resolved

 – User has been indefinitely blocked by Hersfold (talk · contribs). — foxj 03:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces (talk · contribs) calls people Nazis ([97][98]) and say that my comments are "Gestapo nonsense."[99] He refuses to prove that his upload is free but blanks the discussion and promises to reupload the image if deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've left a warning - I thought about just blocking, but I've given him the old "last chance". If he repeats the comment or the upload or any other nonsense, a block will be necessary.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine. I would personally say that I care more about blanking and copyright policies than about the Nazi and Gestapo comments. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You people need to get a life. Seriously. Redcorreces (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A couple of things are concerning aside from the apparent Naziphilia the user possesses:

• Our photos strikes a concern that this may not be just one person under this account, but it's possible that I could be taking this out of context.

• By our photos, I was referring to myself and all the other people whom Stefan2 has had the pleasure of intimidating. Is that much clearer now? Does that no longer "strike a concern"? Get a life. Redcorreces (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• The message in ALL CAPS here and at the bottom of File:A montage of Omaha.jpg seem to exhibit a significant sense of ownership (which, ironically, is also "in disagreement of Wikipedia's purpose")

--MuZemike 01:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well, your nonsense policing of a supposedly FREE, NON-PROFIT and EDUCATIONAL website is reminiscent of such. Let's also not forget FAIR USE. Whatever it is I forgot to note during my upload has been addressed via discussions, etc. because I kept getting pestered in what I thought was a community. If I'm not earning a single penny from those photos, then leave them alone. OK? Redcorreces (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• • We're supposed to police vandalism, not reasonable contributions that improve the appearance of articles. But sadly, you're turning Wikipedia into playground of immature people on ambitious power trips. Grow up. Redcorreces (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Redcorreces, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously we take copyright concerns here at Wikipedia. For example, one of the pictures shows a statue, which is not covered by WP:Freedom of panorama under U. S. law, and it is therefore a copyright violation on the work of art itself. If you could please read WP:Copyright violations that would be great. The onus is on you, the uploader, to provide a source for each picture in the montage and prove to us that the pics are in the public domain or licensed under a license compatible with the way Wikipedia works. Yelling people who are trying to explain these polices, and engaging in name-calling, will not prevent an image in violation of copyright law from being deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And Diannaa, your remarks show a deep misunderstanding of how seriously I take the freedom that Wikipedia stands for. I wasn't yelling at people; I was merely pointing out how those people's actions are preventing that freedom. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to make a social statment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

@Redcorreces, your antagonistic attitude does you no good. Diannaa is correct about Freedom of Panorama under American copyright law, and Wikipedia policy is actually more stringent than American Fair Use standards (unnecesarily so, in my opinion, but that comes from the Wikimedia Foundation and is not something we can change). However, it's still possible that the statue you show in the montage of Omaha is not under copyright if it was created earlier than 1921. I can't tell what statue the image is of, but you could do a bit of research and find out when it was made. If it's before 1921, then you can upload the montage as a free image. If not, it can only be uploaded as a non-free image and must fulfill the requirements of WP:NFCC, and must be used in an article.

Copyright law is complicated, and Wikipedia's image policies are complex as well. You'd do better to lay off the polemics and reach out to work with the people who are counseling you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also, Redcorreces, please read WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, The Bushranger, policing an otherwise reasonable improvement to a page isn't civil. Maybe you all should read that first. Redcorreces (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop changing the title of the section. Referring to people as "immature" and that they need to "get a life" is not maintaining a civil atmosphere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How about Please delete this nonsense attack on me section? Group think must be fun! Redcorreces (talk) 02:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not an attack, nor is it nonsense; your continued refusal to understand this does not bode well for your continued participation in the project. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; Redcourreces, if you are unable to maintain a level of decorum appropriate for a collaborative project, you will be blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Hersfold, I have maintained a level of decorum. I have not used any profanity in all of my dialogue. I have a right to defend myself, and that is what I have been doing ever since my contribution was unfairly attacked. Speaking of which, I'm glad to see you've joined in the fun of group think. Redcorreces (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are more ways to be incivil than swearing at people. Name-calling, failure to assume good faith, and refusal to listen to concerns are all examples, all of which you've exhibited in this thread. These behaviors make it difficult to impossible to work with others in a collaborative environment. I'd strongly suggest you step away from this situation for now, taking some time to read through the various policies, guidelines, and essays that have been linked, and try to view all this from another's perspective. If things continue as they are, a block will likely be issued before long. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Redcorreces, you clearly have little understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy, which - whether you like it or not - is necessary for legal reasons, regardless of its other merits. Nobody was attacking you - we were pointing out that your montage may violate our policies. Your response seems to be the only 'attack' evident - and I'd suggest that if you think being told you can't post something on Wikipedia is on a level with Nazism, you clearly don't have a clue about history, either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, AndyTheGrump, join in the group think fun. If I was not being attacked, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I am, so we are. Again, making accusations about my contribution is not civil, either. I'm just defending my contribution, and I am not being profane about it. Redcorreces (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, point proven. Soapbox? Yes. Clue? No. Not wanted here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

And as such I've blocked Redcorreces indefinitely, with a note that he can be unblocked once he can show he understands the concerns originally raised and can work with other editors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Repeat disruption from 1 person using numerous IP's due to previously being blocked

I'm not sure what to do, I reported this on WP:AIV, but was directed here. 98.88.175.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back to disrupt WPCH-TV by continually making this same edit: [100]. This person has also edited and been warned and blocked using 98.88.174.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.88.172.233 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.88.168.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). WPCH-TV was protected for a few weeks, but the user returned on the day or day after protection expired. Does the page need some sort of permanent protection? Any help would be greatly appreciated. InFlamester20 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've protected it for three months (had a bit of a wrestling match with the interface, which has recorded me doing it three times!!) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker abusing powers, tryed to warn me about something I did not do

Mtking ^(edits) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC) warned me for WP:3RR, except I did not break that rule, when I confronted him about it he said: "you were fast approaching it". Clearly an abuse of his rollbacker powers. As well as he has been repeatedly trying to delete credible MMA related articles, and harassing people on Afd to sway votes. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

First off, you need to notify users about ANI threads. So, I've notified Mtking.

Mtking mentioned 3RR but didn't accuse you of violating 3RR. The warning Mtking gave you had the eminently reasonably statement:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

Ideally, you should have both proceeded to the talk page to have a sensible discussion about improving the article. The warning was perhaps slightly OTT, but I don't see how this as an abuse of the rollback functionality. Mtking gave what look to be basically reasonable edit summaries for his reverts; this isn't a rollback issue at all, just a simmering editing dispute.

The best thing would be if both of you were to try and explain your reasons for the article being the way you prefer it on the talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I fast concluding that Glock17gen4 has a terminal case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT with regard to the notability requirements for MMA Events (see WP:MMAEVENT), the whole rational behind the creation of 2012 in UFC events is as a replacement for the articles on the individual events (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability and the section Omnibus articles) the intent being that the articles on the individual non-notable events will be redirected to this new page. There is no reason why wiki-links back to the soon to be redirect pages should be added, which will need to be removed when the redirect are put in place. This was explained in the edit sum of the first revert I made Reverted to revision 484482820 by TreyGeek: Actualy no, as the pages will be redirected here. - if you disagree take it to the talk page... As for the claim of "abuse of his rollbacker powers" that rather requires rollback to have been used which as the page history shows, was not the case. As for the template warning {{Uw-ew}} was used, and I stand by it being appropriate given the situation where the edit sum I used pointed the editor towards the talk page if he should disagree. Mtking ^(edits) 08:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As with others, I'm confused how warning you (correctly or not) is an abuse of rollback powers. Was the rollback function used to try and keep the warning after you'd removed it or as part of the edit war? Note that anyone can give warnings, even anonymous users (IPs), it's not restriced to people with rollback powers. The only extra functionality rollback powers gives is the rollback function.

Also as has been explained above, warning people before they have actually violated 3RR is the norm, as one of the key purposes of the warning is to try and stop people from violating 3RR, particularly since it's can be seen as unfair to block people for something they weren't aware of. It's far less use warning people after they have violated 3RR, as by that stage it's somewhat too late. (Remember there's a difference between warning someone and reporting them.) And as has also been started, you can be blocked for edit warring without going over 3RR.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't edit warring, thats the thing, I was fixing the page to be in the correct order, but he is still trying to throw the rule book at me, I did nothing wrong. And I believe his intent is not to warn me of anything but to try and flex his online muscle and make me look bad, and make it look like I dont know the rules. I have been a great editor on here for awhile, I know what I'm doing. Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This is purely an extension of editors with an interest in MMA filling pages full of crap; for example, this AfD resulted in a result that dozens of articles that failed numerous policies should be redirected; instead, MMA editors have merged those articles, resulting in a smaller number of articles that still fail all the policies that resulted in the original AfD. Example; Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Five. Frankly, all of those articles should be AfD'd as well - it's just a shame they couldn't be deleted as G4. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thats your opinion, why not attack boxing though? We the people all voted to keep the articles, our voice was ignored, why have a consensus vote if they dont matter anyways? That makes no sense at all. And MtKing kept pestering those who voted to keep the article, even tho the article was legit. The UFC is listed as a notable organization under the rules, I point that out to MtKing, he trys to twist the rules in his favor, if the rules are that vague, then they need to be changed. But if wikipedia keeps attacking MMA related articles, expect many people on wikipedia to get angry. Some of us just dont care for boxing or baseball or basketball or football or what have you. Yet how come those sports arent under attack? That proves how biased MtKing and his cronies are. Another thing: My so called "vandalism" and "edit warring" was me trying to fix MtKing's C-Grade page, look: [[101]]. See that page? The events are listed from latest at the top, earliest at the bottom. Look at MtKings page! [[102]] It's backwards, latest at bottom, eariliest in 2012 at top. So I try and do him a favor and fix that, and then he ACCUSES me of Vandalism and edit warring. Really? How is FIXING something so it doesnt look like utter crap, vandalism? Yea. Thats what I thought, that is a blatant abuse of his position. And he knows it. Glock17gen4 (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How many personal attacks do I need to tolerate from a user?

Is there a policy-based limit on how many WP:Personal attacks I need to tolerate from another user? A few days ago I notified user:Lung salad to avoid vulgar language and personal attacks in the context of this uncalled for personal attack which he had performed. He called my warning "spam". This personal attack was made when other users reverted his changes. And yet other users have since condemned his actions thereafter.

As a background point, I should state that User:Lung salad is on a final block warning issued by User:Bwilkins due to his general disruptive behavior, and he was characterized as "one of the most obtuse and disruptive editors I've come across in my 7 years and 10 months contributing to Wikipedia" by another editor during that ANI discussion. So this issue has been ongoing and he has been blocked before, etc.

My day today started with personal attacks here and here. He had been told to "address the issues related to content" yet continued to attack at a personal level. Why should I tolerate these? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states that I should just tolerate these continued personal attacks, just because a user feels like making them?

But then the personal attacks continued today. User:Lung salad then "followed my edits" to make a similar attack on an Afd page I had started fixing a few days ago based on an Afd. My fixes there were in the context of that Afd, as clearly indicated on the Afd page. I was adding references to that page because users such as user:DGG had suggested that the page needed to survive and user:Bearian directly requested that references be added, so I started adding sources. Yet I received this personal attack again as I was adding references to the page, per the Afd discussion. I did not even express any opinions on that page whatsoever, all I was doing was adding sources. That was all. Yet I received a personal attack again.

I think this user needs to be blocked. He can not just attack other users "at will" then follow them around and attack them again for adding references which have been requested on an Afd page.

I have notified the user about this ANI thread. But my frank question here is: how many of these personal attacks do I need to continue to tolerate? Is there a Wikipedia policy that states I have to continue to tolerate personal attacks? History2007 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, 37? Mr. Salad is going a bit over-the-top with the anti-Catholic tirades, though. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no archaeological evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus Christ and this information is given in books written by conservative christian scholars - yet this information cannot be given in a Wikipedia article without a fight. Wikipedia articles should be free from Religious Fundamentalist agendas. Lung salad (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

None of that matters; you need to stop this shit. Plain and simple. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this notoce board is not the place to "discuss content". Content should and can be discussed on article talk pages per policy. This discussion is about the ongoing personal attacks which have continued across pages. This thread is about inappropriate user behavior, no content. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Allegations of not understanding logical argument - that's an ad-hominem attack, yes? Lung salad (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In other words, you are either too dumb to understand what the problem is or you're playing dumb and thus will continue to launch your personal rants. In that case, we can discuss your topic-ban right away. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If someone is a religious fundamentalist that's going to be reflected in the editing, as it transparently clear in this case. The deletion of cited content from verifiable sources that fits in with Wikipedia guidelines is one example. The verifiable source in question being The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies Lung salad (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I will just point out that I added the criticism section yesterday, when user:DougWeller asked for it. But that is enough now and I let other users comment now. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I came across this when "patrolling" recent changes. The previous characterizations of Lung salad are spot-on from what I've seen. He reminds me of the "Time Lord" who was fighting the great "Time War" against WP:ERA, except with a religious ax to grind instead. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I should note that Lung salad was blocked for 60 hours for personal attacks. But I would suggest that the topic ban discussion below should continue. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, you edit conflicted with me coming to say I've blocked Lung Salad for 60hrs for this, which I consider an outrageous attack on one section of the community. Sorry if that impedes your discussion on a topic ban. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what's so terrible about that particular diff, which seems like a (marginally) acceptable statement of opinion about biases that may affect our articles. I disagree with what ArbCom ruled about Will Beback, and here this editor wasn't even pointing the finger at a specific individual. Other diffs cited by the original complainant above seem much more objectionable, as they specifically dismiss and disparage his point of view. Wikipedia is not here to decide whether God exists or not; all properly sourced points of view are welcome and should be documented impartially, side by side. Wnt (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your attention. But I think the topic ban discussion can continue anyway, so we do not have to do this again. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question, the number of personal attacks one must tolerate is widely variable. Three are three factors that influence this limit: the editor making the personal attack, the editor at whom the attack is directed, and the nature of the attack. To take the last of these first, if the personal attack is of a nature that is in opposition to the strongly-held personal political/ideological views of certain admins, the attacker will be blocked as soon as their comments are noticed. On the other hand, admins may dismiss the attack if it corresponds to their own strongly-held views and berate the complainant instead. If the person doing the attacking is out of favour with the community, they will be blocked (and this is often used as leverage for further sanctions such as topic bans or full bans). If the positions are reversed, and the person being attacked is in the bad books, the personal attack guidelines are ignored and any complaints made by the target editor are taken as more evidence that the attacks must be deserved. For example, feel free to call me a homophobe. I am not, but editors can suggest I am (or even make things about about what I have said or done) with absolutely no fear of admin action. In my case, the only limit on the number of personal attacks I must tolerate is the amount of time I choose to remain active here. I hope your experience is better. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I find personal attacks very counterproductive. The time spent in this discussion could have been used for more productive purposes. If personal attacks can be somehow stopped the whole operation of the online encyclopedia will become more effective. Personal attacks also make editors unhappy at a personal level, and less productive. So I really do not like them, needless to say. History2007 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban

As seen above, user doesn't even understand why these personal attacks are unacceptable and will likely continue. Propose topic ban concerning anything related to Jesus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the definition of personal attacks. Lung salad (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OH, so you understand the definition, but vow to continue? Or you know what personal attacks are but haven't understood that they are not acceptable here? Which one is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (add: widely construed). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, of course, or more. User has been on "final warning" anyway. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. User seems unable or unwilling to discuss articles relating to religion without resorting to ad hominem attacks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Apart from the user's personal attacks, his behavior during this ANI discussion alone shows that he is incapable of even discussing the problem constructively. Editors shouldn't have to put up with this sort of behavior while editing articles. Yes, a topic ban seems to be warranted. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Also, I'm rather surprised this topic isn't under permanent sanctions by ArbCom like Climate Change and the I/P areas are. This is at least as controversial as those are. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It's a shame that it's necessary, but these personal attacks can't continue, they poison the debate. I can't agree however that this topic has the heated battles that Climate Change and I/P. Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support: So let's not let this topic get to the heated level of some other areas. Whatever Lung salad might promise, now or subsequently, it's plain that he sees himself as a holy warrior carrying the anti-Catholic banner against the minions of evil, and zealots of that sort don't suddenly slap their foreheads one day and exclaim "My God, I've been so horribly wrong!" Ravenswing 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, to me it sounds like you're doing exactly the same thing he just did. As we're telling him to do now, please, focus on the edits, rather than demonizing the editor. Perhaps he'll have a Pauline conversion. :) Wnt (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bot Spamming

I've received an email in Malayalam from (which I don't read) from User:VsBot, which is run by User:Vssun who directs messages to him to be left on his talk page on ml wiki, where is he is also apparently a 'crat. On going to his talk page, there are several complaints about spam, so a) can someone look into this, and b) which account should I post the ANI notice on? MSJapan (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the bot. That should get his attention. Probably better posting on his ml page if you can. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

On a further look, the English VsBot hasn't edited in two years (and that includes sending emails - I would be able to see if it had). He must be running a version on a ml account. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've received the same e-mail, but, in fairness, the e-mail part of it comes from your preferences; you can just turn off UTP e-mail updates (or ask that the setting be updated globally here). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

IP 119.237.156.246 hasn't learned from previous blocks

119.237.156.246 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked twice for generally being disruptive, but also being a sockpuppet. He denies being a sock, which is neither here nor there considering the disruption. He came back yesterday evening and immediately began revert warring where it left off last time. This restored invalid move requests that involved ArbCom issues, restored invalid CFD headers to discussions that have never existed, and other general disruption that has generated 3RR warnings. I don't see a point in warning an IP that has already been blocked twice for this behavior. Based on talk pages, he knows ins and outs of policy and expected behavior (as you'd expect by an accused sock) and just doesn't care (as you'd expect by an accused sock). Based on disruption and stench of sock, can someone put a long block, like a month, on it please? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, the IP doesn't look to be dynamic from the behavioural patterns, I agree it needs a longer block. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is disrupting Wikipedia. He removed a the consul-general-designate from the British consulate-general article, and the names of two ordinances in the flag desecration article, and insist to add the same picture twice to the article on Tung Chee Hwa but with a wrong caption, to name a few. I was only acting to revert his disruptive edits. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Hershebar sockpuppetry continued

The sockpuppetry from this user is continuing, now using 74.101.6.200 (talk · contribs). It may be worthwhile to semi-protect some of these pages. Wilhelmina Models, List of women writers, July 24, Fairleigh Dickinson University, Stephanie, and Playboy Playmate were the ones hit by this IP. A new SPI is still pending. Calabe1992 18:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

For passing admins, the SPI is here. Calabe1992 18:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hellotoyoumyfriend (talk · contribs) has now been created also, added to the SPI. Calabe1992 18:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks, disruptive conduct

during a discussion over the format of an article, MarcusBritish (talk · contribs) has made personal attacks calling me "either stupid, or a liar" [103] and responding to serious comments argumented in policies with mocking, he even admits his attitude "Of course I'm mocking you" [104]. i've tried to maintain a normal discussion with the guy but my arguments have been countered with mere ridicule, personal attacks and provoking phrases.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Belongs at WP:WQA. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This thread belongs here, MarcusBritish, because unless you tone it down a couple of notches, I'll block you. Consider this a warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance from other editors in resolving a situation. The goal is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable resolution. It is designed to function by persuasion, reason, and community support, not threats and blocks." Seems you're wrong. Ma®©usBritish^[chat] 18:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have always distinguished general incivility from personal attacks. Here you were not simply uncivil, you insulted your interlocutor. And wikilawyering about the venue is not going to divert my attention from that. Now you've been warned; the next insult you hurl, no matter the recipient, will result in a block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

National Autism Society

I request a block on the National Autism Society (NAS) IP address for a period of one week (as agreed with the society's computer manager). The address is 217.204.11.194.

The society's network is open to both staff and to patients. Recently there have been a significant amount of "reordering" of junction numbers on various British motorways (see contributions page at here. I telephoned to the society's computer manager and both he and I are of the opinion that these changes are being carried out by a patient who is suffering from autism (and who therefore will not respond to normal reasoning). The manager quite reasonably challenged me to "prove" my assertion that the NAS network was the "guilty" party and after I led him through the Wikipedia audit trail, he proved very cooperativce. He is quite happy that there be a one week block on the IP address so that the patient concerned will get bored trying to make any changes. A study of the changes associated with that address suggest that few changes, if any, are appropriate to Wikipedia's aims and therefore neither Wikipedia nor the society will be harmed. Martinvl (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)