Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

HiLo48 civility

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

---

We've had a bit of a flare-up over at WP:ITN/C that could use administrator attention. User:HiLo48 has been showing significant anger lately over postings of items, and it's leading to increasing name-calling. On 16 July, for example, he responds to the posts of other editors by calling them "arrogance": [1]. Two days ago he called User:BorgQueen's posting of an item "quite immoral" [2] and "stupidly rapid" [3]; he also calls another user's comment "stupid" in the latter and insults the manners of American editors as a whole. Several editors have directly requested that he be more civil [4], to which he responded "LOL".[5] After a dozen posts with this tone in that thread, he then proceeded to open continued discussion in a new forum, bludgeoning each oppose vote as invalid and misunderstanding him, posting about twenty times (see thread at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. This afternoon he responded to one post asking if the user was an idiot in an edit titled "Bullshit".[6] I asked him again to be civil [7] and he responded that he was not being uncivil, but I had simply misunderstood.[8]

I'd ask that HiLo receive some sort of block or warning for his behavior. I respect that we disagree, and I hope that he'll contribute constructively and respectfully again in the future. This repeated name-calling and hostility, though, is needlessly poisoning the atmosphere of the project. Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Related historical ANI and WT:ITN discussions on similar behaviour from HiLo48 can be found: here, here, here and here, amongst others. Once, we can AGF. Twice, you get weary. Three times, you wonder why nothing's been done. We're well past that now… and still nothing's been done. I appreciate Khazar's efforts in bringing this to a wider audience at ANI.—Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's generally three strikes and you're out, right? And this editor has had, as per Strange Passerby, over three strikes before this last one? After at least four previous discussions on basically the same sort of matter, I rather doubt at this point a simple warning would do any good. But such comments as those above do nothing to contribute to the atmosphere or even the opinion of others regarding the person making the comments. I tend to agree that some sort of block or ban seems called for, but I'm not sure based on the above what kind of action or how long it would optimally be. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, every time I've looked in at ITNC, he has displayed the exact same behaviour. Personally, I'd say a topic ban would be useful. Maybe in a couple months he can then return to the arena with a better attitude. Resolute 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure a topic ban is sufficient. His attitude is generally uncivil, confrontational, needlessly argumentative, and exceedingly pedantic. For example: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Young_Earth_creationism_and_Gnosticism, where he tells Dweller to 'run off to Conservapedia' after Dweller took issue with his tone; Talk:Mitt_Romney#Romney.27s_behavior_at_Cranbrook_school, where he deploys his usual high-handed tone to dismiss the valid concerns of others; Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics#Controversy:_Minute_of_Silence_for_murdered_Israeli_athletes, where he accuses others of Wikilawyering whilst engaging in exactly that behaviour himself; and right here, below this comment. He's very fond of saying provocative things, and then claiming not to have said them because he did not, in exactly as many words, say the precise thing he's accused of. Calling me an idiot talk ITN talk is a fine example - he provided a neat Morton's fork, whereby I was either a troll or an idiot, and then rejected the accusation of having called me an idiot. No doubt if he had been reprimanded for saying I was trying to provoke him, he would have said that he hadn't said that, either. It is the Magician's force technique, and we shouldn't fall for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

User: Khazar2 accuses me of name calling, then provides precisely zero examples of me doing so. I have certainly expressed dissatisfaction with the BEHAVIOUR of other editors. That is NOT name calling. I choose my words carefully. Others might do well to try to do the same thing themselves. I proposed a radical change. I have been involved in introducing change in many organisations over my life. I know that it's common for one of the first reactions to a new and radical idea is for those used to the old ways to feel threatened and to attack the person with the new idea. That certainly happened with my suggestion at [[Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F]. An independent observer looking here should definitely look at the reactions of several editors there. HiLo48 (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I commented earlier this year on HiLo48's ongoing long-term incivility and disruption of the ITN feature [9] and am not surprised to find this matter at ANI. The solution is a topic ban of substantial duration. Jusdafax 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That's quite some record - as Strange Passerby has also highlighted above. For what it's worth, I advocate a complete ban for at least a month; preferably longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would make the point that I have gone out of my way to warn HiLo48 in that same thread [10]. Now that I understand that HiLo48 by no means restricts his abusive commentary to the ITN feature, I have started a subsection to block him as a preventative measure. Judging from his reply he is unrepentant. And having dealt with him for years, in my view he is a poor candidate for mentoring. Jusdafax 22:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that an ITN topic ban misses the broader point of this user's difficulties with comprehending how to interact with others on Wikipedia. See ([11]), which was NOT at ITN. Arguing in defence of ridiculing others' religions is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Making ill-informed guesses about the personal beliefs of other users is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. Telling other users to leave Wikipedia is a bad idea and not part of building an encylopedia. I think this user needs to radically adjust their norms of interaction. Banning him from ITN won't address the issue, but will just push the bad behaviour elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

So, what would you suggest? John Carter (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

From what HiLo48 says above, his intent is to comment on the behavior of other editors, and he doesn't see this as relating to Civility. Perhaps a better explanation is needed as to why this comes off as incivil to some editors and how Civility is bigger than just "No Personal Attacks"? It sounds like HiLo48 is perfectly willing to comply with Civility policy, but has not yet seen how this applies to his actions. -- Avanu (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've never had any contact with HiLo before, but I'm not impressed at what I've seen. The diffs provided by the editors above demonstrate a sustained problem of incivility towards other editors. What is even more worrying is that HiLo seems never to acknowledge that his manner is utterly inappropriate (indeed, his response to this report, claiming that there are no example of name calling illustrate this nicely). If it was just a case of incivility from an editor who knew he'd done wrong, I think we could be lenient. However, the long-term nature of the problem, and the inability to even understand that his tone is regularly inappropriate, suggests to me that a block of some length may be necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans work where it's the nature of the topic that stimulates bad behaviour. I really don't think that's the case here. I'm also not sure a block is a great idea. HiLo is capable of being constructive and productive and much of their contribution history is positive. It's when dealing with other editors that the problems come in... the talk page history includes much that is really problematic. Blocking HiLo IMO does not generate a strong possibility of improved behaviour in the future because I think they genuinely don't understand what they're doing wrong. I'd ideally want HiLo to agree to being mentored and then we'll have the thorny problem of finding a suitable mentor who agrees to doing the job. If that fails, I'm concerned that a block will begin a sad route, via future blocks to an eventual ban and that would be a shame. --Dweller (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As I have said above, anyone looking for incivility need only look at several of the responses to my sincere suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Should_we_have_a_rule_requiring_a_certain_period_of_time_for_discussion_before_posting.3F. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring would be a good step forwards, if HiLo will agree to it and we can find a suitable mentor. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is a good editor, but inclined to be intemperate and uncivil, which detracts from his contribution. His response to warnings and relevant wikiprocess is to become increasingly uncivil. A good example is his contributions during discussion on the Craig Thomson affair which made the news due to the level of poor behaviour. --Pete (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, HiLo's tendency to directly attack an editor isn't limited to ITN. HiLo was involved in an article with another editor, who brought the issue to ANI. I'd done some poking about on the talk page and generally found that if things don't go HiLo's way, their outbursts are pretty explosive. These were some of the gems I found last time. Here, here and here. Back then, HiLo's behaviour was buried under the subsequent discussion in to the disruptive behaviour of the other editor. I guess it was only a matter of time before this came up again. Blackmane (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't topic ban HiLo48. I hope this process has given the editor pause, and that they will take a self imposed break to realize that ultimately Wikipedia is not that important :) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A couple of examples from a move discussion a month ago; WTF?, ...language usage in Minnesota is of even less relevance here, Why make such a dumb comment?, Some editors don't fucking read what others post!!!!!!!. At best, his posts are sarcastic. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed block or topic ban from ITN of HiLo48

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

---

• Support block - On further contemplation of this issue, I'd agree that not just a topic ban but a block is called for regarding HiLo48's long-term and ongoing disruption, including the ITN feature as seen in discussions [12] and this one where consensus was reached that HiLo's actions were unacceptable [13]. This has gone on far too long, in my view, and it appears to me now that the problem extends further than I realized. Jusdafax 21:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus? LOL HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, in line with Dweller's comment above. With no specific appraisal of HiLo48's comments with respect to civility, if there is indeed an issue here then mentoring is far more likely to produce a desirable result. This seems like a situation that requires a more nuanced approach to solve than simply wheeling out the brute force solution of the blockhammer. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban I have to say, the civility issue is clear here, but I think a block is unnecessary. HiLo is a good editor. Perhaps a topic ban to let HiLo cool his heels a bit? Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic ban from ITN yes, block - no. Black Kite (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, pending mentorship proposal, see my comment above. If that fails to get off the ground or the mentor reports it fails to succeed, I'd reconsider. Definitely oppose topic ban, for reasons outlined above. Understandable motivation, but unlikely to succeed in this case. --Dweller (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose unless attempts at mentoring do not work, in which case I'd support a block. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Topic ban. The disruption has gone on far too long, and there's no reason to believe that it will cease as long as HiLo continues to post on ITN-related pages. His adversarial approach has a chilling effect on discussion, discouraging the participation of both editors disagreeing with him (who don't wish to be berated) and agreeing with him (who don't wish to align themselves with his vitriol).
  Honestly, I don't know why a topic ban wasn't enacted after consensus was clearly established here.
  As noted above, HiLo sees nothing wrong with his conduct, so a block is unlikely to inspire reform. If he's willing to accept a mentorship, this is worth trying as an alternative to a site-wide ban. —David Levy 23:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Any level of action, at the very least a topic ban. It's nothing new, I've scarce seen an interaction in which HiLo took place without being insulting or condescending, not only on ITN but the front page talk as well, and there is a long history of AN/I. Frankly, it would seem that so long as nothing is done, he will continue to flaunt this; it is unfortunate because he is an active editor. If a block is deemed to severe I certainly support a topic ban, mentorship, or whatever else might be done to remedy this. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 23:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reading through some of the threads presented, I do not find the same pattern. Also, some comments by other editors in these threads show a similar standard of civility. I would suggest that if editors are concerned about civility they should ask an administrator to monitor the talk pages. Below are a few of the examples I looked at.
  • Wikilawyering. An editor argues that, since WP:NOTABILITY only applies to creating articles, not to article content, "Once the article exists, any sourced material that is relevant to the topic, and that does not violate any additional Wikipedia policies, can be included; notability does not enter into that equation." Although HiLo48 had used the term "notable", WP:UNDUE would exclude non-notable content. It seems the accusation of Wikilawyering may be fair comment and yet AlexTiefling, who is calling for a block accuses HiLo48 in this discussion thread of Wikilawyering while providing no edit differences.
  • Are you trying to provoke me.... HiLo48 is replying to AlexTiefling's comment, "Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you...." Khazar2, who is the complainant in this case, then tells HiLo48, but not AlexTiefling, to be civil.

TFD (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the distinction to me was that HiLo had engaged in a long pattern of this behavior; I also didn't engage with HiLo about civility when he first called other editors "arrogant", BorgQueen "quite immoral", or the comment of another editor "stupid". After he continued the behavior for 24 hours, though, the pattern became clear. I don't believe Alex has the same history, either in this particular thread or on ITN in general. Khazar2 (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to show long term abuse here, especially when there are no blocks or sanctions recorded against this editor. May I suggest you go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, whether or not your application here is successful. It is a much better forum when no single edit would warrant sanctions, but when they form part of a pattern. TFD (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama, but if necessary, maybe someone else can take the baton from here. But are things like calling another user a "prick" over and over really not actionable without that step? [14] Our civility policies are a lot more toothless than I realized. Khazar2 (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I was uncivil to HiLo in that thread. I apologise for letting my feelings get the better of me. I came to that thread directly from the ITN discussion about Aurora, and I definitely should have gone and got a cup of tea first. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban (but oppose block). We have to take this first step. A topic ban from ITN will make it abundantly clear that we won't tolerate this kind of behaviour – and, if Dweller's fears that HiLo would simply bring this behaviour elsewhere come true, we can then escalate to blocks. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 00:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - At most, mentorship should be used in place of blocking. However, there is no reason why ITNC should have to put up with his attitude while a mentor tries to help mend his ways. We can lift a topic ban if and when said mentor determines that future disruption is unlikely. Resolute 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, and oppose block - the big guns can be called out later if needed, but right now a topic ban should solve the issue. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban. One has to start somewhere. It is true that HiLo48 is not the only one with a systematic pattern of disruptive behaviour at ITN. Somehow, ITN seems to attract users who'd be blocked/topic banned/whatever for POV pushing, political soapboxing and incivility at just about any other page, and yet their conduct is largely tolerated at ITN. However, that does not mean that nothing should be done, in fact quite the opposite. If the worst offenders start being held accountable, the others will take notice. In my observations, HiLo48 conduct at ITN has been consistently non-constructive, often provocative and incendiary. A topic ban from ITN would certainly be a reasonable first step, to see if HiLo48 can engage in more productive editing elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose block, neutral on topic ban. HiLo's recent behaviour is obviously uncivil, but it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognising the problem and agreeing to correct it. A short topic ban probably wouldn't hurt, but may not be needed if there is a sincere undertaking to self-improve. Mentorship may also not hurt if someone is willing. But I'd be surprised if HiLo is not able to work out for himself what he needs to change. Formerip (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, it ought to be easily remedied by HiLo recognizing the problem and agreeing to correct it. And that's been asked of him many, many times. But in HiLo's view, the blame belongs to everyone but him. This is nothing new. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  Fair comment, but it may be that HiLo reflects on the concerns raised it this thread and resolves to turn over a new leaf. If he does, then I'd say its reasonable to take him at his word. If he declines the opportunity, then, sure, a topic ban is appropriate. Formerip (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  If that were to occur, I'd be delighted to take HiLo at his word and give him another chance. But we've been here too many times for me to expect such a turn of events. And this is HiLo's current assessment of a previous determination by the community that his behavior was unacceptable. —David Levy 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While I don't endorse rude comments, ITN has all sorts of very major problems (in short: it's American-biased and often links to low-quality articles) and the points HiLo was making actually look quite reasonable to me. This comment included in the orginal report was made in response to an extraordinarily rude comment from AlexTiefling (which includes "You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms"). Nick-D (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  I think this misunderstands the issue slightly. Bias and premature postings are things that can be, should be and are discussed at ITNC while keeping a civil tongue. I don't endorse AlexTiefling's tone, but his assessment is basically correct. In this instance, HiLo was too strident and deaf to other editors. Formerip (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  That an actual systemic bias problem exists is all the more reason to put a stop to HiLo's disruption. His rants are so vitriolic that they accomplish nothing other than poisoning the well. When others attempted to express such concerns respectfully, their efforts were mistaken for HiLo-style trolling and unfairly dismissed. Regardless of where someone stands on these issues, his/her ability to engage in constructive discourse is compromised. —David Levy 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  As I said above, I don't agree with uncivil comments. However, ITN is, from my experiance and observations, a very frustrating area to edit in (reasonable criticisms posted politely are often met with strong, and often quite arrogant, counter-attacks), and HiLo was responding to fairly extreme abuse in that comment I linked to. As such, I don't see how sanctioning a single editor will resolve what's a much larger problem. Nick-D (talk) 03:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  And what about his comments at the Ref Desk? Hot Stop 04:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of limited duration, oppose block. ITN may other problems with civility, but I'm not sure that excuses any of HiLo's behavior, especially since he's displayed identical behavior elsewhere (see, for example, BlackMane's diffs above where HiLo repeatedly calls another editor "a rude, impatient prick" or Dweller's where HiLo mocks a user's religion and tells them to leave Wikipedia). I hope we'll see HiLo contributing to ITN again some day, but until he cuts back on the vitriol, he's doing much more harm there than good. Mentoring sounds like a good step too if HiLo's prepared to accept it. Khazar2 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, Neutral on block For a few months now, I've noticed that he has often been very uncivil when it comes to responding to nominations he feels are not worthy, and to comments made by other editors that he disagrees with. These comments usually lead to bickering between HiLo and the editor(s) that he rubbed the wrong way (one example). He is not always uncivil, but when he is, it always sparks some kind of argument that can be seen on the related ITN nomination. I would hope a topic ban from ITN for a while would be sufficient enough. He has shown this behavior enough in the past for several discussions to take place regarding his conduct throughout Wikipedia, so I would not oppose a block, but in terms of his behavior lately, I don't feel as though blocking him is really necessary unless he shows that he cannot be civil in future discussions. If the topic ban were to expire, and he goes back to being uncivil in the discussions, I feel he should be blocked. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (wide) topic ban, oppose block (for now) HiLo should be topic banned not only from ITN and its subpages, but from the refdesk as well and perhaps any WP/WT page. I would, however, oppose a block since I've found his editing outside those areas to be positive. Hot Stop 04:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Per comments like these [15] [16] [17] its evident he's starting to take his rants to other areas of the website. Because of that, I think a block and topic ban is needed. Hot Stop 15:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nick-D. I deal with him on Australian topics all the time and while he is sometimes a little brittle to deal with (and possibly somewhat more in the topic area under consideration, from the diffs I've clicked on), he is a productive, cooperative and useful editor who works towards building consensus in discussions and is generally coming from the right place content wise. Dealing in difficult areas of the encyclopaedia where even editors who behave normally can be mistreated, it's not hard to lose perspective and get very hard-headed about things - I know that's happened to me before, although I've usually known when to walk away. Perhaps mentorship is the answer, I don't know. Orderinchaos 05:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I've had a lot of interaction with HiLo48. 3/4 of the time we are opponents/disagree. But I have the utmost respect for them. They clearly understand what what an encyclopedia should be and work towards that end and aren't afraid to take a little heat in that effort. I find that their blunt talk much less nasty than the more clever wiki-lawyer methods of warfare more commonly used. They are a strong proponent of avoiding US-centrism in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban or at least some level of action. Countless diffs can be provided of HiLo48's bouts of incivility. I have no doubt that he is a productive editor, but all of his efforts on WP:ITN have consistently been counter-productive and deliberately antagonistic.--WaltCip (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, neutral on block. I'm not at all convinced that mentoring would work, and it remains to be seen whether a topic ban will either, but it's a start. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, user's disruption on ITN is a fairly big part of what makes that section of the main page not work. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. It might send a message. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The diffs don't seem demonstrate anything topic ban worthy. This [18] is a comment on the content, not on the editor. This appears to be from the same incident: [19], it contains some minor incivilities. The edit summary here is inappropriate [20] but the comment is fine (and he raises a good point in the context). Yes there are issues with civility but they seem solvable and some mentoring could help. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support topic ban because we just cannot allow this type of immature disruption around here anymore. Yaplunpe 07:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Topic ban for sure, or maybe even a block, this editor needs to learn to work collaboratively before returning here and wasting all of our precious time. HellRaiser1974 (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I move that this proposal has been open long enough (certainly by ANI standards), and that there may be consensus to topic ban. Can an admin please decide if it should be enacted? —Strange Passerby (t × c) 14:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree completely. I'll start a new sub-heading at the bottom of this report. Jusdafax 02:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Propose mentorship (and fallback to topic ban from ITN of HiLo48, if mentor is rejected)

No support for this

It seems that a topic ban is supported by a consensus of people above, and mentorship was proposed right before the poll above started. I would suggest that a mentor of AN/I's choosing be given an opportunity to guide HiLo48 for 2 weeks, if this mentoring fails, in the opinion of the mentor alone, or a consensus of other editors, then a 3-month topic ban from ITN would *immediately* replace the mentorship. If after 2 weeks, HiLo48 has demonstrated improvements, then the mentorship could end, with a warning to avoid further conflict or a summary 3-month topic ban from ITN would be imposed, solely at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. -- Avanu (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I am on board with the idea but I personally think it would be more appropriate, given the rather lengthy period of these problems and HiLo's denial of any wrongdoing, to impose a (perhaps temporary) topic ban and mentorship concurrently. HiLo has said in his own words that he is interested in making this a better encyclopedia; to me, the best way to demonstrate this would be to work on other articles and take a break from ITN. If things look better the topic ban can always be lifted. I must admit I am also interested to see if ITN itself cleans up at all as a result of this, not just from HiLo taking a break but also perhaps the demonstration to others on the borderline that this is unacceptable. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose If he wants to take on a mentor, that's fine. But I doubt someone who's been editing since 2008 will change now. And plus, as proposed it seems over bureaucratic. Hot Stop 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose I above suggested to the editor that regardless of the outcome of this discussion thread, that they file an RFC/U. Their reply was, "an RfC/U is probably more effort than I'm willing to sink into this drama". If the complainant shows that lack of interest in their application, I do not think that it merits any more of our attention. TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC) If it's a sine qua non for you, TFD, I'm willing to pledge to start the RfC/U--and if this was the wrong place to come for repeated personal attacks, I apologize. I'm comparatively new to AN/I, and was just surprised to hear that it didn't deal with those matters. FWIW, I'd also point out that I'm far from the only complainant on this page, as the many diffs above demonstrate. Khazar2 (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Eh, disregard what I wrote above. As much as I dislike HiLo's abuse of other editors, I'd rather focus on content than spend another day or two researching and setting up a second community referendum on this. Hopefully, though, the many diffs above will be enough to obviate the need for further escalation. Khazar2 (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

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

---

It's pretty obvious that there is divided opinion as to how to proceed. Rather than continue with the drama that will ensue if the discussion of a topic ban or mentorship continues. I propose that the discussion be stopped here with a very stern final warning that the next time that HiLo is brought here harsh sanctions will be applied. Blocking now will be punitive, a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill and mentorship of an editor who has been here for 4 years is demeaning. Blackmane (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support HiLo is too good an editor to block, to experienced to mentor successfully, and a topic ban won't fix the problem. The solution has got to come from within, and I wish that HiLo could just stop and count to ten or something. This sort of behaviour can't go on, because it is disruptive, and it is a distraction from good editing work. But it cannot be ignored. --Pete (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe there is currently consensus for a topic ban, and all this does is circumvent that consensus. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 11:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As evidenced in the above mentioned "Previous DR Attempts", the point has not sunk in to HiLo that their comments are significantly below the minimum standard of civility for the page and at Wikipedia at large. Stern warnings have already been provided. This Alternative of an alternative of an alternative is an end run around the thin consensus for a topic ban from ITN. We're not supposed to give unlimited 2nd chances to unreformed disruptive entities. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that blocking now will be punitive, and a topic ban doesn't really fit the bill, but mentorship for an experienced editor isn't demeaning. It's a sign of respect and affection and It may work, and should be offered before more serious sanctions are imposed. But let's see if this discussion has an effect on HiLo's future interaction style first.

HiLo, I followed your pregnancy argument and in that you occasionally crossed the line in terms of civility, but not until you'd been called a pervert by a passing IP (and no one had criticised or removed the comment) and been patronised by Ludwigs2. I think you were told by someone that you are stupid, or it was implied. Someone criticised you for striding up and down the RfC comments, challenging any opposing view, but you weren't standing over or bullying people, you were arguing, which is what we try to do here. What really annoyed me was your propensity to insult the intelligence of your interlocutor. Literally. Tell them their ideas are ridiculous. That doesn't advance your argument; it isn't necessary, it polarises the debate, and it makes you look unpleasant to deal with. And, as in the case of Ludwigs2, it can get you blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment Don't mistake that I'm aiming to circumvent a consensus, which I don't see yet, and coming down on either side of the fence. I don't approve of HiLo's behaviour either and in fact, brought up their behaviour in the previous ANI. Given that there are examples of their incivility elsewhere, I'm not sure what a topic ban would achieve. Blackmane (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Observation I don't know if this provides any path to consensus, but it appears that editors who know HiLo primarily from ITN are almost unanimous in supporting action (the sole exception being the IP who asks HiLo to voluntarily take time off), while those who know him from other areas are conflicted or opposed. As linked above, an August 2011 ITN discussion, involving a number of different editors from the current one, was also one !vote short of unanimous in supporting a topic ban for HiLo.[21] The sharp divide suggests to me that HiLo is a largely effective editor elsewhere and a largely disruptive one at ITN. Khazar2 (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think he's just as disruptive wherever he goes. It's the same editor with the same interaction style. But he spends a lot of time at ITN, so I can imagine they'd appreciate a break from him. But let's see if he engages here and agrees to stop insulting his interlocutors. If that doesn't happen, if there's no recognition of a problem, we might as well just ban him, or agree to put up with the present style, because change is unlikely if you haven't acknowledged something needs changing. It's very late where he is, so this thread should stay open to give him time to respond. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment HiLo is a fine, sound and decent editor. I refute most, if not all the claims here, and hope that editors can work together to help than gang up to hound out. HiLo has always been a good voice against many of the worst excesses of ITN/C, not least certain practices of rapid posting which I find questionable. He can be a bit 'robust', which is why I hope that co-operation can be chosen over banning. doktorb _words^deeds 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I respect your changing your mind, but given that you voted to topic ban him last August, you at least understand where we're coming from, right? [22] I'm not sure this is any more "ganging up to hound" than that discussion was. Khazar2 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

*Sorry, Dr. B. I was curious about your change of mind, but didn't mean to open the door for you to be bludgeoned. Feel free to ignore my above comment. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Robust" is putting it kindly. HiLo's ITN behavior is a case of reasonable-sounding ideas with extremely poor execution; you have not addressed the many civility concerns that the above commenters have brought up, many of which have supporting diffs. How are they refutable?--WaltCip (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just quietly, Doktor, but "refute" does not mean what you think it does. It goes well beyond the sense of "deny" or "reject". --Pete (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad lapidem might be worth reading.--WaltCip (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - although I think it is not unreasonable to make it clear to HiLo that it is rather likely the next step, if there is one, might be to ArbCom. There does seem to be some basis for thinking that ITN and maybe a few other areas might benefit from some attention from ArbCom, although I doubt if it goes that far that HiLo personally will benefit from such attention. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment It would seem to me there's fairly clear consensus to topic ban. You may be right - mentorship of a long-time editor may accomplish nothing, and it may be so that he will learn nothing regardless of what is done, but that would tend to suggest that he's beyond correction and a block is in order. If he hasn't gotten the message the last dozen times he's been warned, what makes you think this time will be any different? - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Without weighing in on one side of the proposal or the other, I wish to note that competence is required not only in editing, but in working collegially in the community as well. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing punitive about a block for long-term disruptive behavior. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment This is about 3 questions in one. Not sure which of them a "support" or "oppose" note would refer to. North8000 (talk) 10:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The proposal was to close the discussion with a final warning for HiLo that the next ANI on their behaviour would result in some sort of sanction. I kinda threw it out there since mentorship had no support, a topic ban had some support but not any sort of clear consensus. I'm not against any of those proposals, just merely going by the points of view from those that have commented in those proposals. Blackmane (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - but with a 2 week block The guy appears to be basically a good guy who is getting too wound up. Neither a topic ban nor a long term block are in Wikipedia's best interest. He needs a stiff warning, and the proposed warning will probably do it. Giving him a two week block at the same time would reinforce the idea that it was serious, and give him time to cool down. The guy does a good job - but over-does it some of the time.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Request administrator decision and closure (HiLo48)

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

---

Seeing as the comments have slowed down over the past day, this would seem to be a good time to request that an administrator decide if community consensus has been reached regarding HiLo48's editing at ITN and elsewhere, and to close the report. Thanks. Jusdafax 02:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we wait a bit please? HiLo hasn't made any significant edits for a while. He's a veteran editor who has contributed a lot to the project. Can we give him some time to reflect? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A cynic would say he's simply waiting for this to go away before he starts up again. He's had ample time to comment here, but hasn't. Hot Stop 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that it is almost unanimous among the people who commented here who are also active at ITN that HiLo should be topic banned, so I agree with Hot Stop's assessment of the situation. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 17:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

An admin would do well to consider not so much a straw poll of the !votes, but the totality of the circumstances; consensus shows that HiLo serves Wikipedia best continuing to edit articles, and is a detriment at WP:ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Which, conveniently enough, is what the consensus here suggests. Hot Stop 18:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sad to say, he isn't taking the criticism on board, as his comments on his talk page demonstrate. --Pete (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I supported this anyway but in light of this I strongly support taking action. I frankly do not understand why this has been put off for so long, consensus has existed for several days now. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 00:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Several days is not a long time. We've been giving HiLo time to think and respond. He's chosen not to respond. Imposing an ITN topic ban would simply shift the behaviour to other areas of the project. If his interaction style is disruptive, which it is, and he doesn't acknowledge it, which he hasn't, an indefinite block seems appropriate. But as TFD points out, it would be improper to apply that sanction without presenting evidence of the long term problem, and no one can be arsed doing that. So I'll support the ITN topic ban for now as it might send a message. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is also continuing to discuss this issue with editors at his talk page; as long as he's not disrupting ITN in the meantime, I agree that it's worth waiting to see if any progress can be made there. Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I must say I am on the verge of amused that no admin has yet been bold enough to make a call on this. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 20:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I alternate between amusement and puzzled depression. Will no one admin step up and finish this, please? Jusdafax 06:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? Hot Stop 12:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The editor continues to insist that labeling someone's comments "idiotic" is not the same thing as calling someone "an idiot". Given that, it's reasonable to assume he will continue using that kind of terminology and that argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Given that the editor has continued to answer comments on his talk page and edit elsewhere [23], it doesn't appear likely that they intend to return to this discussion, much less voluntarily accept mentoring. If the closure of this is being held to get further comment from HiLo, I'd suggest an admin at least post to their talk page requesting it. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I would summarize the issue as follows: a) HiLo is a valuable contributor to the project despite any faults (which are minor compared to what he often deals with - plus incivility/bluntness is as far as it goes, it does not appear to be meant personally, etc), and b) since he is unlikely to change, any action or even warning is almost certain to lead to an eventual block, which is not justified by the consensus and is undesirable as per a). Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So do nothing then? I missed that part of WP:CONSENSUS Hot Stop 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, we can be as incivil as we want (as long as it's not personal) to any editor as long as we contribute to the project? That would be a most interesting precedence to set. Not that I personally would do that.--WaltCip (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Right, so because consensus to do X may lead to the user doing something that would lead to potential sanction Y (a sanction for which currently has no consensus) means the consensus to do X is invalid? I think, again, we need to have an admin decision here. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't say any of that. I only suggested a possible reason why no action has yet been taken - I think that it is not, in fact, an easy decision to make. (But of course, you are free to disagree.) Arc de Ciel (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

gotcha. It would still be nice if an admin decided to grace us with their presence. But I guess that's too much to ask for Hot Stop 21:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that if this doesn't count as incivility, I don't know what does. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 (talk · contribs) has returned to normal editing, has not addressed the concerns of editors raised in this thread, and on his talk page has made it clear he believes there is no problem with his style of interaction. Would an admin please review the above discussion and HiLo's reflections on his talk page and decide whether any action is warranted? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say, we shouldn't tolerate an editor who habitually insults other editors. HiLo48 is arguing he is insulting their intelligence not them. I've seen him questioning people's motives a bit too. I grant that sometimes he may encounter stupid or ill-intentioned people. But announcing that his interlocutors are stupid or evil is a very disruptive thing to do. We all deal with fools here, and mean, nasty people. But this is an arena for argument, and ad hominem is a fallacy, and disruptive. We should be aspiring to the highest possible level of logical discourse. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I have disagreed strongly with HiLo48 on various topics, and he is not one to mince words. But I do not see him hounding editors or engaging in other sorts of disruptive behavior. Some editors seem to think that criticism itself is incivility, as if being called arrogant,for example, were a deadly insult. But what really strikes me in all this discussion is the complaint that HiLo48 isn't groveling properly, and that his defending his position is proof in itself of his guilt. Once we've gotten to the point where defending yourself is proof of guilt we have become a lynch mob, not a deliberative body. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the "proof" is in actions like calling other comments "stupid", "dumb" and "bullshit", the actions of others arrogant and immoral, asking other users if they are idiots, calling them pricks, swearing at them, bludgeoning discussions, etc.-- behavior that's well-documented above. You may disagree as to whether or not this is productive behavior, but that hardly makes the majority of editors who would like to see some sort of action a "lynch mob"; we all want to see HiLo return to productive editing. HiLo's insistence that he intends to continue doing these things simply suggests that nothing will change without some sort of formal intervention. Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Khazar2. This is not about buzz-words like "groveling" or loaded terms like "lynch mob" but a simple request for accountability. HiLo has helped to create an unpleasant atmosphere at ITN, and I think that is shown to be beyond dispute in this report. His attacks on established and new editors quite arguably drive away contributors to the ITN feature, and elsewhere. His utter failure to acknowledge any fault or failings confirms what long-time ITN editors know: this is an intractable person who uses numerous insults (and rank sophistry when confronted) to bully and intimidate others, when Wikipedia is supposed to work as a collaborative process. Khazar2 rightly asks for a ruling not only on the narrow aspects of this case but the larger issue of what place we want Wikipedia-en to be... either welcoming and inclusive, or a sort-of Wild West where virtually anything goes. In my view, that not one admin will make a ruling one way or the other speaks volumes about the dilemma we face as a community... the "time-sink" factor, where difficult calls have to be justified repeatedly in various forums. I ask that HiLo be indef blocked until he is willing to honestly discuss his over-the-top hostility and intolerance for viewpoints not his own. Failing willingness to do so, a simple topic ban would at least serve to demonstrate that the community has had enough, and I believe consensus has been reached on that. I yet again ask that an administrator do the job the community entrusted them with, and make a decision on Khazar2's ANI report. Dragging this out further is an embarrassment to ITN and the entire Wikipedia project. One way or another, let's move on. Thanks to all concerned. Jusdafax 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with Jusdafax's call for an indef block, but I would second the call for a close on this (whatever it be). HiLo has made it clear he won't comment further here, and the remaining discussion seems to be generating more heat than light. Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Prick" is the first word I have seen attributed to him here that is necessarily aimed at a user and not a comment. Is there such a huge volume of these types of comments? That would merit something. But not his saying that arguments are stupid. When I see complaints of the latter type (and a demand that he be indef blocked until, yes, he comes grovelling back to accept our opinion of him, not our censure of specific name-calling) it makes me wonder how many serious incidents there are of the first type. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the comment that originally caused me to post here was his asking another user "Are you an idiot?" I can't speak to the volume of these comments, but I believe at least two have been cited from this week in the diffs above. But again I'd argue that repeated use of phrases like "what a stupid comment" pointlessly coarsen the dialogue of Wikipedia. They're not persuasive, have nothing to do with refuting an argument, and escalate discussions to higher pitch of anger--especially when HiLo bludgeons a discussion with them. It's the reason that ITN editors voted nearly unanimously in 2011 to topic ban HiLo from the section, and have again voted nearly unanimously here that some action should be taken.

As far as "grovelling", you're the only one who keeps bringing that up; all I'm looking for is for him to refrain from calling people--and yes, their comments--hostile labels that don't further the discussion. No grovelling, or even apology, required. Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I do view the position of some editors that HiLo be indeffed until he makes some sort of act of submission to the will of the collective as a desire to see him grovel. I oppose it in the strongest terms. But more to the point, I think there's a much more clear cut case to be made that if there are actual personal insults like "prick" that cannot objectively be described as anything other than insults, those and those alone (not including "are you stupid" type ones for the moment) should be collected and listed. If there's a pattern, a very short suspension would be warranted (i'd say 24 hours) with the warning that repeated behavior will carry a much more serious response, and the warning that insults posed as questions will be treated as personal attacks going forward. That's an objective standard based on outright actions and not one based on feelings that he has insulted us and perhaps pretended promises of contrition on his part. The focus should be 100% on observable actions and not on presumed mental states. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Since only two users out of the 20+ or so commenting here have suggested an indef block, they seem unlikely to make consensus, much less form a sufficient "lynch mob"; I wouldn't let that sidetrack you overly much. As for the rest, we may just have to agree to disagree on whether "are you stupid" is civil and productive editing. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo and I edit together sometimes, and while we often have differing views on things, I'm getting weary of incivility and personal attacks whenever he doesn't get his own way. Editing Wikipedia shouldn't be so unpleasant and time-consuming that we find other things to do instead of the joy of contributing to the project. I'm worried that after all this talk, all these diffs showing incivility, nothing is going to happen because no admin wants to publicly support one of Wikipedia's Five Pillars. --Pete (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If the day has come when not one admin will stand up for one of the Five Pillars, this news is grim indeed. Jusdafax 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm bold enough to close this thread as a non-administrator since there would be no consensus for an administrative action (block, protect, etc.). The result would be for the topic ban discussion. — Moe ε 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I'd close this myself but can't. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Speaking just for myself, I don't think this thread deserves a non-admin closure, no matter what the call is. This is a high-profile matter that has festered for years, as the above record shows. Jusdafax 05:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• There seems to be consensus in favour of an ITN topic ban, and further action if HiLo48 continues to denigrate his interlocutors. Can whoever closes this discussion, and I'd prefer it to be an experienced admin, please make it clear to HiLo48 that, whether or not this discussion ends with a topic ban, if he doesn't change his style of address he will be excluded from this community? There just is no place for his behaviour in a civilised, productive debate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• I appreciate the bold attempt to wrap this up with non-admin closure but I also feel like due to circumstance this would be best dealt with by an authoritative admin to ensure that if a topic ban is enforced, it carries some official weight behind it. I just do not believe that if there is no real teeth behind this that it will do any long term good. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well since most of you feel that non-admin closure isn't best, I'll give you what I gathered from this, which you can either take or leave. If I was to close this, there was no particular consensus for mentorship or for blocking of any length. The consensus is that HiLo48's conduct on ITN-related project pages has been disruptive to the point of compromising integrity. I would have closed with six months of topic ban from In the News and related sub-pages with the ability to appeal beyond that period, given that he can prove his overall conduct in the WP/WT namespace has improved so future interaction at ITN is possible. Regards, — Moe ε 09:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, this sounds quite reasonable to me, and an accurate summary of the consensus. Khazar2 (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So be it. - My thanks to administrator RegentsPark for making the decision to topic ban HiLo48 from ITN for six months. It is my hope that HiLo will take heed of the community concerns and recognize consensus exits for these sanctions, and further that he not only edit with a more collaborative spirit from here on in but that when he resumes editing at ITN in 2013 that he bear no grudges but instead work with his fellow editors, many of whom have spoken up for his editing abilities. My best wishes to all who saw this through to a conclusion, and especially Khazar2 for bringing the matter to ANI. For the first time in a while I feel justice at Wikipedia is being served by the process at ANI, in spite of what I and some others here view as an excessive length of time. Jusdafax 23:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

With the topci ban enacted, I'm just going to NAC this last section Blackmane (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

About Niemti

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning

Gross BLP violation by User:Bittergrey

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

---

User:Bittergrey is currently the subject of (this RfC/U). Although I have avoided, for years now, all contact with Bittergrey and the pages that he edits, I have entered my opinion and related endorsements at the RfC/U .

In writing his comments (to User:WLU), however, Bittergrey wrote:

"Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Wikipedia by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved." [24]

I am both a WP editor (User:James Cantor) and the subject of a BLP (James Cantor). To accuse me (very falsely) of having a financial interest in any of this, never mind in supporting WLU, is a gross violation of BLP policy. I have deleted the offending statement, indicating precisely the reason why.

However, given his tempestuous history (with me and many others), Bittergrey is unlikely to take any statement from me seriously. WP is ultimately responsible for the presence of such statements on its pages, and Bittergrey needs to be told exactly how serious such BLP violations are.
— James Cantor (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This comment is totally uncalled for and is clearly a BLP violation. I don't think that it is enough for oversight, however. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WLU has written James Cantor into articles five times, and cited him 38 times. In this regard, he is second only to James Cantor himself (with seven and 45). This publicity and visibility is good for James Cantor's standing as a professional. Clearly, he can profit from it. As a result, he has a financial interest in supporting WLU and weakening anyone who might be in conflict with him, such as me. This is particularly true if CAMH publications including his are frequent topics of debate, which they are in this case. He has a lot to gain (or keep) if the decision goes against me. Thus, he does have a financial interest, and should not have claimed to be uninvolved.

To qualify "Heavy", WLU cites the publication ten times in the infantilism article, even though it only mentions infantilism on one page. It is cited nearly twice for each time it uses the word 'infantilism.' In the whole of Wikipedia, the only active editors who cite it are WLU[25][26][27][28][29][30] and Cantor[31][32]. WLU also cites two publications of Cantor's coworkers at the infantilism article, even though they don't use the term "infantilism" at all. BitterGrey (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

By Bittergrey's logic (a self-declared paraphilic infantilist and an amateur activist for his own views of his practice) Bittergrey has the same "financial interest." In fact a greater one, since Grey does not have any credentials or academic post as alternatives to promote their own work and views. I leave it to Wikipedia to determine what sort of editor it wants to retain. For the record, I'd take Cantor the professional academic over Bittergrey. But your mileage may vary. It's a brave new world. The expert is dead! Long live the amateur activist!Bali ultimate (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bali ultimate, I haven't made a dime off of my involvement in either infantilism or Wikipedia, and I don't ever expect to. That is what "amateur" means. I hold down an unrelated full-time job to pay the bills. No finances means no financial conflict of interest. If I did this professionally, like James Cantor, then yes, I would have a financial conflict of interest. BitterGrey (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're just a semi-anonymous crank who gets to defame professional academics for kicks on Wikipedia and get away with it because of the incompetent moderation here. Your own conflict of interest is your own desire to control articles about your interests. So it goes. So it goes. (For those interested, here is the website Bittergrey runs [33], which is promoted on their userpage.)Bali ultimate (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Even though I disagree with Bali's choice of words I have to agree that both users seem to have a COI. James has pledged to avoid editing certain articles because of this reason. It may be a good idea to make a similar arrangement with Bittergrey and/or topic ban Bittergrey from Cantor-related stuff. Arcandam (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. At the moment I am too lazy to do a full background check like I normally would. p.p.s. Please see User_talk:James_Cantor#Hiya_James.21

While getting some quick background I looked at a user talk page and found User talk:Bittergrey#Behaviours... where BitterGrey has recently engaged in connecting-the-dots regarding editors who are in good standing with the community—it's not an egregious case, but it is not helpful. Can anyone explain whether BitterGrey's presence is required at paraphilic infantilism? If not, a break from that topic might be useful. Johnuniq (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you his presence is not required at paraphilic infantilism or any other article on Wikipedia. Arcandam (talk) 03:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for some expansion on this comment? Doesn't AGF require accepting the possibility that anyone can become a contributing editor? Before FiachraByrne got involved in August 2011, most of the sources for the article were from me. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can, I'll be glad to explain it a bit. It sounds a bit harsher than what it means. Please read WP:DIVA if you haven't already. No, I am not saying you are a diva. But what I am saying is that we, as an encyclopedia, do not depend on a single user with expertise to write an article about a specialist subject. Just for fun lets assume I am an expert on the effects of global warming (I am not an expert on anything, but whatever). If I get hit by a bus we don't have to delete the article on global warming. So basically no single person is required to be here in order for us to succeed as an encyclopedia, not even Jimbo. Arcandam (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. Not a native speaker, please let me know if I am unclear and/or make mistakes.

Arcandam, your English is fine. Could I ask you to contrast the paraphilic_infantilism and diaper_fetishism articles? That is my effect. Before WLU and friends became involved, I contributed most of the text and sources to the infantilism article. Some of those were copied over to the diaper fetish article. When WLU became involved, I decided to let him control the diaper fetishism article. That article didn't improve. At infantilism, even though I could no longer effectively edit, I was able to hold WLU somewhat accountable. A third editor, FiachraByrne, contributed a large number of new sources - to the infantilism article. She generally took WLU's side, but she did delay two sections of politically correct text sources to politically incorrect sources. Had I not been there, that development wouldn't have happened. So, even though WLU has kept me from editing for a year, I can claim indirect credit. BitterGrey (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this a BLP violation if this comment was made at his RFC/U? Was BH making comments about the user or the subject? Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean BG? That user is a subject of an article. And WP:BLP applies outside of articles. Arcandam (talk) 04:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict, replying to Johnuniq,etc.)

Effectively, I haven't been able to edit the paraphilic infantilism article for a year[34]. WLU has seen to that. Breaks/bans against me would be academic. Taking down the lingual comment was suggested at yesterday's ANI thread, but the RFC/U was opened before I was able to consider the advice. By the way, one of the edits that WLU wouldn't let me make was to change "behaviour" to "behavior." I'd be OK with changing the entire article over to the British spelling, but the spelling should be consistent.

I've been spending more time on wikibreak, and at different articles. However, WLU just follows me to them, spreading conflict. An example is Sexology, which escalated to ELN[35].

As for Bali ultimate's comment about the "incompetent moderation here," he might want to give some thought about why this BLP wasn't brought to BLPN.

Also, according to Google scholar, infantilism isn't Cantor-related[36]

However, given that James does have a conflict regarding the outcome of the RFC/U, should he be deleting content from the "responses" section of the RFC/U[37]? Since this round started with WLU deleting my comments[38], Cantor's censorship is strangely fitting. If I'm not going to be permitted to mount a defense, the entire process will be pointless. BitterGrey (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted Cantor's refactor. And the next time you accuse him of having a conflict of interest in the RFC, you'll be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

BitterGrey has simplified the discussion by asserting "conflict" just above, with a wikilawyer's "should he be deleting content" assertion, and with a helpful RFC/U diff to highlight BitterGrey's egregious misuse of Wikipedia to assert a COI of a named real-life person paying a named editor—all with zero evidence (apart from a wall of diffs that are totally unrelated to the COI assertion). Conceivably the above comment suggesting this report should have been at WP:BLPN might have been in good faith, but reality favors the "raise any smokescreen to deflect the discussion" interpretation. In light of the information at the RFC/U, and given the failure to produce any evidence of a named real-life person paying a named editor, and given the above re-linking to that assertion on the report dedicated to the topic, it is clear that BitterGrey should be topic banned from all articles and discussions relating to sexuality. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, James Cantor's action was a straight-up undo, it wasn't a refactoring. Bittergrey made the comments, James undid the whole edit, the net result was to revert back to this version. I'm agnostic on what should have been done, but at no time did James make Bittergrey say something Bittergrey didn't initially say. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that now -- my apologies for misreading the history. Thanks to Bali for reverting it again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A solution?

Right now the text has again been reverted. Though I view the entire edit made by BG to be offensive, accusatory and wrong, it's still BG's view on the situation. The offending text in question appears to be solely what James Cantor quoted above:

“ Given how heavily Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) is being promoted on Wikipedia by WLU, James Cantor should have admitted to a financial COI in supporting WLU, instead of claiming to be uninvolved ”

Rather than undoing the whole set of edits (then redoing then undoing ad nauseum), would anyone have any objections to re-doing the edit but removing the quoted section? That seems to be the best way to address James Cantor's (valid IMO) issue with the edit while allowing Bittergrey to express his opinion during a RFC/U. Endorse? Hate? Ban me for suggesting it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If the comment was truly seen as a BLP violation, quoting it in additional locations (like here) would be a bad thing. BitterGrey (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The page currently does not feature the claim. If you either agree to either not replace your comment, or replace it without that block of text, you would resolve the issue, and it could then be removed here as well with the section hatted. Are you willing to post your comment without that particular section, or not replace your post at all, thus resolving the issue? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

A misunderstanding?

It seems that my comment has been misinterpreted as implying that money is being exchanged between Cantor and WLU. That was not my intent. James Cantor and his colleagues would be benefiting from the publicity that WLU is providing on Wikipedia. In addition to Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree; WLU has fought to cite two other publications from Cantor's colleagues. Freund & Blanchard (1993), which discusses masochists and pedophiles, never even using the term 'infantilism.' (Not using the term was the reason WLU gave for removing the DSM[39], even thought the DSM actually does use the term. WLU has removed other sources because they didn't mention the appropriate term[40].) F&B (1993) wasn't even cited by their colleague (figuratively just down the hall), R. Dickey. Dicky's letter to the editor, on "autopedophilia" was not peer reviewed and so is not a medRS. It also doesn't use the term 'infantilism' at all. Were it not for WLU's efforts, these two sources wouldn't be cited. Thus, James Cantor and colleagues Blanchard, Freund, & Dickey benefit from WLU's efforts.

I'd be willing to reword the comment to make it more clear, or to provide diffs to support the levels of promotion. However, it is difficult to maintain any faith in Wikipedia's processes with the rampant deletion of my input(this week:[41][42][43][44]). Now those reading discussions can't see the whole story, just the fragment that one side chose not to delete. BitterGrey (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment has not been misinterpreted. You may have worded it differently than your intended meaning, but that's a different kettle of fish. As to your current assertion, by that logic, every time a Glock is mentioned in an article about a shooting we are providing publicity for Glock. Which is absurd. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! It would be like you accusing me of promoting the Grand Canyon Railway by uploading this image. Or by promoting Wikipedia with this section. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 19:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re HandThatFeeds: COI doesn't apply to the promotion, but the promoter. Were those mentions being added by a Glock employee, that employee would be editing under a financial COI. If they were being debated and a Glock employee argued in their favor, that employee would still have a COI. (He wouldn't be editing under a COI if he doesn't edit, however.) If the Glock employee argued for the banning of an amature editor who thought mentioning only Glocks was POV, then too the Glock employee would have a financial COI. Now can we change the metaphore - it is uncomfortable discussing firearms when the professional has already threatened off-wiki action[45] against the amature.

Re Robby The Penguin: Maybe if you were a Grand Canyon Railway employee, but I don't think one picture would cause much of a stir even if you were. Am I permitted to mention how many times James Cantor and WLU have written James Cantor into articles, or cited him? I have diffs. BitterGrey (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid. Your "financial COI" argument is nonsense. Simply being employed by the subject does not mean the editor is getting any financial compensation via the edits. Employees are allowed to edit material relating to their employer, but need to take care not to stray into promotion. And I do not see that WLU has crossed that line. Further, you have provided no evidence WLU is employed by Cantor, or is recieving financial benefits from mentioning Cantor. It is irrelevant if a third party could benefit from edits or citations; if we were concerned about that, we would not be able to make any reference to any business. That is what people have been trying to explain to you, to no avail. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask for suggestions on how to preserve the point of the edit without the BLP dramatics, legal threats, etc? I'd be willing to reword it or substantiate it with diffs. I'm not willing to let my RFC/U response be censored by those I'm responding to. BitterGrey (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacing your edit without including the quoted section would do it methinks. I suggested it above, not sure why it's not acceptable. If you want your RFC/U to include an accusation of a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, supported by nothing more than speculation, there may not be a way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not an option. How about "Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) are cited on Wikipedia due to the efforts of WLU (eg.[46][47][48][49][50][51]) and author James Cantor(eg.[52][53]). No other active editor has cited this source. Similarly, WLU has fought to cite other articles by James Cantor's coworkers(eg[54]...). The publicity that WLU provides through Wikipedia may help to advance James Cantor's visibility, potentially advancing his career. As a result, James Cantor has a financial interest in supporting WLU." I can also include the cites/mentions stats with or without diffs, but that would be about a hundred diffs. BitterGrey (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't do. You've just repeated your unfounded BLP-violating allegations in different words.

It seems that you don't understand, Bittergrey, the damage you do to your own cause. The RFC is about your ongoing failure to assume good faith of other editors, including the repeated, unsupported allegations that you have made about sockpuppetry and cabalism in those who disagree with you. Yet, here you are on ANI repeating other serious allegations, this time ascribing financial motives to an editor who edits under his real name and who has, above, denied them outright. Allegations that multiple editors have described as BLP violations. Why would you do this? This is an editor who, as longstanding medical editor User:WhatamIdoing noted, is a frequently cited mainstream scholar and whose papers it is therefore entirely appropriate to cite frequently on this topic, and who, based on my not-inconsiderable-knowledge of Canadian academic promotion, would gain precisely zero from being cited on WP. User:Colin here reminds you elsewhere that a RFC/U is the chance to show that your character and correct any misapprehensions that others have. As he puts it "It is your opportunity to demonstrate you are a reasonable person or an unreasonable person. Your choice." I urge you to step back, BitterGrey, and consider your approach --Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, please be aware that the editor who first added the text Cantor objected to here is James Cantor[55] is WLU[56]. I understand that you have an off wiki-friendship, but if the text is offensive, it should be offensive no matter who added it. I regret that you seem to think it is OK for other editors to make comments about my sexuality, but not for me to comment on their edits(eg [57]). In the new version, all statements that wouldn't equally apply to any author are supported with diffs. Feel free to detail why publicity and citation, so critical to academic advancement in the US, isn't important in Canada.BitterGrey (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have, in the past, already corrected your allegation that I have "an off-wiki friendship" with WLU.[58] I do not. I know his real name, where he lives and a few other personal details. That's it. Stop trying to poison the well.

I don't think it is okay for people to make comments about your sexuality. However, I haven't ever seen anybody doing so. What I see is people pointing to your userpage where you publicly disclose your website and thus your own interest (and COI) in this topic. Why do you keep repeating this same claim, over and over again?

The problem is that you aren't just commenting on edits, are you? You are ascribing (very damaging, financial) motives without any evidence, which is directly contrary to WP:AGF guidelines

Tenure track and promotion committees at universities in Canada, as in the US, wouldn't give a flying fig about citations on WP. They are interested the candidate's books (especially those published by academic and university presses), peer-reviewed publications in prestigious, high impact journals, and to a very much lesser extent conference presentations, as well as teaching and committee work evaluations of course. WP wouldn't get so much of a look-in.

That's it from me, BitterGrey. It really is in your hands. Slp1 (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

So it isn't different than the US. "Citing your latest paper in the hope that increased visibility will drive up your H-index" is explicitly listed among the examples at WP:MEDCOI. Edits towards that goal would be edits toward that goal, irrespective of whether they are direct insertion or driving off opponents for someone expected to do the insertion. The second example is "Attempting to diminish or disparage a competitor's views or publications." Since the DSM and Cantor have competing definitions of paraphilia, this one applies too[59]. Thus, the essay (which I didn't write) describes the motivation, the conflicted interest. Again, edits to enable removal are edits. His edits to support WLU, who is supporting him, can serve these motivations.

As for my sexuality, it was brought up here by Bali ultimate, as evidence of my _financial_ COI[60], at the previous ANI by Slp1[61], and at WQA[62], and at WikiProject Medicine[63]. And that is just this week. The slur was most clear at the project: "someone in Tylas' [or BitterGrey's] situation is likely to accidentally misread sources..."[64]. BitterGrey (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My ears are burning. I was looking to see what WLU was up to (since he mentioned it) - and saw my name. I must comment about what BG posts here. I am an individual. I do not appreciate being profiled as part of a certain group. I have dissociative identity disorder. This does not mean that I respond in the same way as all those with DID, just the same as I do not respond the same way as all those who have a M.S., were Olympic level athletes, who have raised children, who are mothers, etc... Profiling is simply wrong and I do not appreciate being a victim of it and neither should BG. If you must accuse, please do so on our individual actions. Being honest should not give others the right to sit and judge.~ty (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked Bittergrey for continuing BLP violations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Continuous vandalism by user Irānshahr

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

---

Hello Wikipedia

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran-Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it known for the administrator board that the user Iranshahr has now reappeared under a new alias - this time an IP (109.60.7.172) and continues to add false and unsourced material while he removes sourced material.

This unacceptable behaviour has extended to another thread - this time the Islam in Iraq thread. :Islam in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moreover he makes grave personal insulsts, claim I live in Hjørring, Denmark (which is obviously not true) and threatens me with police because I rightly oppose his vandalism. Claims that I am an Arab and Salafi while I am neither.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Irānshahr, admins can check it. They can also check your false claims about residence because before just one week teachers from Læreruddannelse received Wahabi threats which are identical to your comments. Admins can also check that you proudly used nickname SalafistKSA with identhical contributions, and now you deny it. User:Ian.thomson has posted suspicion of sockpuppetry at your talk page, and you removed it twice calling us as "extremists" and "racists". Your edits are clearly politically motivated because you deny Greater Iran is Western concept of cultural region and you've made at least 20-30 reverts claiming it's related to "irredentism" [65]. --109.60.7.172 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Canoe1967

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

---

Canoe1967 (talk · contribs) continues to move a discussion about sources used in the 2012 Aurora shooting article from his user talk page to Talk:Gun laws in Colorado.[66][67][68][69] While he is welcome to delete the discussion from his talk page, I've asked him not to move it to the article talk page without my permission.[70] My understanding is that it is a violation of basic talk page etiquette and civility to move a discussion from a user page without the permission of another editor, to a page that a user does not wish to edit. The relevant article is Talk:2012 Aurora shooting, but Canoe1967 is trying to make a WP:POINT by arguing for a WP:POVFORK. In any case, I would like Canoe1967 to ask users in the future for permission to move their comments to other article talk pages and to stop moving my comments at this time. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait one second, check the helpdesk, I will post a permalink without moving anyone's comments in a few minutes. Arcandam (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Feel free to slam my edits all over if need be.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question here. Arcandam (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from moving comments around. The issue is appearing in dispute forums all over WMF the same as the 'ethno-taggers' and 'tabloid pushers' etc. When it carried on to my talk page thought I could move it to the proper discussion page citing WMF policy on all text being free licensed. The arguments on both sides I thought were valid on the only two pages that many feel they should be on. If an article has a gun issue then it should be discussed on a gun law page or a gun debate page not in the articles about incidents with guns. If the debate on guns is spread through every article that mentions a gun and every dispute forum that can be found, then that does not help the project. It just forks the debate on how much we should include it in all of these articles. In other words it should be in the proper forum. I hope this makes sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The best thing right now would be for you to simply drop it, ignore and avoid Viriditas, and move on to something more important. Arcandam (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem at all if they will stop pestering my talk page with yet another dispute tag since this one. I am trying to keep an article under control while other editors are trying to help with good faith edits. Some editors insist on pushing their WP:POINT which is not helping others that are trying to follow consensus, guidelines, and policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why I used the word "ignore". Ignore Viriditas, whatever Viriditas does, even if Viriditas posts on your talkpage. If you see Viriditas somewhere, avoid Viriditas. Forget that this ever happened, stop giving a fuck, and move on. This is a technique that has been proven to work over and over again. If you see any better options, please let me know, but my gut is full of truthiness. Arcandam (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have never had a problem following that advice. If you have time you may wish to read Talk:Sondra Locke, the 6-8 dispute forums it was discussed at, the toilet I flushed on my talk page, the laughable/failed sock and ANIs filed on me, etc, etc. I finally stopped giving a fuck because I had far better things to do with my time. This article should be kept under control. We should not waste his and my good editor time on POV issues with it. I do believe he is a very good editor and contributor but if you feel I should not give a fuck then I feel he should WP:STICK.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

But you should too! Just drop it. And to be frank, neither of you should really give a fuck about articles on Wikipedia and if they are in the WP:WRONGVERSION. Its just not important enough. Remember, this is the internet. If someone is wrong on the internet and you point it out but you do not get the result you want there is a good solution: just stop caring. This may seems like a weird strategy but in the long run it really works. You are not responsible for keeping that article under control. Wikipedia won't fire you if it is the wrong version. Someone eventually will come along and fix it, maybe. That summarizes our philosophy here pretty well. Arcandam (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am confused. "But you should too!" = ? I don't have a wp stick, wp pov, wp point. It is the 'maybe' term that you used that scares me the most. There is no reason for a wrong version to exist. If editors don't like a version then stub it and start from scratch. I did this with an article at the blp board recently after someone wanted neutral input but didn't want to blank it themselves. I trimmed it by 800k to 1mb down to 2 paragraphs I think. Now they are building it ground up from the talk page because they had no choice. If they revert I will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

POV means point of view, so I think you have one. A point is not something you have, it is something you make. And it doesn't matter if you have a stick or not, just drop the topic. The word "maybe" is the important part. You shouldn't care about if it happens or not. Just forget it. There is a reason for a wrong version to exist: life is not perfect. I think that you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere if you want to improve this encyclopedia. Arcandam (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

What you think is not important to what others think. I think anyone that doesn't have any faith in perfection should take a long look in a mirror before they even attempt to judge others that can actually make it happen.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do have faith in perfection. I got it by looking at a mirror, just like you suggested. Look, if you don't want to take my advice that's fine with me, but I honestly do think you can spend your time much more productively elsewhere. We currently have 6,888,816 articles. Arcandam (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Perfection" is subjective. This "there is no reason for a wrong version to exist" misses the point. Each person has an opinion about what is correct and incorrect on an article, and when these don't mesh is where content disputes come from. "Wrong version" is a way of saying "No matter what version of an article is protected in a dispute, someone will think it's not the right version". There's no way a wrong version can't exist in a content dispute. Looking at it from the "my version is perfect" perspective leaves little room for discussion and consensus building. Your version is not perfect. The person you disagree with? Their version is not perfect. It it was, everyone would agree on it. - SudoGhost 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Canoe, you're really not helping your own case with comments like this. Saying that if someone else reverts your stubbing an article you "will blank it for them and create even more editing, talk, consensus, etc" strikes me as very combative. As to your "mirror" comment, Wikipedia is built on criticism and debate. Judging edits (and sometimes editors) is inherent to Wikipedia. That's not going to change. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That also falls under disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Canoe, I seriously suggest you reconsider that (at the very least) as pointy disruptiveness is the fast-track to blocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Part 2

I was hoping that the discussion died down and people would move on but unfortunately that wasn't the case. Canoe1967 decided to create Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. This resulted in a MfD: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Gun debates in article space. Arcandam (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That creation had nothing to do with the other article. I feel we have a need for policy/guidelines to follow every time discussions like this come up. I don't see how creating a proposal or 5 can have any effect on discussions elsewhere. I have stated many times now that I am neutral on gun debates. Where I do have a point with is why they are brought up every time a gun is mentioned in an article. I thought I would propose a policy that cites existing policies to make the consensus to include/exclude material and to what degree. I don't know why so many editors have issues about 'the gun thing'. They have opinions on both sides and any material included in articles with guns should be discussed as to whether to include it, how much, and make it neutral POV. People are still crying over poor Seamus and she died in 1993. They are trying to POV animal rights on a dog that has been dead for 20 years?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't pretend that that stuff is unrelated; I am weird, not stupid. If you want to make a policy or guideline you can do that in your own userspace. You can state you are neutral on gun debates, but that actually slightly decreases the chance people will believe it. If you were truly neutral you wouldn't have to state that many times, right? Again: I suggest you move on to something more important. Drop that stick. Arcandam (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep repeating that I am neutral because you keep repeating I have a POV. I have never owned a gun but fired many in the infantry over three years, as well as grenades mucho bigger guns, etc, etc. I probably never will own one unless I find a use for buying one. I have been shot at, sometimes hit, sometimes not. Sometimes I had a gun, sometimes I didn't. I have faith that the next time if it happens I will have my quick reflexes, my own gun, or the aim will be off on the one shooting at me. It is no different than someone trying to hurt you with a rock, stick, or knife except the latter three are usually more effective. To hurt someone with a gun: You need to have one, know how it use it, load the proper ammunition, aim well, trigger correctly, hope they don't run, hide, shoot back or kill you with a stick while you try to figure out that your gun didn't work because you left the safety on or forgot to cock it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. Please read some of our policies and guidelines and helppages. Wikipedia:Glossary is a good start. You seem to misunderstand abbreviations like "POV" because Wikipedia has a weird jargon, it takes some getting used to. You have a POV. I have a POV. Almost everyone has a POV. The abbreviation POV means point of view. Wikipedia strives to use NPOV, a neutral point of view. Please read WP:NPOV, everything is explained in detail. Arcandam (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Semantics, when I use the term POV I am referring to the one that you think I have about the 'gun thing'. Are you saying that people who own nice dogs compared to those that have been bitten by un-nice dogs will have different opinions on dogs? A dog is a dog. If it bites you there is always a reason and many times it is not the dogs fault. Many people fear, hate, and try to hurt dogs anyway and that is their fault and POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It becomes harder and harder to understand you. Please stop writing all that offtopic stuff. Do you know what a point of view is? Arcandam (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC) p.s. I have the impression you do not follow the links and read the stuff you are asked to read. Is that true?

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

User:Bluerim

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

---

I am having an issue with User:Bluerim. It has become a consistent issue as of late. It has been an issue off and on with this user over the past few months. I recall when first encountering this user, this was a constant issue I had with this user. I have repeatedly asked him recently to discuss changes on the talk page and he will not. One of his recent edit summaries stated "What's to discuss?" About two or three weeks ago, there was a GAN process going on for an article and I asked him to discuss changes, which he didn't until about the end of the GAN process, but he didn't really discuss. I brought this to an administrator who said they couldn't really do anything about it with it being a GAN process but they say they'd wish Bluerim would be more diplomatic on the talk pages (he hasn't yet). I won't lie, I'm probably guilty of the 3RR rule because of this, and this user is probably also. I'm not here to report a violation of 3RR, I'm here to report that this user has been asked repeatedly to discuss changes and he has not, and it's become an issue. Here's the most recent example that I'm referring here (times 6:32 July 29 back to 6:10 July 28). JDC808 (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between discussing and using the Edit Summaries. Many of these edits are minor and all the information required is in the ES. The above user needs to understand that not all his edits are valid and at times he displays ownership and blindly reverts. That said, I'll spell it all out - as tiresome as it might be on the minor issues - for his benefit on the Talk Page. Bluerim (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You should revert back the the revision which you and him weren't edit warring. You should then discuss on the talk page of the article to achieve consensus for the better revision.--Chip¹²³⁴⁵⁶ 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've reverted back to the last version before the edit war and full protected the page. It is not an endorsement of that or any version. Technically, I could have just issued a couple of blocks, but I would rather force you two to discuss this on the talk page. The protection will expire in 3 days. If after that time, you two go back to edit warring and reverting, block will likely be issued. I have no opinion on the content, but I do on edit warring, which isn't allowable. Work it out on the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for not issuing blocks and enforcing the issue of discussion. And Bluerim, this isn't just for my benefit to discuss things on the Talk page, it's how it's done here. Even if the edits are minor, if asked to discuss, then that means there's an issue and it should be discussed. JDC808 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Basalisk

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

---

Admins, I urgently need your intervention into User:Basalisk's actions. This user proposed deletion of a page I previously created, Scholarism, and the page was deleted today. I respect and obey the afd result. Later I redirected the page into the main article (Moral and national education) to which Scholarism is relevant. I believe this is allowed by WP:R, is not a recreation and CSD G4 does not apply. Now the user has again nominated Scholarism (now a redirect) for speedy deletion, and removed contents from Moral and national education without proper reasons. Diffs:[71] Please judge whether the user is correct or not. If admins judge that he is correct, I obey your decisions, otherwise please tell him to stop.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• The article in question was deleted to today per the outcome of this AfD discussion. The author then attempted to circumvent this by creating another article here which contained all the content from the original article in a section, and then re-created the original article as a redirect to that section. I've warned him about WP:TE and to drop the stick, but he's not really up for listening. I don't think I have any case to answer, but Jabo may well do. Take a look and decide for yourself. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• This isn't an issue for ANI. He tagged it, a bit different but he explained it on the talk page. You can do the same on the talk page. The admin that reviews the CSD can make a determination. It does not appear there is any bad faith in his nomination, only a difference in opinion regarding CSD#G4, which can be handled there. No action taken, recommending closing this by another party. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jabo-er, I've deleted both articles as clearly qualifying under CSD#G4. Attempting to bypass the consensus of a legitimate discussion at AFD [72] by renaming the same article is disruptive and can get you blocked, and will if you continue. If you want to recreate the article, you must go to WP:DRV and present your case and accept the consensus there as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Rangers F.C. Articles

Hiya,

I do nto want to be requesting ever page relating to this dispute for full protection or move protection. At the moment we are slowly workign towards aconsensus that will be that the articles should be one and that the club is contunion of the original club, but there is plenty of editors from both sides of the argument who will nto accept this and are doign disruptive behaviours, i coudl report the users but i be here for awhile i rather jsut get the page more actively protected which might need to be long term.

Any suggestion from admins how to try put things in place to protect it?

here are the articles, the main ones rangers fc and newco rangers are fully protect jsut now and the problems are spilling onto the other ones slowly but surely mostly because hte ones who cant edit the first two are turning to these ones

• Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Newco Rangers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Rangers Football Club Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sevco 5088 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Liquidation of Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. Reserve and Youth squads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. (Superleague Formula team) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• History of Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Sectarianism in Glasgow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ibrox Stadium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Murray Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. international footballers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rangers F.C. records and statistics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kirk Broadfoot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lee McCulloch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lee Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Alejandro Bedoya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Neil Alexander (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ross Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kyle Hutton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Darren Cole (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kane Hemmings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Dorin Goian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carlos Bocanegra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ian Black (footballer born 1985) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrew Little (footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Andrew Mitchell (Northern Irish footballer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Kal Naismith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Ally McCoist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Craig Whyte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Charles Green (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2011–12 Rangers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers L.F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rangers F.C. Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. managers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Rangers F.C. matches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs)

ok i can not undo the lee mulloch one now, there is no consensus yet user are editing it to ther epovAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Such a large list of articles is unhelpful. Many of them have not been edited for weeks or even months, for example Rangers F.C. Hall of Fame was last edited in April. We do not protect articles pre-emptively on the off chance that disruption might spread to them. If there are articles requiring prompt administrator attention, then list those and only those. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

which i tihnk is quite daft, he dispute on the rangers fc and enwco rangers article will spread because all those articles andprobally many more will be dicticted by the decision on them articles, there is something in the real world call preemptive measures ot protect things it is slow spillign onto other articles and the fact remains the dispute is about the content on whether rangers should be listed as a new club or the ame until that dispute is settle none of those articles hsold be able to be edited it promoting edit warring--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew, how do you know what the consensus will be? Surely the point of a RFC (which is clearly needed here) is to determine what consensus is. Rather than to support what you think is right. Adam4267 (talk) 20:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

adam there is a consensus now, that it is the same club and that it is a new club, which is impossible but tha tis how the reliable 3rd party sources refer to them it not my view--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

...do you realise you just said there is consensus for both positions? Can you say that again with a little better grammar so we can understand what you mean? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple. Some sources refer to a 'new' club. Some sources refer to 'the same club'. Sensible sources don't attempt to apply epistemology or Boolean algebra to such questions. And for the umpteenth time Wikipedia doesn't determine 'the truth' by consensus. Whether it is 'really' new or not is a stupid question - and encyclopaedias aren't written to provide answers to stupid questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

yes i do sources point to both we dnt decided we only publish what it says but the dispute resolve round should there be one or two articles and should what reliable sources say be said as both sides have editors who dnt want the facts known--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 09:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Klaudio hoxha K.A.H

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

---

User:Klaudio hoxha K.A.H is a relatively new user but his persistent rebranding of birthplace information has become troublesome. Essentially his edits constitute only a content dispute, however in light of the numerous attempts to communicate with the user (see these two sections), I contend that edits such as this can only be a case of WP:DE when considering the user has made no effort to communicate his ideas and has not touched the edit summary. The likelyhood is that if left alone to edit, he will go on and on ad infinitum - note also that Kosovo is a sensitive issue and where it is presented as a sovereign nation, twice as much. We have a template to deal with this matter but the universal practice on birth details is to observe historical accuracy and this is being replaced by a controversial modern-day part-recognised entity. I am the second editor to try to speak to this editor but as you see, the endeavour was blown back at me. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could attempt to compromise? With people born in Ukraine, during Soviet times, they are sometimes described as being born in the Ukrainian SSR.

Let us look at the article you claim that Klaudio hoxha K.A.H has been disruptively editing - Granit Xhaka.

You (User:Evlekis) claim that Xhaka was born in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.[73] But the article on that state suggests that its de facto end was 27 April 1992. But Xhaka was born on 27 September 1992.

The Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia seems to have been born when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia died. Kosovo was a somewhat-autonomous province, whose name was the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

So why can't you say that Xhaka was born Gnjilane, Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija, Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia? That would satisfy historical accuracy, and might be an acceptable compromise.

With all these ones for Kosovo, would it really hurt to mention the name of the autonomous province? Or is compromise only something that Klaudio hoxha K.A.H needs to do?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the last example, you have a good point. I have no objection to intermediate entities and Kosovo was indeed such. I think to be honest it is other editors that take exception as they feel that these clutter the section and so town and country should suffice. I was bringing the user to admin attention because the account continues to make edits such as those in his contribution list and does not respond to communication. I am otherwise only too happy to discuss. Concerning the Yugoslav entity, you are 101% spot on, and I should have known - I didn't check too closely. SFRY ceased to exist sometime between 25 June 1991 when Croatia and Slovenia declared independence - to 26 April 1992 when remaining members Serbia and Montenegro themselves declared the new country, FR Yugoslavia. I shall fix this per your suggestion, but if the user insists on removing the sovereign state, he really must learn to discuss his reasons and obtain consensus, and the latter is the hard part with the climate of practice. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. See Granit Xhaka article now. I don't normally get these things wrong and this was no exception when I originally inserted the country, see this edit from 2010[74]. The source of the SFR error actually occurred a few months ago, here[75]. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest dropping the matter and letting the user off on this occasion. I doubt we will hear from him because all the indications are that this is a sleeper account evidently operated by someone else; the account will make the edits it intends and then flee the scene, there are others similar. I'll raise the issue should the user return with a similar contribution and I'll cite this section. Fair? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 04:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Continuous vandalism by IP address (109.60.7.172)

Note: Please see here for proof this wasn't me. Irānshahr (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedia

I am writing due to the continuous vandalism by the user Irānshahr in 3 threads regarding Iraq and Iran.

Greater Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Iran–Iraq relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Persian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As clearly demonstrated by his edits in those 3 threads he promotes false claims that are all unsourced and not in accordance with the reality. When told so he ignores it just to restore it.

I suggest taking a closer look at his edits.

I do not only suspect, but I am pretty sure, that the user is an Iranian nationalist. Even his name points to such a connection. Moreover he clearly has an pan-Iranian agenda.

--83.95.250.247 (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it known for the administrator board that the user Iranshahr has now reappeared under a new alias - this time an IP (109.60.7.172) and continues to add false and unsourced material while he removes sourced material.

This unacceptable behaviour has extended to another thread - this time the Islam in Iraq thread. :Islam in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Moreover he makes grave personal insulsts, claim I live in Hjørring, Denmark (which is obviously not true) and threatens me with police because I rightly oppose his vandalism. Claims that I am an Arab and Salafi while I am neither.

I would appreciate if something was done to stop him because this cannot go on and I will not accept personal threats and forgery of history and removal of sources.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not Irānshahr, admins can check it. They can also check your false claims about residence because before just one week teachers from Læreruddannelse received Wahabi threats which are identical to your comments. Admins can also check that you proudly used nickname SalafistKSA with identhical contributions, and now you deny it. User:Ian.thomson has posted suspicion of sockpuppetry at your talk page, and you removed it twice calling us as "extremists" and "racists". Your edits are clearly politically motivated because you deny Greater Iran is Western concept of cultural region and you've made at least 20-30 reverts claiming it's related to "irredentism" [76]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.60.7.172 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are, otherwise you would not commit the same vandalism in all the same threads as Iranshahr did. Strange coincidence ah?

You must be crazy. I don't live in Hjørring but Copenhagen. I am not an Arab or a Muslim even. That sockpuppetry investigation turned out to be false. You removed the notice of investigation about your edists from your edit page so I did the same since you had threatened me.

Iraqi Shi'ah Arabs are not Iranian. Nor in terms of langauge, culture or ancestry (genetics). All your edits have provided ZERO sources while you have deleted sourced material from my edits. You are basically guilty of vandalism and forgery of history like the Iranian nationalist you are.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Greater Iran

It appears two IPs are edit warring on the article Greater Iran. Don't know what the exact details are, but this needs the involvement of an Admin. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've asked Ed about this. Give him some time to respond, he hasn't responded to me either, he may just be busy. His last edit from today was before your post I believe. Unless you want to remove it from Ed's page and leave it here. --Activism1234 01:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OR if another admin sees it here before Ed, maybe they can just settle it and then you can remove it from Ed's page.

COMMENT - I'm not an admin, but it's clear both IP address are in an edit war and have violated 3RR and are just reverting each other. Both should be punished, in my opinion, and the page reverted to what it was before this edit war. Again, just my opinion. --Activism1234 01:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: It appears one of the editors has filed a complaint about it directly above. --Activism1234 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest a long ban for the user Iranshahr and the IP address he is using now. He not only deletes sourced material but also adds false material that is COMPLETELY unsourced and that is not even in accordance with what other SOURCED Wikipedia articles on similar matters say. Not to mention the reality. Moreover he invents lies about my person, threatens me with the police (outrageous claim) and accuses me of living in a place where I do not live and never even been in my life (my IP address confirm this). He is clearly an Iranian nationalist (take a look at all his edits or even username - he deleted material/commited vandalism on several pages just at the span of 1.5 days, apart from those that I have engaged in with him as a counter to his vandalism. This is completely unacceptable.

All what I have said can be confirmed by taking a look at his edits, his removal of sources and the lack of ANY sources at all in the false information (written by Iranian nationalists) that he is desperate to keep on those pages I have highlighted. A information that conflicts with sourced Wikipedia articles on the same manner and reality. I am willing to prove (with sources) that his claims are false and unfounded. The fact that he provides no sources at all should tell everything. Other users are also complaining about him.--83.95.250.247 (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Alright. The both of you editing from IPs: knock it off. Your edit summaries are swarming with personal attacks. Consider this your one and only warning regarding violations of the no personal attacks policy. I have reverted Greater Iran and Iran–Iraq relations to the state they were in before the edit-warring started and semi-protected them both for a month. Persian people has also been reverted to a pre-edit-war state but has not been protected - yet - as it isn't as bad - yet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Also, both IP editors are way past WP:3RR, on two different articles to boot, but since the semiprotection has stopped them from editing the articles they were edit-warring on, I'm not sure a block would be preventitive. Any other admin may block for the 3RR violation though without any objection from me. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Iranshahr's vandalism

Dear Wikipedia. I am Mtheory1, and I have been making little edits to wikipedia time and again to fix this issue of the middle east. First off, to a lot of Iranians (I am one), this word is extremely eurocentric and rude, and Iranian culture is not the quintessential middle eastern culture. We are Asians. We have always been aligned with the cultures of the east and many scholarly reports online agree to where Iran lies geographically, politically, and socially: South Asia. The United Nations has written a "geoscheme" that is also conveniently located on Wikipedia titled United Nations geoscheme for Asia, where you will note Iran is under "South Asia" (google the geoscheme and you can verify). Two wikipedians, and only these two, continually accuse me of vandalism when I am simply trying to rid all articles associated with Iran on this website of middle east and give the truth to great people who use this useful website and hope for un-biased, truthful information. User Iranshahr (see her/his vandalism in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) and user "ordibehesht" User talk:اردیبهشت have carried out a clear campaign to place Iran entirely in West Asia, when this, my friends, is only partly accurate. Iran is a great nation with ties all the way from the western borders of Turkey to China, and Iran is considered a tripoint of Asia culturally and genetically (with Iranian "peoples" stemming all the way from Iraq-West Asia, N India and Pakistan-S Asia, and Central Asia-all of the "stans.") I am a scholar in this field (Iranology), and I have been pushed by my Iranian community to put an end to this confusion. I may be new to Wikipedia, but not to the knowledge of my country. This website is merely a conduit of information. The people need to know that Iran is not middle eastern, but furthermore, is in three parts of Asia. In this regard, they know how large the culture of this country is. Iran transcends three (even all) parts of Asia in some way shape and form. WIkipedia's own Geoscheme verifies what I have been constantly saying, where Iran is (South Asia), and almost EVERY cultural, economic, political, historical, genetic article on WIkipedia verify Iran's close ties with the Eastern steppes of Asia, rather than the West. Iran is even in the process of gaining member status in the SAARC (South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation, where they are now an observer) The two aforementioned users are forcing Iran to be Arab or West Asian, when this is simply not entirely the case. Iran must be recognized ENTIRELY. Not given ONE label mis-appropriately applied label to all of its people for the world to see. I will try to (again) revise my work to the additions I have made (not vandalism), work that simply tells people of our culture, and brings light to where we are. Iranians are Asian, particularly South Asian. And proudly so. I hope the administrators can help me help Wikipedia understand our frustrations, and I hope edit wars don't sprout from this issue. Thank you for your time. You are all doing a wonderful service to the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

To the majority of the world, Iran is a middle eastern country, and the majority of sources (I believe) refer to it as such as well. It doesn't matter that it's, in your words, "eurocentric and rude"; Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not a venue for "the truth", nor is it a place to right great wrongs; Wikipedia must only include that with is verifiable, even if what is verifiable isn't what's "true". Also WP:BOOMERANG may be of interest. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it not verifiable that Iran is South Asian? All I am saying is that it should also be deemed S Asian. I don't care if someone calls it "middle eastern," but regardless of what I said (maybe I went too far), Iran is still in SOuth Asia. Look at WIkipedia's own articles!! You included a link pertaining to "verifiability," when in that article of WIkipedia it stated that articles of the website must be verified by multiple (or at least one) source. Is not Iran South (and Western and Central) Asian by MANY sources? Mtheory1 (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is verifiable that whether to include Iran in South Asia is not agreed. For example, the World Bank does not include it. The United Nations geographical region classification does not include it. The Hirschmann-Herfindahl Index of United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific does not include it. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation does not include it. But the United Nations Population Information Network does include it.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that so-called "European" culture was invented in Mesopotamia and Western Iran. This is particularly important with respect of religion. Religions originating in this culture tend to focus on the relationship between God and man - you will recognise this in Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and the early religions of the Middle East and Europe. Religions originating in India and China tend to focus on transcending thought, imaging, etc. They come from a quite different non-Mesopotamian-Iranian culture.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am extremely confused. What is verifiability? How do we determine one source over the other? That is not what I am doing. I am not removing information from Iranian articles, I am simple supplanting them with facts that common (intelligent) people (must) know. I can't even believe I am arguing this; Iran is in SOuth Asia! Look at a map! This is not even an issue of verifiability. This is a huge misunderstanding. Iran is in multiple parts of Asia (as an Asian country) and some institutions include it in West, Central (the NE provinces) or South Asia depending on the scenario of the data collection. Is it wrong to say Iran is in one part of Asia AND another? No. Is it ridiculous to say Iran is only in ONE PART OF ASIA (JUST WEST)? Absolutely. Mtheory1 (talk) 05:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ANI is not the right place to resolve this? It is a content dispute. There is no one right answer. The article talk page is a better place. Please try not to be dogmatic or nationalistic. Maybe if you read more widely you would see that there are other points of view, and that some of these have merit.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You know, you are right [User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] . I will. Thanks for telling me, I get a little worked up about this. Thanks for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Mtheory1

Block this user please. פארוק (talk) 06:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Please block this user. He/she has no mandate to remove Iran from the Middle East and place it in South Asia, which frankly, is just wrong. Iran is geographically a part of West Asia, and politically, a part of the Middle East. Culturally and historically, Iran's orientation has always been towards it West and to its North, never towards its east (South Asia / Indian subcontinent). اردیبهشت (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(split off new subsection) "[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGeography_of_Iran&diff=504977482&oldid=272321717 For goodness sakes. Stop this idiotic editing! Iran is located in NOT JUST SW ASIA, but ALSO South and Central Asia! Why do I have to keep proving this! Look at the UN Geoscheme and look at an article on Central Asia (both on WIkipedia); Iran is in these areas! STOP MAKING THESE CHANGES AND FORCING IRAN TO BE MIDDLE EASTERN! REGARDLESS OF CONSENSUS, IT IS NOT AND IRANIANS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ASIAN! ENOUGH!" Perhaps Mtheory1 does need a break. CMD (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not doing anything wrong. I am only adding the informations that we have on Wikipedia. There are conflicts within the webpage. That's all I am doing, not tryng to fight anyone. Mtheory1 (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion by User talk:216.81.94.68 using User talk:72.196.235.207

User talk:216.81.94.68 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. They appear to now be editing as User talk:72.196.235.207 based on edit history, location in Virginia, and spelling of "referances". 72Dino (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you open up an SPI? Did you notify the ip user? That being said, it certainly looks like a WP:DUCK Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/216.81.94.68/Archive was just archived. And I notified the IP user. 72Dino (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You should reopen the case by using 216 as the sockmaster and the add 72 as a new sock. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I find the SPI process to be confusing and burdensome. It may be easier to let a sock run rampant. It also took a week to be addressed, so lots of damage is done in that timeframe. 72Dino (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it tommorow. On an unrelated note, as a US taxpayer I'm not thrilled with the idea of government employees using taxpayer resources to edit Wikipedia. Fasttimes68 (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly suggest CheckUser also screen that IP and the rest of its subnet range against user Ziggypowe. FYI, I have not templated that user. Belchfire-TALK 02:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block him .פארוק (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Filing an SPI on IP's is a total waste of time, because checkusers won't do anything about it. Just block the sucker and, if necessary, semi-protect any pages he's attacking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspected mass copyright violations by User:Pedrocampelo

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

---

On June 4, I tagged Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres for a suspected copyright violation[77], reported the issue[78], and notified User:Pedrocampelo, the editor responsible for the edit.[79] In my report, I explained that I needed clarification on whether or not this issue was, in fact, a copyright violation because I observed the same issue in at least 46 different Olympic articles. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 4 was eventually closed without response from Pedrocampelo or the larger issue of suspected mass copyright violations being addressed.[80] Given that the affected articles are likely to start receiving heavy amounts of traffic during the ongoing Olympics, I am seeking help on what, if anything, should be done on my part or that of anyone else. Perhaps I am jumping the gun in that it appears as though administrator User:ErikHaugen recently notified Pedrocampelo of a possible issue, too, and has asked him to revisit the articles he has edited.[81] Thanks! Location (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe you may be looking for Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I would be OK with closing this report since the issue has now been listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Pedrocampelo. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Personal attack

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

---

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" [82]

I may not be the best editor. I doubt if I'll ever make RFA. But I follow our policies as best I can. I try to make this a better resource for our readers. I didn't deserve that. I don't have to put up with this shit. No way. I'm not getting paid for this. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• You don't recognize the canonical example of someone accusing you of asking a loaded question when it is made? Read our loaded question article. Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Redacted, warned and notified of this discussion. The comment was certainly out of line, which you did not deserve, but there isn't much to do now. The editor has been warned now via his talk page of his conduct. — Moe ε 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack, see have you stopped beating your wife. Sædon^talk 08:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, this is not a personal attack at all. Moe, a little less literalism and a bit more reading comprehension is needed. Viriditas (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware of the article, never heard this "fallacy", nor did the editor link to it. They fully intended to insult and humiliate me. From Loaded question: "Such a question may be asked merely to harass or upset the respondent." Well, I feel harassed and I am upset. And thanks for the support, guys.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And the above comment is exactly the reason I said what I did. — Moe ε 08:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You said "It's great that you went to DRN. However that is not a license to edit war." This is a loaded statement because it's based on the assumption that Still believes that going to DRN is license to edit war; clearly he doesn't agree with your assumption and so pointed out that your statement was loaded by using the classic example of a loaded question. I can't see how this is in any way intended to harass you - it's completely innocuous if you had heard of the fallacy before. You hadn't, so you misread it, but now that you have you shouldn't be taking it personally. Sædon^talk 08:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For this particular instance, I think it would be a mistake to try to divine Still-24's intent vis-a-vis making a personal attack. It's ambiguous. What is unambiguous is his lack of civility at a time when he ought to have been contrite. Context is crucial. Just prior, he was edit-warring against the AN/EW report of his edit-warring elsewhere. I wish I knew a stronger word than chutzpah, but my vocabulary fails me for this instance. Belchfire-TALK 08:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not an attack, and why is this still going on. There's nothing to do here. The question isn't if you're offended, it's if the statement's offensive. There's a difference. Move on. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

long term pattern of obstructions by In ictu oculi

In ictu oculi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An earlier ANI notice about this editor's behavior in May (see: [83]), went without any comment from an admin, and disappeared in the archives after @IIO laid low for a few days.

That was surprising, since several editors confirmed the problems, supported with multiple diffs, including:

• repeated personal comments and accusations of other editors, and typecasting them as "tennis-editors"
• repeated failure to AGF, and warned twice for it on his Talk page
• failure to engage in discussion and a general pattern of stonewalling in discussions related to diacritics, warned for stonewalling
• endless rehashing of the same arguments and questions, even after they have been addressed, thus filling up RfC or RM discussion, making them an endless read for the closing admins
• misrepresenting other editor's words, and repeatedly warned for it
• starting new sections in what is an ongoing discussion, and repeatedly warned for it
• moving warning templates given on his UserTalk into the discussion Talk of wp guidelines, thus obstructing the normal flow once again
• ...

Coming back from a wikibreak I can only notice that @IIO's "style" of participation is continuing in the same vein.

• After answering his questions, like I do here [84], he continues to rehash the same question over and over in his subsequent comments: [85] and [86] and again [87] and again [88] and again [89] and again [90]
• Meanwhile he has also taken the liberty to change one of my comments, in a way that misrepresents my words: [91]
• He repeatedly negates policy based questions asked to him, and if he does address them his comments are usually missing the point, here is and example: [92]
• He often tries to digress away from the questions on the table, usually by starting to talk about WP:TENNISNAMES, an essay he seems to have become obsessed with. E.g. [93]

I don't think this "style" of editing can be seen as congruent with engaging in concensus building. Rather his edits seem to be geared towards wearing down other editors by refusal to get the point, mixed with all kind of other obstructions and distractions. This cannot be accidental mistakes if they continue over such a long time, and always seem to be directed at a "chosen few" of editors. I hope some uninvolved admin can take a better look at this. If this is the wrong forum for this type of complaint, then let me know. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello all.

This relates to English-names-for-foreigners again, specifically WP:TENNISNAMES RfC Consensus is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this RfC is "no". Additionally, a great majority of participants express a preference for retaining diacritics in the title of articles, either generally or as applied to tennis players in particular. Sandstein 18:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Rather than an uninvolved admin, why not refer the matter to admin Sandstein who closed WP:TENNISNAMES and/or admin Joe Decker who has set up Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies - the new RfC that MakeSense64 is complaining about and knows the context? The new RfC was a response to a particular type of lede edit out of line with en.wp norms for bios on the François Mitterand (English Francois Mitterand) was the 21st President of the French Republic.." model - counter to the François Mitterand lede example in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies. I'm sure Joe would be a more neutral commentator than myself.

Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• It's unfortunate that MakeSense64 accuses somebody else of being hung up on User:MakeSense64/Tennis names. Have a look at the page history. bobrayner (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • We are not here to discuss content, but IIO's editing behavior. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Editors should come here with clean hands. AN/I threads naturally explore closely related areas; I've seen a few editors say something like "I started the thread about OtherEditor, so we must discuss OtherEditor, not me" but they still get hit by a boomerang. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What do you mean? Is it now a crime on wp to write essays? Or is it not allowed to restore the contents of it after an editor named Bobrayner has removed most of them while I was on a wikibreak? Admins are more than welcome to look into my editing. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened this after some non-admin tried to close this. Why call it administrator's noticeboard and then let anybody close complaints? I have not seen anything addressed here. MakeSense64 (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad idea. Besides the fact that you're in WP:RFC/U territory, not ANI - and the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing (which often leads to issues for you instead), you're better to allow this to close before such negatives occur. Non-admins may close these if indeed no action will obviously come from them dangerouspanda 17:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that changing another editor's words qualifies as an "incident". And WP:DE, which describes IIO's editing style quite well, advises to go to ANI, when other ways have failed. Well, here I am. You talk about "the fact that you've done exactly the same thing as you're accusing the other of doing".. On what is that contention based, since no diffs have been given for any example, just insinuations by Bobrayner..

If IIO's editing is deemed OK, then can I also get a license to change other people's comments, repeat questions ad nauseam after they have been addressed, and so on?? That would be interesting to know.

Anyway, to see a well documented complaint being brushed under the carpet so easily for the second time, can only lead editors to the conclusion that wp has become an old boys club. This complaint has only been open for half a day, and already a non-admin is on the ball to close it without any explanation. That looks strange to put it mildly. To ask for admin closure on the admin's noticeboard is only reasonable. MakeSense64 (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that closure is premature; although you may wish it otherwise as people dig into this and see you're making a fuss over a content dispute. NACs, here and other places, need to be uncontroversial or otherwise reflect some obvious consensus, or be ministerial in nature. That said, I took a look at some of your specific complaints.

1) Changing someone else's talk page comments, even to correct spelling, is almost never acceptable (the only exception may be bad formatting that messes up the page or makes things difficult to read). So adding words to your comment is unacceptable. However nobody's getting blocked for a one-off example of that. And it's not as though he was actively trying to misrepresent your point with that edit either.

2) You're complaining about his style in answering questions... why do you think this is an ANI issue? I didn't dig very deep into your underlying debate, but these responses seem to respond to the conversation, and are aren't offensive in tone.

I have to agree with EatsShootsandLeaves. There's 0 here for ANI to do. Just because you're deadlocked on some content or policy debate is not license to run to ANI to have somebody else win an argument for you. This is the consensus process and it's not always smooth. That's part of how it goes. Shadowjams (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to close. In my opinion, this has become an obsessive vendetta by MakeSense64, and according to his talk page, it has been going on for over two months. I believe that the two editors should stay away from each other and refrain from commenting about each other or interacting together. MakeSense64 is pissed off, and his anger is clouding his judgment. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ram Kishore Shukla

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

---

I've held off reporting this for a long time, but this morning's events have finally convinced me that this needs looking at from an administrative capacity.

User:Ballisticizer, aka User:Alcides86, aka User:RKS4444 (admission of multiple accounts here) has been the main contributor to this article, and has demonstrated serious COMPETENCE and COI problems throughout its history. The text of the article has been substantially altered to remove a potential copyright violation (see discussion here, in which Ballisticizer claims to have faked the copied source (no evidence has been produced either way)); this morning I encountered the Alcides86 account readding some of the potentially non-free content, and after placing this warning, received this response. See also this discussion, which resulted in the removal of most of the article's images. It seems to me that this user is failing or refusing to get the point, and much as I hate to deeal with comparatively new users this way, I see a block under WP:COMPETENCE as the only productive way forwards. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

All notified Yunshui 雲‍水 10:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Respected administrators, i just want to say that i did all those mistakes in unawareness of Wikipedia guidelines, but when i learnt them it was late it seems, the article hosted at docstoc.com was uploaded by me only by copying Wikipedia text, it was released under [94] to use it as a source, but later when whole article got shortened, i removed the the document from docstoc.com, when Yunshui told me how to use books to cite sources, i did not find any problem to improve the article. This is india i live in if i was familiar to all these things, what would be the problem. Please understand, i never kept my foot apart from Ram Kishore Shukla (my maternal grand father). Thank you --Alcides86 (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

User has indicated here his intent to restrict himself to one account and abide by policy; I'm inclined to AGF and withdraw my block request, but would nevertheless appreciate some more input from other admins. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Without looking into the details, I would trust your handling as you are most familiar. Blocks are cheap and be handed out if needed at a later date. We are here to solve problems, after all, and looks like you already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Future Perfect at Sunrise

Further information: [[:../#Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan|../ § Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan]], and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

Is stalking my edits and has refused to stop.[95] He has now taken to removing a perfectly reasonable POV tag[96] which I has just added to the article for no reason other than to piss me off. He has never edited this article, nor discussed on the talk page were there is a discussion over the articles neutrality[97] I want an interaction ban with this guy, I have no need of another stalker. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, the discussion should continue on the article talk page, not here. The tag should be placed to start discussion, but adding it during a discussion is pointy at the very least as is no more than rebelling about the current discussion. It is an act of defiance, that others do not agree with your perspective. As for stalking, if an editor is known to have problems in their edits or behavior, it is entirely acceptable for an administrator to monitor their edits for problems, with the goal being to head off problems before they become too large and to provide guidance. I suggest you drop the stick and keep working on the article talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Given that discretionary sanctions have been applied by ArbCom via this motion, you will find that the editing of all seven named parties will be subject to scrutiny by admins and other editors at all times, given the history involved. Of course, if the previous issues continue to recur, this will mean that topic bans and/or blocks can be applied at any time to prevent disruption. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)No, the reason he is stalking me is because we had a disagreement on the Massoud article, you know the one were he caused so much trouble over an image[98][99]. Then after that he began to stalk me. He has called for me to be banned form editing and is hardly a neutral party. I added the tag after the content which I had added after the RFC concluded was removed twice. I will not have this guy stalk me leaving snarky comments all the time. I want it stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The user who filed this report is blanking my additions to Rape in India and edit warring while accusing me of sockery please advice me on what to do and can someone put his paranoia to rest 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• DS, quit reverting here, it is bordering on edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• This IP is Nangparbat. I am fed up of having to revert him. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He is convinced that I am sort of a bloody sock please do something! 86.128.51.192 (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I endorse your sock block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked both Darkness Shines and the IP for a good couple of days because of the edit warring on Rape in India. Feel free to either unblock, or make the blocks longer if one feels that is needed. Edit warring is certainly not going to solve the problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above IP is Quacking with a megaphone that he is the banned User:Nangparbat who has been highy disruptive and has been using multiple IPs and accounts to harass and indulge in Disruptive editing. Admins Elockid and Elen of the roads had been playing whack a mole with his socks since long. Due to the above block on Darkness Shines, it seems that after numerous efforts finally this time Nangparbat has succeeded in getting DS blocked. This is clearly an inappropriate blocks as reverting socks is exempted from WP:3RR . . --DBigXray 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

<comment removed>That IP is clearly Nangparbat; DS should be unblocked. (part of my comment removed, as it might ironically be considered a form of stalking Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)) Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I will have to admit that DS does know that sock well. Reverting an unproven sock is always with risk, and the blocking admin might take a look at that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Beestra is ok with an unblock, so I have done so. Reverting not just a sock, but the sock of a banned editor, should not be liable to any sanctions. Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)On a side note, DS self imposed a 1RR for a month at this discussion to avoid a block which he violated here: [100] (new) [101] (1st rv) [102] (tag) [103] (2nd rv; slightly different tag to game 1RR). His edits were reverted by FP so I don't have much problem, but bringing the EW into notice since I am active on the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

...active on the article and also active in aggressive Block shopping against users whom you share content dispute with. adding the last part for clarity--DBigXray 14:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

TG I have not broken 1RR at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have asked Regents Park who is an entirely neutral admin to monitor my edits, as such FPaS will not longer need to stalk me. Please let him know it is not on. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

70.118.102.247

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

---

Can someone enforce WP:ARBMAC+WP:3RR at 70.118.102.247 (talk · contribs), please, for edit warring at Yugoslav Wars? I'm "involved" so I want to avoid any allegation of impropriety; I've already warned them, and then they reverted that. D'oh. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing

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

---

IP editor 173.174.159.84 seems intent of violating WP:MOSFLAG by continually adding flag icons into boxing article infoboxes. They have already had three warnings from me and Tigerboy1966 in regards to this issue. On the 25th July in the third warning i notified them that it was a last warning which they ignored several times on the 27th July: [104], [105], [106], [107].

Mabuska ^(talk) 13:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Y Done Blocked for a period of 48 hours. Hopefully that will get this editor's attention. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Wingtipvortex / MlM42 /Mir

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

---

Wingtipvortex (talk · contribs)

Mlm42 (talk · contribs)

Mir Almaat 1 S1 (talk · contribs)

Accounts(s) with one incredibly obscure editing fetish, not the ENG:VAR, but the status quo prior to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template, and it's preservation. Notified. Due to popular ongoing demand on the talkpage of WDGraham (talk · contribs) after a long discussion on my own talkpage, which followed a long discussion on wikiproject spaceflight and a SPI about the Mir account, here is what he wanted, a thread at ANI where hopefully, someone will pop up with a fast block for me, and wouldn't I love the peace and quiet to leave all of this bickering arguing crap behind and work on my other projects. Hoo yeah. Penyulap ☏ 21:24, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• What editing fetish? A quick glance over Wingtipvortex's latest edits, for example, doesn't show me anything that stands out as "fetish"y, in either the literal or metaphorical sense. What do you feel is the problem there? And what does "not the ENG:VAR, but the status quo prior to the insertion of the ENG:VAR template" mean? Could you give us a little more clarification to work with here? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be a frivolous thread. See also the section below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, the timestamp was updated after I notified on all three talkpages. Penyulap ☏ 21:28, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The issue is three years old, which predates my own editing on wikipedia, it is also somewhat up to date, with two editors very upset on the ISS talkpage more recently, one describing two others as dumbassess over the issue, and another describing the mess caused three years ago as 'a monument to the failure of the wiki process' The issue is not the variant itself, but the state of the article prior to the insertion of an ENG:VAR template. A poll was conducted, resulting in no consensus, and the straw poll was tied up back to front as a straw man, in the favour of WDGraham who did it, and linked to 'straw man' inside the poll discussion, so he knew what he did. MlM42 along with WDGraham relentlessly defend British in the talkpage, and I too either would like British or to abstain. The other editors are upset because the poll was tied up back to front. A template on the page claims there is a consensus, and that the matter has been settled. Penyulap ☏ 21:35, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

MlM42, first used Mir as pure harassment, that is, as a fixation account. WP:HA describes a number of different ways that a user may be harassed, this is one of the more exotic ways in which the purpose of an account focuses on a single user. 1/5 of the accounts 1,000 edits were to my own userpage, the rest consisted of asking stupid questions at the teahouse until they suspected a sock and collapsed his inane questions, he reviewed an admin and later asked the admin if he thought I should be sanctioned. After making it somewhat clear to him the first time, he dumped the Mir account for practical purposes and switched to a higher quality sock account he originally intended to protect his privacy as well as use probably as a sock as well, basically two birds one stone. Both accounts are British Columbia, and Mir as I stated here at ANI 6 weeks ago, although he makes claims of belonging to a minority outside WP:BIAS, only ever exhibits British/American cultural traits and editing patterns, as well as language.

You shall find denials of socking on each talkpage, and the latest on my own talkpage, where he states that the wingtip account is his only account on wikipedia. Penyulap ☏ 21:42, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Penyulap

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

---

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

Penyulap has kept a streak of user attacks for a while. Today was my turn on his list apparently. He is way out of hand attacking editors, and I request an indef block on his account.

My discussion with him today can be found here. This came as a result of a comment he left in User:Craigboy's talk page here, where it appears he accused me of Sockpuppeting.

I had suspected something when he left this comment on my talk page.

Now a bit of history on Penyulap. He has been a significantly disruptive editor on Wikiproject spaceflight. A very lengthy discussion took place in the project's talk page regarding him. I was his greatest supporter and defender in that conversation. He now accuses me of being another editor playing Good Hand Bad Hand.

He has a history of intimidating users he disagrees with by threatening them with WP:SPI, such as with User:Mir Almaat 1 S1 here and with User:Mlm42 here (coincidentally, a similar comment to what he left on my talk page).

His RFA shows him to be a highly disruptive editor, even claiming he vandalizes with several undetectable sockpuppets himself. He is set on proving the SPI process is broken, see here.

I was going to let him go and walk away, until he claimed an admission of guilt from my part.

He has even started ANI against me, User:WDGraham and others while I type this up, after threatening us with ANI here. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Pelyulap's behavior in recent weeks has been significantly disruptive in a number of places. Could an uninvolved administrator with some extra time tonight please carefully evaluate what action, if any, needs to be taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, could you run check user on me and the three other editors he accuses me of being to dispel that idea? --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 21:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

There hasn't been nearly enough evidence presented here to warrant a checkuser, even at the request of one of the accused. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Largely echoing NYB's sentiment here. I've been keeping half an eye on the situation with Penyulap since his aborted RFA (linked above by Wingtipvortex), and while there's occasional article work, there a lot more snarling, biting others, and generally being extremely difficult to work with - and that's when he's not talking about his vandal socks or how he's here to prove some sort of point. I see very little that's constructive coming out of Penyulap these days, and am inclined to think that a block may be the only solution to the disruption at this point, especially since even users who have been working hard to help him fit in with our policies are now being rebuffed (section link, most relevant content is toward the bottom of the section). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Didn't seem logical to ask twice for the same CU. Penyulap ☏ 21:46, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved but I left a warning to Penyulap following what can be charitably described as tendentious editing on Beatles related articles. If the behavior doesn't abate or change I'd recommend a block. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It was welcome advice. Penyulap ☏ 21:52, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• I see some assumptions of bad faith and possibly baseless allegations in the example discussions linked in the original complaint (don't know all the background, nor do I care to), but nothing that requires a block yet, in my opinion. I think Penyulap should be warned to avoid accusing people of sockpuppetry and rather take things through the right channels at SPI. If the accusations continue, then a block would be warranted. I also think that Penyulap's belief that he has some kind of superhuman ability (if he was serious when he said that) that allows him to "see clearly not only the person behind the keyboard and what machine they use, how they edit, what their cultural background..., but it also allows me to assess with precision their intentions as well" is potentially dangerous and should probably not be validated or encouraged by anyone. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fairly stated, I'll take it to the right place. Penyulap ☏ 21:49, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict appears to have eaten this the first time) To address Scotty's feeling that this may not be a long-term thing, I present a linkdump of some of Penyulap's talk highlights for the past few days: people's comments about him are them making excuses Worm is incompetent, not interesting in improving himself it's everybody else's fault personal attacks more personal attacks using "unorthodox" methods to bring GabeMC in line "my calls are always good", "I haven't made any mild or serious misjudgements yet", "The secret to being an insufferable smart ass like me who is always right is to admit instantly, sincerely and comprehensively the moment you realise it. " previous block was for "nothing in particular" Pesky asks him to try to make himself more understandable, his answer is "no". People are taking process too seriously, he prefers the socks. Now, mind you, these are all things that were said within the last week, and they're far from everything problematic from those days. The diffs speak for themselves, my short summaries (except the quotes, which are direct) are just that, my interpretations of what was said, so please view the diffs for actual content. I didn't bother to go further back, but these are generally representative of how Penyulap interacts with other editors here. There's the sock accusations...and then there's everything else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have to say that the diffs above demonstrate that this is more than just an isolated incident, and therefore a block might be warranted if there is consensus for it here. -Scottywong| speak _ 22:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Penyulap has been bothering and attacking me for over three weeks now almost non-stop. Some admin intervention is overdue, as this user appears to be having an emotional problem which they are taking out on other editors. FTR, I wholeheartedly support a block or a ban of somekind. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm extremely allergic to drama, but I guess I should comment. I have to say that I've also noticed disruptive behavior on Penyulap's part in recent weeks. He took an interest in the Beatles capitalisation issue earlier this month, and that seems to have inspired highly irrational behavior on his part in related areas (this, as one example). I'm not definitively in favor of a block or anything at this point, as he has been a valuable contributor in multiple areas, but (just an observation) it looks like things involving him have gotten out of hand more than just once. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• I came very close to starting an ANI on penyulap regarding harssment concerns, brought to me by another editor who Penyulap had decided to "correct" by effectively following him around. I have warned him three times in the past fortnight regardimg harssment and how accusations of harssment without evidence is a personal attack. However, I would consider myself involved though as some of his comments towards me on his talk page have been beyond the pale. I'll provide some diffs tomorrow, am on my phone at the moment. Worm^TT(talk) 21:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He would refer to a section here and he later agreed to give me some space Penyulap ☏ 22:03, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? He didn't agree to give you some space. He stated that he would no longer be interacting with you because your behavior and the things you said about him were appalling. Your behavior has been completely unacceptable and I am certain you would have never said those things except behind a wall of anonymity. Be certain that you do not deserve the kind manner in which people have treated you here and if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken. You are lucky that you are not treated the way you treat others. Ryan Vesey 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm involved here, but if you look at the discussion at WikiProject Spaceflight, it seems to me that there are very few active editors left in the WikiProject who aren't in some kind of dispute with him. I haven't looked at every one of them - I'll post something about the dispute I am involved in with him shortly as I need some time to compile some links, but just from that discussion and his talk page, I think it is clear that he gets into more disputes than could be expected of the average editor. He doesn't listen to other people, and if just dismisses their concerns as he feels that they are the ones who have problems - in his RfA he dismissed people raising concerns about his conduct as being "bully tactics", and I'm fairly sure that his accusations against Mlm, and the earlier one against Mir, are just intended to intimidate them as they have spoken out against him. This has been going on for a long time now, and I think he has become too disruptive to ignore. --W. D. Graham 21:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Just to give a bit of background on one issue, I am involved, along with a number of other editors (primarily SalopianJames (talk · contribs), Navy blue84 (talk · contribs), Ckatz (talk · contribs) and Mlm42), in a long-running dispute around the dialect the article International Space Station should be written in. The first dialect used was British English, however American English was later introduced, with both dialects remaining in use until James standardised it during one of several FACs around three or four years ago. I can't remember if there was a discussion or if James was just being bold (I seem to recall a discussion, but it was so long ago I can't find it, so I'd be prepared to accept that my memory may not be flawless), however in either case the change stuck for a few months, until an RfC was held on whether the article should be changed to American English. This found no consensus, and while with hindsight I should not have closed it as an involved editor, I cannot see any way that it would have found consensus to change the article. During the next couple of years there were one or two further discussions started by various editors, but no consensus was found. Last June, Penyulap tried to start a simple majority poll on the issue, and while a few objections were raised to discussing this for the third or fourth time in two years, the discussion was allowed to run its course and again found no consensus. Penyulap was subsequently topic banned for another dispute, but when that ban expired, he started the discussion again, and again it found no consensus, although he kept it alive for five months by just refusing to drop it. Two days after that thread was archived, he started the discussion again. He's also tried to raise it on my talk page, repeatedly on his own talk page often trying to bring it up in irrelevant discussions; he hijacked the discussion of his conduct at WT:SPACEFLIGHT to try and air it again. In the recent discussions, he's mostly been arguing from a starting point that because the RfC found no consensus the article should be changed "back" into American English (he ignores the fact that it was never in American English, either changing the subject or responding with an ad homeniem argument whenever this is pointed out). He claims that he doesn't actually care about the end result - from the discussion at WT:SPACEFLIGHT "that's not it at all. I don't care for the variant. I care for the solution to the monument and the jackass emotions...It's how you reach the decision that matters, not what the decision is." Aside from the forum/admin shopping, refusal to drop a matter that has been discussed to death, liberal use of ad homeniem arguments and borderline wikilawyering, he doesn't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and has tied the project up for the last year discussing something that is essentially a matter of process, and the letter of the law against the spirit of the law. --W. D. Graham 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Honestly, I think an indefinite block if not a complete ban of Penyulap is necessary. I formed my opinion that a block of some sort might be needed (I have been concerned by Penyulap's disruption in the past month). Then I saw this comment

  How about this, Pesky you're not feeling well, considering the situation of your household, I'm not well considering I couldn't manage to stay awake today long enough to try for the second time to get to the doctor, because something about my thyroid? is not working. So how about worm packs up all this WP:ICANTHEARYOU when you say DESPISE. Stop his deliberately obtuse and stupid antics to provoke me, (actually is it deliberate or are you actually this dense? I DON'T CARE because you are not here to ask for help) asking 'I'm so stupid please explain how I got to be an admin and can lecture Mir on unwanted attention but I just can't help myself, I'm drawn back to everything Penyulap is doing because I am aware he DESPISES me and I just want to antagonise the situation because hey, he needs it, and I'll take advantage of Auntie Pesky as well while I'm at it, because with her son is in a life threatening situation, so she has nothing better to do than deal with Worms ICANTHEARYOU social problems.' Either send me your PAYPAL address and I'll send you some money for a therapist worm or take the hint and come back when Auntie Pesky says she is well enough to help you with your problems, keep at it, and I'll be asking for an interaction ban, on the grounds that YOU CANT HEAR ME and there is no hope for you ever growing out of this awkward stage your going through without community intervention. Ok pumpkin ? Penyulap ☏ 11:44, 27 Jul 2012 (UTC)

  That comment is beyond anything one could accept from an editor and it certainly isn't uncommon for Penyulap to behave in a similar manner as seen here. I can dig through more diffs of disruption if people wish, but as far as I'm concerned the comment to Worm and Pesky was beyond what is necessary to block him. Ryan Vesey 22:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that after talking to Auntie Pesky in a manner she disagrees with, and considering the stress in RL and on wikipedia, that I shall focus on priority of health and take a break from wiki. (addressing this and the comment below) Penyulap ☏ 22:13, 30 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This current spat doesn't really matter, as an indef is overdue for past issues, such as the ISS discussion linked from a thread about a week ago. This is a disruptive, trolling participant with competency issues. BYE ~! Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I have to agree - Pen has, alas, long since worn out his welcome with long-term disruptive behavior and not listening. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI isn't well suited to discussion of long term behavior of an editor. WP:RFC/U should be the next step. Nobody Ent 22:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This would be true in many other circumstances, but in this instance, the issues raised are so numerous and serious that we probably need a concrete action coming out of this thread. (Plus, given Penyulap's comment just above that he needs to take some time away because of health and stress considerations, and assuming good faith with regard to it, I don't think that creating an RFC/U that would focus on criticizing Penyulap would be appropriate at this time.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As Tom Morris said in Penyulap's RFA: when an admin or wannabe admin sees an editor being grossly incivil (even if they feel it justified in the circumstances), offering spelling and grammar advice as Penyulap did here cannot be considered anything other than trolling. In addition, it became apparent in this SPI case that here, Penyulap stated he had socks, undetectable by CU, which he used to vandalise Wikipedia, making an offer to reveal them. Here, I thought I had misread his comments, thinking they were meant sarcastically, but here he clarified that he wasn't being sarcastic. In other words, a blatant troll who admits vandalising with sockpuppets — if I wasn't a participant in that conversation, I would have indeffed him myself. WilliamH (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. If Penyulap is having personal difficulties then an extended RFC/U would be gratuitous and cruel, as several editors have expressed here that an indef block of this account is in order, and long overdue, why not serve both the community and Penyulap by making that break mandatory? Don't pass the buck, lets deal with this right here right now. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Block proposal

There seems to be general agreement above that this much more than an isolated incident and that a block may be warranted, so let's make it official. This proposal is to block Penyulap for 1 week for disruptive behavior. If the harassment, baseless accusations of sockpuppetry, or general incivility/disruption continue after the block, then any uninvolved admin can and should re-block for a longer period of time, including indef if deemed necessary. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. -Scottywong| converse _ 23:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, as indef immediately instead of passing the buck for a week, per WilliamH's comments - an immediate indef is absolutely necessary. (And I'd do it myself except I, too, could be considered "involved" with regards to Pen) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block of at least 1 week. If and when Penyulap returns to editing, he needs to recognize that we are here to build an encyclopedia. The vast majority of his contributions of late seem to do nothing of the sort. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support block, oppose 1-week length. A block is certainly called for here, but a week is so short as to be almost certainly useless. I would be much more inclined to support an indef block (under the classic definition - indefinite, not infinite. When Pen is back up to snuff and can engage with the community properly and without attacking others, an unblock can be discussed). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict x3) I'm thinking that indefinite is the correct block length here. Note: Not "indefinite" as in "forever," but "indefinite" as in "until Penyulap is able to provide evidence that he is ready to edit properly and stop the various types of disruptive behavior he's been engaging in." It's obvious that he needs time away from Wikipedia, perhaps as much for his own sake as for everyone else's, and it's not clear we can know at this point whether and when he'll be able to participate productively again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support indef block as the originator of this complaint and per The Bushranger, Fluffernutter and Newyorkbrad. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 23:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an indefinite block. Unless can be convinced otherwise, no incentive to let this individual edit Wikipedia. (Edit conflict: per NYB, basically.) WilliamH (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support an indefinite block for Penyulap per Bushranger, Newyorkbrad, Wingtipvortex and WilliamH. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• indef, already said so above. why go through all this !voting? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. As per WP:NOTTHERAPY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Coren just beat me to the indef block. I thought I'd do it since I like Penyulap and wish to protect them against further piling on here. Take it easy Penyulp; you know about OFFER and all that. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

More decisive

It seems clear that there is agreement that decisive action must be taken, and that Penyulap has been an extraordinarily disruptive element in very many venues for a long time. There are at least three entirely unrelated areas where I have seen him aggressively disrupt ongoing discussion and processes in the past week alone; he has been vicious towards an editor I have attempted to steer away from unrelated trouble, and he has involved himself in just about every process or project area of note in the past couple of weeks – unfailingly bringing all heat and no light.

I have not intervened in his misbehaviour before this point, so I cannot possibly be considered involved; except that he has unsuccessfully attempted to bait me into an overreaction during my handling of yet another incident unrelated to him where he simply butted in to – pardon my french – stir shit up.

The fact of the matter is, he is currently doing nothing but trolling and wilfully wasting the community's time. This discussion is understandable, but simply is yet another instance of his skill at causing strife. I'm going to be bold and simply save everyone the trouble of a long discussion and deny Penyulap yet another forum for his lulz.

I am blocking him indefinitely; he is clearly not here to work on an encyclopedia. Or if he is, he is incapable of understanding how to help rather than hinder. Either way, his participation is not useful, and no longer welcome. Any administrator may revert this block if they think it is out of line, or if they manage to negotiate some sort of behavioural compromise from him. Somehow, I doubt the former is plausible, and that the latter is productive. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, ya got this one right. Now go propose vacating the silly restriction on me per Brad's comment on my talk. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Independnt review required potential suspicious editing

Can an administrator who is uninvolved please review the following article and report if they think there is anything suspicious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance#Cla68_.28talk.29_Ownership_and_unfounded_clims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Revert_warring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversies_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics#Revert-warring_note

I am very suspicious that User:Cla68 has been so sweepingly defended by User:Dreadstar. The implication of the interpretation of the defending of Cla68 by Dreadstar is that if one user adds information which is not deemed warranted on multiple occasions in a short period and then takes issue with that information being removed they are justified in reporting this a revert warring even if the information is simply being removed as part of the usual WP:CYCLE. Sport and politics (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As best I can tell, all that happened here is that Dreadstar reviewed an open thread on the WQA board concerning Cla68's editing, disagreed with the complaint, and explained why. Unless I am missing something, I don't see what exactly is "suspicious" about this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The nature of the reasoning given is such that it basically says everything Cla68 would want and the language used is similar to Cla68s and the interpretation of what revet warring is, is identical to that of Cla68. There has also been no reasoning given that Cla68 has complained only over their edits being modified or removed which shows that the Ownership being exhibited by Cla68 has been ignored which is again suspicious as a thorough and well thought through reading of the whole complaint would have addressed those concerns as well.Sport and politics (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The solution to this is that the WQA thread is still open, and other editors can chime in if they agree or disagree with Dreadstar's comments or yours. But your comments above carried the insinuation that there is some sort of sockpuppetry or improper off-wiki coordination or game-playing going on, and I see no evidence for that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well could a few users please review the open thread and make a comment and can a user review if the close of the Third linked discussion was proper by Dreadstar. Sport and politics (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sport and politics continues to remove well-sourced material from Olympics-related articles [108] since the Wikiquette discussion began. Could an admin please intervene? It's not just my attempts to build the article that are being affected. A number of editors are having their contributions deleted by this editor. Cla68 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The serious point which is being missed here and what is being insinuated is that it is not right to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the page. What is the point of having a page on a watch-list if only one or two edits to a page can be made in 24 hours. This is getting ridiculous if this is what is actually being pushed here. Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring or the whole foundation of editing Wikipeida to improve the quality of Wikipedia goes out the window. Simply modifying and editing content of wkipedia over a short period of time cannot be considered revert warring if the content being removed is being thoroughly discussed as is being done on this topic and the content being removed and modified is done so to maintain the quality of the article.Sport and politics (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

"Modifying and removing content which is poorly written, not relevant and without noteworthiness cannot be considered revert warring" - Is the content being removed vandalism or a BLP violation? If no, then if you remove something, it's restored, and then you remove it again, yes, you are indeed edit warring. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the founding principle of Wikipeidia is to be a well written encyclopaedia. The content is put up it is removed if it s not noteworthy, relevant or poorly written or pushes one POV to an undue extent. It is not all edits this happens to. It only happens to the edits which are either poorly written, give undue weight to a single POV, irrelevant or not noteworthy. The content is then discussed. It is not removed put back removed put back etc. as youseem to be making out. The insinuation that it is wrong to edit a page over a short period of time to maintain the quality of the article seems very very strange. Sport and politics (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling a serious look at what Wikipedia is not is needed as this is getting wholly ignored and is fundamental to what makes Wikipedia Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For Cla68 to make the original claims of revert warring they have wholly missed that all editors and editing should be regarded with good faith. Sport and politics (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't give deference to the editor who quotes the most policies or insists with the greatest volume that they are correct. Edit warring is edit warring is edit warring. The extremely narrow range of exceptions to the edit warring policy exists to prevent editors from simply screaming and reverting past one another, and encourage them to actually talk about the issues. Behavioral issues aside, you are not going to find a free pass here to keep reverting. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely flabbergasted by that. The implications of that means that Wikipedia articles cannot be edited by the same editor more than three times in 24 hours if that editor is removing content which is irrelevant, POV pushing, lacking in noteworthiness, written incomprehensibly or is even if the removal/modification is done so to maintain the quality of the article. There has to be some level of Common Sense employed here or genuine good faith editing to improve the quality of Wikipedia will be stifled as is being clearly demonstrated here. Sport and politics (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this very simple one line policy comes in here as this interpretation of the revert rule is damaging to Wikipedia for the above mentioned reasons. Sport and politics (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been here for like 3 weeks and you declare yourself some kind of expert on all things wikipedia... and you're calling someone else suspicious? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. This is ridiculous. Citing WP:IAR to justify edit warring if the person involved claims to be doing so "to maintain the quality of the article"? On that basis, we might as well scrap the rules against edit warring entirely. 'Common sense' says we don't suddenly ditch long-standing policy on the basis of what one new contributor says... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

All I have done is read up on what Wikipedia policies are and when something looked suspicious to me I simply said so. I guess I have learnt the the editing of Wikipedia is very very unusual. Sport and politics (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

When someone adds cited information to the Olympics controversy article that isn't obvious vandalism or a violation of the BLP policy and you disagree with it, instead of reverting it, start a discussion on the talk page and give the reasons why you don't think it belongs in the article, then allow some time for other editors to respond. If you will do this, then things should work a lot better with building that article. Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that all of the edits I have made have been done in good faith to maintain the quality of the article in question. What is being missed is the fact that I have edited in good faith and another user has claimed bad faith. The editing I have made has been accompanied by long and plentiful discussions on the topic. It is amazing to me that such a policy can exist which takes good faith edits and labels them as out of order, when all that is trying to be done is to maintain the quality of the article in question. You are going about Bold Revert Discuss as Bold Discuss Revert which is just silly. Sport and politics (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

"[T]he editing of Wikipedia is very very unusual" - quite possibly so - but the policies and guidelines we have are part of the reason Wikipedia works. It may not seem logical, or even rational sometimes, but we've succeeded in getting this far by discussing policy, trying it out, and amending it as necessary (by consensus) if there are problems, one of the guidelines is WP:AGF - and perhaps you should take from that the idea that having 'suspicions' about editors isn't necessarily helpful - or at least, telling people you do without a darned good reason, isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Written Wikipedia policies are incoherent, incomplete, and inconsistently enforced; so yes, you're absolutely correct Wikipedia editing is unusual (insane). You're much better off not worrying about all the WP:this and WP:that stuff and learning the pillars really well. Go slow, be nice and use article talk pages to build consensus rather than relying on what the policies say. Nobody Ent 00:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to recall which indef'd user it was that refused to indent properly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember the name either, but there was at least one AN/I thread, so you could always search the archives for "indent." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

اردیبهشت

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

---

اردیبهشت (talk · contribs) is annoyingly trying to force racist concepts to a purely linguistic classification system (i. e. that people with Mongolid physical features cannot be an Iranian people even if their first language has been Iranian for decades and centuries). Hence also his edit in Hazara people where he has violated WP:3RR. He continues this unencyclopedic and un-scholarly behavior also in Iranian peoples and elsewhere. To keep it short: what he says is like claiming that the Turkish people are not a Turkic people, because they do not have Mongolid physical features like the ancient Turks, despite speaking a Turkic language for at lest 400 years. --Lysozym (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: he has violated 3RR in Iranian cuisine as well. --Lysozym (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Also, please note that you are required to notify anyone that you are reporting at ANI. -Scottywong| communicate _ 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry and thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

Discussions to be closed

For the attention of any administrator: there are three pending requests for closure of a content discussion. AGK [•] 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit-Warring by User:DreamMcQueen after a 96 Hour Block

• DreamMcQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Related ANI Thread #1
• Related ANI Thread #2

After coming off a 96 hour block (by User:Toddst1), User:DreamMcQueen has gone back to the same behavior that has gotten him blocked the past two times, "Disruptive editing: specifically edit warring, WP:OWN issues and WP:BATTLE". As evidenced by the user's edits on July 30, edit wars on multiple pages continue after the most recent block. I have notified the blocking editor of this, but he seems to be offline for the evening. The unblock request of the previous block shows the user just doesn't "get it" and this talk page post seems to indicate he is here to force some kind of change (regardless of consensus or whatever).

The behavior of DreamMcQueen is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping after two blocks, now three ANI threads, numerous warnings and several admins saying to stop. As such, I am requesting admin assistance in this matter. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The user has been notified of this thread, as has the blocking admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In my defense: I am not vandalizing, I am not practicing incivility, I do not wish to edit-war, I am not seeking to battle anyone, and I am not exercising ownership over any articles. I approached the community of users who edit TV-related articles about making changes in an effort to improve the articles, primarily concerning style and formatting. My wish is to see the articles written in a way that can easily be digested by everyone. ([109] my thread on WT:TVS) Neutralhomer, acting as if he is the keeper of all TV station articles, rejected my proposals without considering them and has chosen to hide behind "consensus." What consensus? All I have found is a small group of stubborn editors who are afraid of change without considering the benefits of it. They write and chose to endorse writing which satisfies only hard-core enthusiasts and not a broader audience. My conflicts with two other editors, Fairlyoddparents1234 and TVtonightokc, have been based around content and I have told them as much.

Please note that two of these editors who have been uncivil towards me (Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234) are afflicted with Asperger's Syndrome. That should be taken into serious consideration when reviewing this case, which is something the blocking administrator either was not aware of or chose not to do. DreamMcQueen (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This, folks, is exactly what I am talking about. "It is everyone else fault and I have done nothing wrong" is the same thing he has said numerous times, but everyone else hasn't been blocked for OWN, Edit-warring and other problems, DreamMcQueen has.

Also, whether or not Fairlyoddparents1234 or I have Aspergers has nothing to do with DreamMcQueen's behavior in the slightest and bringing it up shows their real intent here and it ain't a good one. The psychological dianogsis of an editor has nothing to do with the blocking abilities of an admin either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)I would point out that using "they have Aspergers" as an argument is an ad hominem attack. I would also point out that both Neutralhomer and Fairlyoddparents1234 have better histories of working with/accepting community consensus than Dream does. And, well, when one person says you're edit-warring, you might be able to brush it off. When two people do, you should start wondering. When ten people do, you should probably accept that they're right and you're wrong. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-involved editor with Asperger Syndrome, the suggestion that AS somehow impairs editing is absurd - by my own experience, the internet is a much easier place to communicate and work in. That type of sentiment is uncalled for and should be struck out, hopefully by the editor that made the comment. Toa Nidhiki05 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For starters, the fact that DreamMcQueen pointed out that another user has Asbergers demonstrates DreamMcQueen's lack of understanding of what being civil means, and also demonstrates that DreamMcQueen knows nothing about asbergers. I completely agree with NeutralHomer, and I am an outsider who doesn't edit in the same areas as DreamMcQueen (I think I first became part of this discussion when I stumbled into one of DreamMcQueen and FairlyOddParents1234's first edit wars). Immediately after the most recent block was lifted, DreamMcQueen went back to the same articles he was edit-warring on before and made the same edits he was making before. Because of this, I support an indefinite block ASAP. Gold Standard 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I support a indef block of DreamMcQueen. His last post to this thread shows he is intent on continue to edit the way he has and his attacks my Aspergers are something he is defending. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wasn't going to comment until your Asperger's Syndrome comment. Let me be blunt: you are gravely mistaken here and making a personal attack here. First, even if they are, that is irrelevant as we don't discriminate and judge others only by their actions, not a disability. Second, that isn't something you say without providing a diff where they have admitted as such, not that it actually matters, however. Third, your attitude here is less than reassuring, to say the least. I don't think you will fare well this go around. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Response to Dennis: I actually do have Aspergers, this isn't a secret, it is on my user page. Whether User:Fairlyoddparents1234 does or not, I will not speculate. But as it has been pointed out, it doesn't impair editing or understanding any the slightest and as Toa pointed out, the internet makes communicating alot easier for those with Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, please do not twist my words around. You cannot say that I didn't laid out my "real intent" to you before this whole ridiculous spat got out of hand. And, as I noted to you in the very recent past, your record is not exactly clean either. You have no right to act as though you are the high-and-mighty. Unless you are without sin, you are in no place to throw stones at me. As for the other issue, well, it has EVERYTHING to do with YOUR emotions and behavior, which you obviously cannot control. You have proved it to me time and again with your angry and aggressive comments -- such as the one above. Do yourself a favor and calm down. DreamMcQueen (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, where should I start on this one? You obviously haven't the slightest clue about Aspergers, Autism or the Autistic Spectrum or you would quickly realize you are so wrong in your statement it is actually laughable. Your intent here, as you have pointed out, is to force change regardless of consensus or established policy. That goes against the rules or Wikipedia. I suggest you do yourself a favor and stop digging, the hole you are in is getting quite deep. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering how offensive your comments were, I was impressed by the amount of restraint he was showing. You are in essence asking me to discriminate against someone that has Aspergers, and using it as a means to discredit those who have raised an issue. This is so against our policies, and so against any sense of community decency, yet you make these comments with remarkable ease, which makes me question if you are not capable of working in a corroborative environment. And you haven't stuck your personal attacks, which is reason enough for me to block you right now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)