Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Darkstar1st: violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT, failure or refusal to get the point, tendentious editing

I am reporting Darkstar1st for violation of policy at WP:DISRUPT on the grounds of failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing for editing behaviour here Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. He is pushing the idea that the Soviet Union was the first socialist society, and is cherry-picking sources to support his view. Darkstar1st's proposals have been unanimously rejected by all other users, and his usage of sources has been strongly criticized, but he refuses to accept consensus, and continues to push the issue.

I strongly believe that Darkstar1st has anti-socialist political views that are influencing his edits, he repeatedly edits articles in a manner that would appear to present Marxism-Leninism and fascism including Nazism as the major manifestations of what socialism is. The most important evidence I can provide of this is a cynical sarcastic-appearing remark recently made by Darkstar1st where he said "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action.", here's the diff [1]. He also has said in the past on the Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge, saying "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's the diff [2]. I believe that his intentions on Wikipedia with regards to material related to socialism, are to present socialism as a whole as totalitarian and linked with Marxism-Leninism and fascism.

He has been warned in the past to desist from similar behaviour on articles pertaining to socialism, and considerations of topic bans for Darkstar1st on socialism-related articles have been considered, as shown here: [3], where he was given advice by me on how to improve his understanding of socialism to avoid such assumptions of socialism being totalitarian. He has not heeded the advice or warnings of anyone there.

He has completely expired community patience at Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR. Many users there are aggravated with his pushing of the issue. Multiple users at the talk page are openly angry with his behaviour, some have called it "trolling". Darkstar1st neither listens nor cares about their criticisms, he just keeps pushing the issue.

Since he was warned to desist from such behaviour here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, and has completely refused to accept consensus, I believe that indefinate topic bans for Darkstar1st on all articles relating to: socialism, communism, fascism, and totalitarianism, is the minimal of what is needed. I advise that users here talk with other users who have been involved with the discussions here: Talk:Socialism#The_first_socialist_society_was_the_USSR.--R-41 (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments

I fully agree with this summary and this complaint. Darkstar is an exceptionally disruptive and tendentious editor. He constantly plays fast and loose with sources, he initiates long and repetitive discussion threads, and then, weeks later, when the issue has seemed long closed, he returns and repeats his intention to carry out disputed edits, he refuses to accept consensus, and he attempts to wear out other editors by repeatedly making the same contested assertions. He appears to be here mainly to push his personal political beliefs, to attack socialism and justify nazism. Although the RfC has been open for six weeks, he has failed to respond, except for one edit in the wrong section repeating his content argument. Several editors (myself included) have reached, and gone beyond, the limits of their tolerance in dealing with his behaviour, which now verges on trolling. I am convinced that an indefinite topic ban is required in all articles and talk pages relating, however tangentially, to political issues. Then perhaps the rest of us can get on with building an encyclopaedia. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i have no idea what you mean about my page identifying me as an opponent of communism, or any comments i made confusing totalitarianism and socialism, please provide difs or withdraw your accusation. the edit i propose, "the USSR was the first socialist state and the USSR was the first socialist society. here are quotes from the 6 RS i presented, none of which have been challenged as a RS

• The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within
• For the first time in the history of mankind a socialist society(USSR) was created.
• The Soviet Union was the first state to be based on Marxist socialism
• Russia was not just another country, it was the world's first workers state and history's first socialist society
• the establishment of the first socialist state in russia in 1917
• Soviet...the first socialist society.
• With their victory over the White Russians in 1920, Soviet leaders now could turn for the first time to the challenging task of building the first socialist society in a world dominated by their capitalist enemies. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are asking me for a diff for a quote of what you said. Are you contending that you never said this: "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was most certainly socialist and a shining example of the ideology in action."?--R-41 (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

i said it. how does that make me an opponent of communism or think all socialist are totalitarian? much of the modernization of Russia can be attributed to socialism, which is what i meant with the words "shinning" and "action". perhaps you have simply read too much into my edit? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure you can say such convenient stuff now when your editing is under observation now, but I am familiar with your editing history as are many other users, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. It's all here as recorded by the user TFD and others: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st. I read exactly what you intended to say, in context of what else you have said and how you have edited, you view the Soviet Union as the epitome of what socialism is. On your user page you are photographed in front of a building in Hungary where fascist and communist regimes tortured people and say: i lost a bet to sn*wed that i could correct bl*urob*'s behavior, so i had to eat my only hat and decided the best place to do it would be in front of House of Terror, where facist and later the "liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people. So by your own words, if the Soviet Union is the "shining example of socialism" and you went to a place where ""liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people", I can see no other meaning other than that you view socialism as totalitarian and tyrannical. Since you wanted a diff, here is your edit where you said that: [4].--R-41 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

so a photo in front of the house of terror makes me an opponent of communism? I read exactly what you intended to say, you should stick to reading what i write, not what you think i think. if you have a dif of me confusing totalitarians and socialist, plz provide here or withdraw your accusation. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

liberating" Communist regimes interrogated, tortured and killed people are not my words, rather from the article about the terror house. since the USA has also tortured/killed people do you think i am also anti-capitalist? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stalin "liberated" around 6 million of his own citizens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You are here because you have grossly violated WP:DISRUPT involving failure or refusal to get the point and tendentious editing. You are here for that. I have adjusted my statement in accordance with your concerns, but it is my firm belief, regardless of your attempts to deny it here to avoid topic bans, that you are anti-socialist. You appear to have indicated at Talk:Libertarian socialism that the fusion of liberty and socialism's social ownership of the means of production is impossible to merge in your view, you said: "i fail to see how liberty and having your means of production seized go together", here's your diff [5]. Regardless of whether you are anti-socialist or are not, I may be mistaken but I doubt it, your edits on articles related to socialism have been highly disruptive, you have ignored consensus and have pushed issues after consensus has rejected them. This is a long-term problem, identified by the user TFD here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st, you did not heed the warnings nor advice by TFD, me and others there and have continued your disruptive editing behaviour. Again, that is why you are here.--R-41 (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has continued to argue a case despite no other editor agreeing with him. This is disruptive and I would agree to a topic ban as suggested by R-41. TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Darkstar is persistently tendentious; he falsifies discussions (see his mendacious nonsense above about the six purportedly reliable sources he uses to push his spurious agenda, which have long since been rejected by all other editors in the discussion); and he has a severe case of WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT. A topic ban would be a wonderful idea. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from both the talk page and RFC discussions linked above that Darkstar1st's edits have been completely rejected by other editors, and I think it's equally clear that he doesn't know how to actually understand, interpret, and weigh sources on this subject. Offering rhetoric from the Soviet Constitution claiming that it was the first socialist state in history as a RS for the factual claim that it was the first socialist state in history shows incredibly poor editorial judgment and a misunderstanding of core WP policies. The Soviet Constitution is a reliable source for its own content, and that's it; it's not a reliable source for verifying claims it makes about facts external to the Constitution itself and it should be obvious why this is so.

Maybe a topic ban is appropriate now (maybe he isn't WP:COMPETENT to edit Wikipedia at all), but I'd like to see a clear statement of what he understands consensus on the matter to be and what he intends to do next. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i understand consensus is against the proposed edit. the edit is a bit redundant anyway since the article already has an entire section dedicated to the 1917 revolution in Russia. the same claim (and thereby established the construction of the first socialist state) is made on the October Revolution article in the Soviet historiography section, so i really did not expect this kind of resistance. many people think there were socialist societies and states that pre-date the USSR, why are they absent from this article? wouldnt it be an improvement to note where socialism began? i plan to work on the tamarindo, costa rica article next. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Darkstar1st, you have said that you understand that consensus is against your proposal but you are still pushing for it to be included in spite of that. You have effectively admitted then that you have knowingly violated WP:ICAN'THEARYOU and you are still rejecting consensus.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

To Postdlf, from what Darkstar1st has just said, I think it is time for topic bans to be organized and implemented.--R-41 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

what i meant by redundant is the edit i proposed in talk, is unnecessary and not worth perusing further, sorry for the confusion. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I pointed out on the article taklk page when Darkstar first offered this justification,[6], Darkstar here is completely misreading the article on the October Revolution, where the view he offers as neutral fact is explicitly presented as the position of Soviet historians concerned to demonstrate "the accuracy of Marxist ideology". To offer a misreading once could be ascribed to a lack of understanding and an inability to read text critically; to offer this justification a second time, at AN/I, after the error has been pointed oiut, can only be seen as deliberate misrepresentation and an attempt to mislead readers. RolandR (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just looking now at the October Revolution article for the first time, but it seems obvious to me your explanation is correct, that it is not claiming neutral fact for the "first socialist state" statement, but instead attributing that to Soviet historians. Particularly given that the section is titled "Soviet historiography", and the sentence about the "first socialist state" claim opens with "In this view..." as a rather obvious qualifier. To miss all that takes some rather serious carelessness or fundamental problems with reading comprehension. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

perhaps you could see the section of the October revolution title Legacy which has same claim without the qualifiers. The October revolution of 1917 also marks the inception of the first communist government in Russia, and thus the first large-scale socialist state in world history. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thus you have proven to us that you have wasted everyone's time with pushing this within your proposal when it actually was referring to "the first large-scale socialist state in world history" that you misleadingly used to say that the Soviet Union was the "first socialist society" in history. Now I am certain that topic bans are absolutely needed as a minimal, and considering that Darkstar1st has inadvertently shown that he either is incompetent or unwilling to use material in the correct manner that it is worded, I would propose that it would be beneficial if Darkstar1st be indefinately blocked from editing Wikipedia altogether because of this level of complete incompetence or misleading behaviour (whichever it is).--R-41 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

but i never cited the article as a source in my proposal, only here as an example of how similar articles have similar claims. i have also said i am no longer pursuing the edit which was two-fold and had sources for both state and society, so i only meant this as an example relating to state. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am really getting frustrated. Darkstar1st, do you realize the level of trouble you have put yourself in because of pushing the issue in violation of consensus? Do you realize that by the fact that you have admitted that you know that your proposal was against consensus, but you still kept pushing, puts you in deliberate violation of WP:ICAN'THEARYOU? Do you realize that you have made multiple users so frustrated with you because of your editing behaviour involving pushing proposals against consensus, that they are all agreeing in calls for you to receive topic bans? I am asking you this, because it seems that you do not care at all about these issues of serious breaches of policy at WP:DISRUPT, and are just attempting to side-step them.--R-41 (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

i am sorry you are frustrated. i am also confused that you think i am still pushing the proposal when i have said twice now i am no longer pursuing the proposal. i do not intend to edit the socialism article or talk now, or in the near future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that going to resolve your long-term disruptive editing behaviour? All that does is let's you off the ticket on this one instance of such editing behaviour by us taking your word that you won't edit it now or in the "near future" (whatever that means), and I can tell this is going to happen again by the behaviour you have demonstrated today, and in TFD's report that shows you doing the same behaviour in multiple other articles. You have failed to adhere to the advice in TFD's report, you have expired the patience of multiple users with your consensus-violating behaviour. Why should we believe that such behaviour by you on Wikipedia is going to stop now when it hasn't despite people repeatedly telling you to cease such behaviour in the past?--R-41 (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i hav e resolved my long term behavior by not wanting to edit articles in which the sources i present are not accepted contrary to my opinion. each article i have edited, as well as the articles i have authored have all included sources. some, like the mexican constitution in the article i created, Immigration to Mexico, are allowed as sources, some arent like here. i see the other editors point that maybe the soviets were lying to trick people into thinking they were the 1st socialist state. perhaps someone here knows the real answer to who was the 1st socialist state, what a great way to end this debate, with a simple answer to a simple question. happy new year all, if we are still here, we must be the only/intelligent friends we have left, egészségére! Darkstar1st (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

persistently editing a page or set of pages with information which is not verifiable

per wp:disrupt, i have presented 7 verifiable sources on the socialism talk page, yet made no edit to the article unlike R-41's recent massive rewrite of the lead. [7] the editor who reverted wrote this, Reverted R-41's mess of the lead. You've been warned about this already. You need to get some form of consensus on the talk page before altering the lead.

• source one, The First Socialist Society: A History of the Soviet Union from Within, source rejected, no where in the book does it state the Soviet Union was the first Socialist society.
• source two, The Constitution of the USSR source rejected, Constitutions are not rs for how the countries are actually governed.
• source three, The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 2011 source rejected, "the first state to be based on Marxist socialism" If you can't see the difference between that and "the USSR was the first socialist society", then your reading comprehension skills are even lower than I thought.
• source four, Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia source rejected, Again you misrepresent your citation. What Melia actually writes is Russia was not just another country, it was the world's "first workers state" and history's "first socialist society"
• source five, Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy source rejected, Given your record, I suspect that you are quoting a snippet, out of context, and distorting the meaning.
• source six, Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution, 1914-1921 source rejected, THE SOURCE DOES NOT CLAIM THAT THE SOVIET UNION WAS THE FIRST SOCIALIST SOCIETY. IT STATES THAT SOVIET HISTORIANS HELD THIS VIEW.
• source seven, Contemporary World History, 2009 source rejected, Knock it off right now Darkstar. Your new source doesn't prove anything, it once again fails to note pre-Soviet socialist societies that you are refusing to acknowledge, you have just cherry-picked a source to support your view, everyone knows that you have an anti-socialist agenda here Darkstar1st (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not put the material back in and even though I disagreed with the user, I listened to the user and opened a discussion with that user on the topic. You on the other hand have not listened to any users on the talk page. You have refused to accept consensus that unanimously rejected your stance, not one single user agreed with you, but you keep pushing the issue, even here - that is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy regarding failure or refusal to get the point, that I, TFD, Orange Mike, and RolandR all agree here about what you have done. You have cherry-picked sources to promote your view while having little to no understanding about the source - what it was about, what the context is, and who is saying what you have noted, etc. and multiple users have criticized you for that. But you neither listen nor care about the unanimous rejection of your proposal, nor multiple users' requests for you to cease pushing the issue; instead you keep pushing it. This kind of behaviour has gone on too long to be tolerated any further, and that is why I as well as TFD, RolandR, and Orange Mike are supporting topic bans on you.--R-41 (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the point i was trying to make is i made a proposal on the talk page for a few words to be included in a subsection, you made a massive rewrite of the article lede without discussion, even tho you have been warned before not to do so. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference here is that, both here and elsewhere (Talk:Socialism/Archive 13#Original research, Talk:Socialism#would Bernd Hüppauf be considered a RS here?, Talk:Nazism#Rationing and shortages and many more) you have engaged other editors in exactly the same tedious time-wasting debates about misreading of sources, the origins of socialism and fascism, and other issues; that you consistently fail to hear what others are saying; that you repeatedly refuse to accept a consensus (even wheen you are the only editor in disagreement); that you will not drop an issue, but belabour it long after others have grown weary of explaining the same things to you time after time. You have exhausted other editors' patience and goodwill; R-41 has not. Your behaviour causes so many other editors to waste so much time, energy and emotion preventing you turning articles into a poorly-sourced POV nightmare thsat it is way past time that you were sent packing, enabling the rest of us to edit, and even when necessary to disagree, in a collaborative fashion. You are a drain on this project, and a net liability. RolandR (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

actually the main difference is one of us attempts to win consensus in talk before making an edit, which once it became clear no amount of sources would satisfy, i never made edit. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I already told you that I began a discussion with the user to resolve his disagreements, the issue of my edit is moot because it has been resolved, your long-term disruptive editing behaviour involving violation of policy at WP:ICAN'THEARYOU on Talk:Socialism and multiple articles is what is at hand here, and it has been recognized by multiple users here as a problem.--R-41 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i heard you several times, however since you have not read many/all of the sources to which you object, i did not feel it quite time to close the thread. you are also a socialist according to your home page, which perhaps explains your sensitivity to this topic, i truly am sorry for any discomfort my proposal caused you. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Given Darkstar1st's obvious refusal to accept consensus and stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I'd support a topic ban on Socialism articles (broadly construed). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

actually i have accepted consensus and agreed not to pursue the proposal further, see above. please note no edit was ever made, rather a collection of RS presented on the talk page when editors objected to the previous sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing about any edits, so bringing it up is odd. I only speak of your tendentious and persistent inability to accept consensus. And I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

the incident here is concerning wp:disrupt, according to the complainant. wp:disrupt does specify the term edit. each source should be given examination according to wp:weight. it was my sincere belief with the right source the edit could be made. perhaps an easier path would simply add what the sources did say, since so many think i have taken the words out of context. or maybe the topic simply isnt relevant as one editor suggests. i still feel it would serve the article by identifying the 1st socialist state however i understand it is the consensus to not include such and see no reason to continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You are attempting Wikilawyering, particularly examples 2, 3, and 4 shown in the intro of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. It says that technicalities cannot be used to justify actions that violate the spirit and underlying principles of Wikipedia. Regardless, your claim of making a distinction between "editing" of articles as being distinct from that on talk pages is inaccurate, Help:Editing includes a section on "Talk (discussion) pages". The intentions of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT are clear, that failing or refusing to accept consensus is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. You have repeatedly ignored consensus when it has rejected your assertions.--R-41 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i wish i could be more clear, i am sorry for the distress i caused you, i will not pursue the proposal further, i have no intention of editing the article or talk page in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouting in bold and offering promises that you will not do it again are not convincing to me and appears to not be convincing to HandThatFeeds, you have ignored all complaints by multiple other users about your failure to accept consensus on multiple articles in the past. It is not a matter of distress by me, that is trivial and I am not distressed; nor is it a matter of the proposal alone; it is a matter of long-term disruptive behaviour by you on Wikipedia. I and other users are seeking a resolution to this long-term problem of you refusing to accept consensus on multiple articles. Hours ago you attempted to say that "editing" doesn't include talk pages in order to avoid responsibility of violation of WP:DISRUPT on a technicality, I showed that the technicality was false. Now you are attempting to bargain by offering promises in order to avoid topic bans that I and several other users here all agree are necessary. If you had listened to the advice by TFD, me and others in TFD's report that explicitly warned you about your behaviour and gave you one last chance to desist in such behaviour, then circumstances would have been different now, but you did not listen and continued your disruptive behaviour. The fact is that the patience of multiple users with your conduct has expired, I, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds all agree that topic bans should be applied, along with the administrator Postdlf saying he may endorse a topic ban. HandThatFeeds said to you "I see nothing in this discussion to believe you will stop doing so in related matters", I agree with HandThatFeeds' conclusion.--R-41 (talk) 02:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm feeling like this should perhaps just be closed now, and I'm not 100% convinced a topic ban is necessary at this point (though I can't say I'm actively opposed to one either). He says he'll drop it, and that promise in the context of this ANI (in which everyone commenting has agreed there is a problem) should be considered a serious one, with serious consequences if he breaks it. If he does break it, or continues the same kind of tendentious and poor editing at other articles on the same subjects, just come back to ANI and I think a topic ban then might be imposed in short order.

I'd also recommend to Darkstar that he look into a WP:MENTOR, because as I've said above, his demonstrated ability to interpret and use sources (and relevant WP policy) seems lacking. postdlf (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to look at TFD's report and look at the multiple incidents TFD has noted where Darkstar1st has violated WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. It shows that multiple users been over this with Darkstar1st over and over again. I was the most liberal of them in that report, I gave him advice on how to improve his understanding of socialism amongst other advice, but he didn't listen to anyone and he hasn't changed his behaviour. Neither I nor HandThatFeeds trust his promises. There are limits to patience and trust given behaviour. Also, look at how he is approaching this: hours ago he attempted to use a technicality to avoid responsibility for violation of WP:DISRUPT, saying that talk pages don't count for "editing". It is my belief that he is tactically bargaining while having no real intention to change his behaviour. Accepting his promises will cause this whole thing to have to be restarted all over again, plus multiple users here believe that topic bans are necessary - me, TFD, OrangeMike, RolandR, and HandThatFeeds.--R-41 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I just had a look at Darkstar1st's edits. It's pretty clear that he has wasted much time and effort being tendentious, and will likely be so in the future. I support a broad topic ban to prevent further disruption. FurrySings (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

no i will likely not be so in the future. one of the Wikipedia articles i created is considered high-importance, i plan to spend my time creating new articles of equal importance and leave the well established topics to the editors above. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case, why are you so opposed to a topic ban? You say you have no intention of again editing articles relating to socialism or nazism. Some of us, who have requested a topic ban, doubt your ability to self-police this undertaking, and are requesting a topic ban in order to formalise a situation which you say that you respect. Opposing a topic ban suggests to me that you still intend to edit relevant articles or talk pages.RolandR (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you say you won't edit them and you say that you recognize the harm of your actions, then why not take both responsibility for your actions that have exhausted patience and trust by other users, by accepting the topic bans as a form of insurance that will guarantee that you will not be able to edit them? Promises with no enforcement risk violation. So if you accept the harm of your action, you should accept the responsibility of having exhausted the patience of multiple users, and accept the topic bans on political topics, as RolandR has proposed, as insurance to guarantee your compliance.--R-41 (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you have been reverted twice this week for editing the lede of the very article we are discussing as your edit violated wp:weight [8] [9]. normally editors discuss major changes to established articles before. i sincerely thought the edit i proposed for a minor section would not be opposed. each time there was an objection to the source i presented, i found a different source thinking it would clarify the previous. now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) This is ANI, not the socialism-hair-splitting page. Whether any state has ever really been socialist, and if so, which one was first, is not something anyone reasonably expected to see discussed in earnest here, much less resolved. No-one is obliged to answer your riddles. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To: Darkstar1st: Now you have jumped back from offering apologies to denouncing me and all the users at that talk page, who you just apologized to, indicating that we are "conspiring" against you because you "now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor". Wow, what a reversal in your attitude towards the other users on that talk page that earlier offered your "sincerest apologies", in only a matter of hours. And all because of a comment I said that simply asked you to accept a topic ban to provide insurance to your statement that said: "i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages".--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

ok, i take back my apology and everything i have ever written you have read and every thought you think i thought: "I am familiar with your editing history, you are determined to present socialism as associated with Marxism-Leninism and fascism. I read exactly what you intended to say" [10],. we will never cross paths again on ANY article of any subject, live long and prosper. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a gross overreaction, but interesting to note that you are saying that you have taken back your "sincerest apologies" a day or so after you gave them. Yes, I do not trust your behaviour given your long-term editing history on those topics, I have strongly disagreed with other users but have trusted their behaviour. But don't make this personal, plus you are not in a position to complain about aggravated about this situation you are in, multiple users are extremely aggravated about this situation, their patience has expired with your tendentious editing behaviour, and they do not trust your behaviour given your repeated violations of policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.--R-41 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

perhaps, but it would be better for us to simply not interact. you have made several claims about my beliefs, none of which i agree. you are a socialist according to your own page and think i am anti-socialist which i disagree with as well. it is impossible for us to interact with this gulf, therefore i choose to not edit articles you edit. so long, no hard feelings. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop trivializing this as being personal. Multiple users here have called for topic bans on you for your disruptive behaviour.--R-41 (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

nothing personal, we just shouldn't interact. you believe something about me which i do not, therefore we are at an impasse. since you are a socialist, and care about this topic perhaps more than others, i now choose to avoid it so i may avoid you. i assume you have no interest in the other topics i edit and will be fine working on those, or i may quit entirely. after almost a decade here i am beginning to lose my zeal for the project. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to work on other topics than political topics, and claim that you will avoid such topics given the situation that your violation of WP:IDIDN'THEATTHAT has created, then why not accept the topic bans on political topics as a form of insurance to guarantee your compliance?--R-41 (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I worry for the future of articles like Nazism. Perhaps you missed this edit, or maybe not? the nazistic overtaking...the first real nazist... [11] the source listed refers to articles in the German language wikipedia. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

This is going round in circles, like every other discussion involving Darkstar. In the discussion above, six editors (myself, R-41, TFD, Orange Mike, The Hand That Feeds You and FurrySings) have all expressed support for some sort of topic ban. I therefore formally propose an indefinite topic ban for Darkstar1st on all articles and talk pages on political subjects, to include ideologies and individuals as well as parties RolandR (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as explained above. RolandR (talk)
• Support as explained above.--R-41 (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as explained above. TFD (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm familiar with Darkstar, and they are a unique editor and have some uncompleted edges, but I've seen their edits to be sound and well sourced. I have given the situation only quick read-through and it appears that the edit that they were trying to make is very well sourced (that the assertion the USSR was the first socialist state exists, not necessarily that it is determined) and actually required by the weight aspects of wp:npov. I saw some pretty wild looking arguments contrary to their proposed edits. One was that, contrary to what the sources said, that the USSR Union of Soviet and Socialist Republics was not socialist, another that prior situations were Socialist even if the sources did not call them such, but that the sources "meant' to say that they were. Those are wrong on two levels....editor debating the source, and then editing against sourcing/wp:npov. If Darkstar has any "offense" it appears that it was that they caved to the tyranny of the majority in that particular venue, not that they didn't cave quickly enough. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you believe that accepting a consensus decision means accepting a "tyranny of the majority", maybe you should discuss your theory with those who founded Wikipedia. Wikipedia is founded upon seeking consensus. Darkstar1st violated policy at WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. You are defending his motives while ignoring the manner in which he acted.--R-41 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are many flaws in what you just said, but I'll go to the main point. In this case by "tyranny of the majority" I meant folks in a particular venue "voting" to override policy. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Straw polls here on ANI are regularly used. They are not binding to enforce any action here, but they do show administrators what users want to be done. The administrator can look at these, evaluate their validity, and then take discretion on what to do.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Also, on process grounds, ANI is not the proper venue for discussing such an immense wide-ranging whack against someone. Due to it's orientation for individual incidents, it has neither the structure and timetable for proper review and as a result not the participation (in any one thread....usually just the original combatants plus or or two people that run across it at ANI and chime in) for proper review of such a weighty wide-ranging proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. His content may even be accurate (in that it is a theory widespread enough that it deserves mention). --Nouniquenames 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Are you the same user as User:Youreallycan who has commented here, but are using a different account, you both use three colours in your user names for three words following each other with no spaces.--R-41 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support at least until we get a clear undertaking that the behaviour will cease. S/he goes on, and on, and on, and on .... ----Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support: There are two types of editors taken to task at ANI: (1) "I'm very sorry; I was wrong, and I won't do it again." (2) "Here's why I'm right ..." (several hundred words later, and repeated over a dozen or two posts), followed by "Okay, okay, I'll stop, you meanies." How very many times have we seen that #2's contrition is forced, unwilling, temporary and abandoned the moment the coast is clear? No. This matter is not moot. The easiest way to ensure that this editor stays away from such topics is to declare that he is to stay away from such topics. Ravenswing 06:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As an editor who gave up editing articles Darkstar was involved with on account of his editing behaviour as exemplified above, I would support a topic ban to prevent other editors from going through that experience. Kudos to TDF and others for putting up with it for so long, and for keeping a calm head and staying rational in their interaction with this editor. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Tendentious left-right fisticuffs at such venues as Talk:Socialism and Talk:Nazism abound. All parties need to knock it the hell off, and that includes editors from both the left and the right. Wikipedia is not a political blog. It is not a venue to declare black white and up down and to enforce that with 5 to 1 votes or whatever. It is not a place for trolling. Get busy writing articles and stop "debating" on big topics, all of you — that's my opinion. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This is to do with a user repeatedly violating WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT by Darkstar1st have been identified on several articles for many months, in a RfC/U initiated by the user TFD.--R-41 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support because of his long term behavior during his long running disputes, and the responses that he gave here. FurrySings (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Moot

I commented at the RFC/U and didn't know it was duplicated here. It appears that their insertion was a well sourced minority viewpoint and a valid insertion per wp:npov even if more folks there preferred or felt that it not be in. There is a provision in the quoted-in-the-complaint guideline (which at the opening above was mis-identified as policy) which identifies and protects this. Either way since Darkstar has doubly given in on this wp;anI appears to be a moot point. RFC/U would be the only proper (and properly thorough) venue to pursue things outside of this now moot/resolved incident. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is not a response to one content dispute; it is a response to persistent tendentious editing, over several months and several articles. RolandR (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's an open RFC/U for that. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with RolandR. I said in the proposal that this is part of a long-term problem and I proposed topic bans for several topics to avoid future problems altogether. Darkstar1st ignored the basic request of the RFC/U report started by TFD, that called for Darkstar1st to accept consensus even when it disagrees with his stance, a call for him to adhere to the policy on WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, but Darkstar1st failed to adhere to WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT after being informed by TFD and others of his need to do so. Darkstar1st attempted here to avoid responsibility for WP:DISRUPT on a technicality on what constitutes "editing", that was false premise. Then Darkstar1st has begun bargaining by offering promises. Multiple users here, including myself, believe that there is little reason to trust Darkstar1st's promises given the repeated nature of the disruptive behaviour of ignoring consensus in spite of being warned by multiple users not to do this.--R-41 (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

it is not moot because the RfC/U is on going and this is not a content dispute. TFD (talk) 05:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This ANI, within its proper scope, IS about assertions of behavior in a content dispute. The RFC/U is the proper & suitable place for the wide-ranging things people are bringing up here. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's about tendentious editing, it's about refusal to accept consensus, it's about failure to hear the argument and repeating the same point ad nauseam, it's about one editor who, for more than a year, over several articles and talk pages, has wasted the time and exhausted the patience and good faith of very many other editors, who want to put a stop to this. RolandR (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My point / opinion is that ANI is unsuitable for such a wide-ranging agenda with such wide-ranging actions being sought. And that RFC/U IS suitable for such North8000 (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This does not have a "wide-ranging agenda" or "wide-ranging actions". Topic bans have been proposed for political topics in response to this user's repeated violations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Darkstar1st ignored all the material in the RFC/U by the user TFD who filed the report, that informed him that his ignoring consensus was a violation of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, after he responded to the RFC/U he proceeded doing exactly the same behaviour on Talk:Socialism.--R-41 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC user not closed

• - Please note the RFC user has now been closed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st - Youreallycan 08:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have reverted YRC's closure, since it did not meet any of the criteria for closure specified in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing RolandR (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note , I closed the RFC user after a requestfrom one of the certifiers at WP:AN - see here .. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RfC - Youreallycan 15:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

From "sincerest apologies" to serious accusations

Earlier Darkstar1st recognized that his edits caused harm and offered his "sincerest apologies" and promised not to edit the articles socialism and Nazism, specifically saying:

"i will not edit the socialism or nazism articles or talk pages, my sincerest apologies for the harm my actions have caused you and others"

Then when asked by RolandR and then me that if he accepted responsibility for what he did and the loss of patience amongst users caused by his actions, why would he not then accept topic bans as a form of insurance to guarantee that he would not do so. Then his response completely reversed from offering apologies to insinuating serious accusations. He has just said:

"now i am convinced no amount of sources making the claim would suffice, wp:weight seemingly not the deciding factor. i accept the article will never include my proposed edit, ussr was the 1st socialist state. who was the first socialist state, and why is it absent from the article on socialism? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)"

He is in other words accusing all users involved there of deliberately rejecting his proposal out of a refusal to hear him out, rather than out of criticism of what he proposed. He is also inaccurate when he says here that his proposal was to say that the USSR was the first socialist state, his proposal specifically said the first "socialist society". His proposal was unanimously rejected and his use of the sources he chose was criticized by multiple users.

He has gone from offering apologies to launching accusations against all the users in that discussion who had unanimously rejected his proposal. Should the users involved in the discussion be informed of this serious accusation by Darkstar1st and asked to respond?--R-41 (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal: Ubikwit and Evildoer187

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

---

In the course of my administrator duties I have noticed Ubikwit and Evildoer187 are incapable of interacting with each other in a civil and constructive manner. This unfortunately is ending up being quite disruptive, and the two of them are (inadvertently) wasting the time of other users. Below I summarise the key points.

• Reviwing the mainspace edits of Ubikwit and Evildoer187 reveals the single-purpose nature of their accounts.
• The overall contributions of both accounts (Ubikwit, Evildoer187) shows that a great deal of their edits concern the other user.
• The two of them are incapable of being civil to each other. For instance, I only needed to go one edit back for Ubikwit to find an edit of Ubikwit accusing Evildoer of POV pushing, and similarly to earlier this evening to find a similar case of Evildoer accusing Ubikwit of POV pushing. Other examples include accusations of canvassing.
• The two of them edit war with each other across different articles, frequently stating "see talk" and then arguing with each other on the talk page. Then (sometimes) stop when I warn them not to edit war , although this frequently results in them telling me it's the other one that's edit warring, not them.

There are numerous examples of the two users being unable to interact constructively with each other, but they are too numerous to collate and list here. For those interested, I suggest reading the extensive discussions on my talk page and on the talk page of the users. Personally I think that both of them should just be indefblocked as they have their own interests, and not the interests of Wikipedia, behind them, but typically other administrators prefer a more measured approach.

I propose that the two users are hereby banned from interacting with each other as per the terms in the banning policy. Any violation of this will lead to them being blocked for a duration at the discretion of the blocking administrator. Please discuss this below.

Discussion

• Support as proposer, naturally. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Both users notified of this discussion [12] [13]. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• It just so happens that there's now more evidence of the problem I have documented in the section directly below this one. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 04:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support (edit conflict)x2 My principle tells me that a interaction ban will only see both users (or one of them) blocked soon, which is sad. Although, I believe that if Deskana wasn't able to solve this issue (and after watching one of the parties reporting the other one after being noticed of this thread) this is the best method to try out. The links above are proof enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support the interactions of this pair of users does not seem to build the pedia. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm not opposed to indef-blocking the editors, but I think an IBAN is worth a try first.
  Other pages worth looking at for more examples of the inability of the two editors to work constructively include List of indigenous peoples and its Talk page and my own Talk page (partially archived at User talk:Malik Shabazz/Archive 33). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support although I think the problems with both users go beyond their interactions with each other. Mathsci (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. However, I don't know what else to try short of an indefblock. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support An IBAN would be the last option before an indef block for both parties, in my opinion. Their level of mutual hostility is great. The page at List of indigenous peoples was fully protected on 10 December in part due to a dispute between these two. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187. Since that moment the dispute continues to rage at Talk:List of indigenous peoples, with both parties requesting aid several times at User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 28 and complaining about the other. EdJohnston (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support-I think this could solve some problems--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I would also support an ARBPIA topicban for both.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment - I can not see supporting an interaction ban unless it is explicitly tied to a discretionary topic ban (broadly construed) for both. I am not for or against either editor but acknowledge their interactions consume enormous resources in efforts to mediate. --My76Strat (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the interaction ban alone is unlikely to be effective without a concurrent topicban.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support 2-way interaction ban and, per Maunus, ARBPIA topic ban. The extensive List of indigenous peoples debate, in which many editors were involved, derailed the actual consideration of the topic of that article towards an extremely tangential issue. I think both editors have the ability to add good content but their current interaction is unproductive. I would hope that this is not a step towards an indef-block for either editor.FiachraByrne (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment It's clear these two editors should stop interacting with each other, but if the goal really is to maximize productivity it would require an IBAN plus an ARBPIA topic ban for both. Because of the SPA nature of both editors, the danger of them brushing up against each other in the ARBPIA area is very high. I'd suggest a year-long two-way interaction ban concurrent with an ARBPIA topic ban for both. Experience with productive editing in other areas is needed. I don't support only a two-way IBAN as one or both editors will end up ARBCOM or AE or some such before long, and possibly several times, consuming those limited resources, before the otherwise inevitable. Zad68 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zad68's proposal; let the below discussion serve as prima facie evidence that these editors simply cannot edit in a constructive fashion with each other.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - think topic ban good idea as well. As seen below the relationship between these 2 is not salvageable. Can also see below how any criticism of there behavior or critique of there interpretation of references leads to name calling and labeling.Moxy (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic bans. Waste of time for everybody else. Every time Deskana or somebody else warns them about their interaction on one article, they pick right back up on another. The latest is Colonialism. Until both can learn to edit constructively by adhering to our content policies, the rest of us shouldnt have to spend the time dealing with this noise. nableezy - 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Ubikwit and Evildoer187

Uninvolved administrators considering the merits of this case should consult the corresponding content dispute resolution request and other information presented in the case below, which I had been preparing before deskana filed this case against me. In fact, deskana filed this case against me in relation to discussions on Malik's Talk page, as per this diff, in relation to editing at Colonialism I have provided the wikilink to the relevant section in the WP:TPG filing.

In addition to the above, as I have taken several measures aimed at remedying the situation, you should consider the following arbitration case I filed against deskana with respect to an SPI case reference in the following ArbCom case (withdrawn)[14]. It is not at all the case that I haven't made an effort to be constructive in dealing with the conduct of Evildoer. In the SPI case, for example, I presented the following diffs in which he accused me of "spreading crass anitsemitic conspiracy theories", against which he received not even warnings from administrators.: [15], [16], [17], [18]

In addition, another demonstration that I have been constructively engaged in "building the pedia" even on articles n which Evildoer187 is also active is demonstrated by the consensus building in relation to an edit on the Settler colonialism article in which the reliability of a source was called into question Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.--Ubikwit (talk) 05:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "single-purpose account" I should point out that though deskana has again accused me of being a single-purpose account, My current focus is in fact Japanese history and religions, and I've found my way onto these pages because of what I have encountered first on pages dealing with Japan-related issues. The fact that there is a common thread running through some of the articles—false assertions/claims of descent from Ten Lost Tribes--does not make me a single-purpose account, and I have already made that clear in no uncertain terms. One need only look at the early edits I made after registering an account. Emperor Komei [19] [20] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hata_clan&diff=prev&oldid=456842213 [21] [22]

I have already indicated to deskana that I am a graduate of a top tier university with a degree in interdisciplinary social sciences and work as a professional translator dealing primarily with documents in the IP field. None of the articles on which I have been working fall outside the purview of my professional competence. I would suggest referring to my interactions at Talk:Jerusalem, where the editors have a generally higher level of sophistication with respect to the social sciences.

I have opened a content dispute resolution request for one article and made use of the procedural dispute resolution mechanisms in an effort to resolve related content disputes for related articles in accordance with relevant policies. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: AE case against Evildoer187

Note that in the above-mentioned administrative case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127#Evildoer187), which was presided over by EdJohnston, Evildoer187 repeats the accusation of spreading antisemetic conspiracy theories, and EdJonston doesn't even make a comment regarding that personal attack. In retrospect (now that I have studied WP:NPA), that would seem to represent an oversight on EdJohnston's part as an administrator adjudicating a conduct related case.

Let me rephrase that, EdJohnston was adjudicating the above-mentioned case when Evildoer187 leveled a personal against me in the course of the case, and EdJohnston didn't redress Evildoer187 for making that personal attack.

That may have contributed to the creation of an environment in which Evildoer187 thought it was permissible to carry out personal attacks with abandon (at least without sanction). EdJohnston didn't even mention WP:NPA to Evildoer187, simply closing that case by providing ARBPIA sanctions notices.--Ubikwit (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@Shrike Please elaborate what you mean by "problems"? I will have to point out here that you and I have also had content related disputes, but have been able to work them out in a manner that has not been the case with Evildoer. In fact, just today, I agreed, per your request, to wait until a discussion at Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source was archived before carrying out an edit related to the restoration of material which you deleted and which you now are in consensus was from a reliable source after I obtained a third opinion through the RSN. I gather that your intent is not to circumvent that edit by having me blocked from editing that article, correct? Therefore, I'd be interested in hearing about the "problems" to which you are referring.

Here are relevant diffs to the discussion. reply on the RSN page [23]

That article is also an article on which Evildoer187 has been editing in a somewhat disruptive manner, posting a list of sources with attributing content in manner such as to render that section not in compliance with WP:NPOV with respect to

representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources

--Ubikwit (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz on "antisemite" personal attacks, and relevant interactions with Evildoer187 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Baseball_Bugs strong comment from Malik on “anti-Semite” personal attacks

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#We_could_use_some_help Evildoer187 accuses me of having “repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories”

User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_33#On_second_thought Malik warning about accusing me of “approving of the Protocols—that is, of being anti-Semites”

In light of the foregoing, I find Malik's hostile disposition toward me here to be somewhat incongruent, perhaps even biased. --Ubikwit (talk) 08:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the entire text of one message left by Evildoer187 on Malik Shabazz's Talk page should be displayed here, with emphasis (mine).

I don't believe that my opinion is absolute. Rather, I hate racism, especially antisemitism, and I would go to the ends of the Earth to protect the rights and dignity of my people. Anyway, the reason I linked you to this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples) is because there is a clearly malicious user in there who is determined to get Palestinians included on the list and Jews excluded. He has repeatedly indulged in classic Protocols style antisemitic conspiracy theories, and even went as far as to call me a Mossad agent. In short, people like him are the reason I joined Wikipedia, to stand steadfastly in the way of their attempts to manipulate it in their favor. I have tried everything to get him to stop, but no matter what I do, he just keeps going. I just don't know what to do.Evildoer187 (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There are two clear personal attacks in that message, and I leave it to you to assess whether Malik's response as an administrator was sufficiently stern (Malik never addresses the "malicious" remark and doesn't even criticize the "antisemite" attack Evildoer187 calls Nableezy and anti-Zionist, four days later).--Ubikwit (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

deskana on WP:Canvassing

Maybe I still don't have a good grasp of the above-mentioned policy, but deskana deleted the following discussion from his Talk page earlier today, with the edit summary, "Nobody gets to argue on my talk page". In the discussion, Moxy appears to be lobbying deskana for sanctions against me for warning an editor against hacking the archive periods of the Talk pages for the List article and the Jerusalem article.

Moxy Canvassing deskana?

Neither Moxy nor Tritomex has responded to the content dispute resolution request, which I should perhaps have filed here with respect to their conduct in the first place.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that furthermore, as someone that is likely at least ten years older than deskana and Malik, and as I've mentioned before, educated and a responsible adult with a family, I find the following patronizing comment to be unwarranted--insofar as it is directed toward me--and insulting

They just like reverting each other and accusing each other of things. I'd personally prefer to just block them both, but an interaction ban would be a first step more people would be happy with I suppose. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 03:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that some Wikipedia administrators have issues dealing with their responsibilities in a responsible manner.--Ubikwit (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you really just imply that I'm uneducated and irresponsible? You're doing a very good job of badly representing your position here by making it personal. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did I imply that you were uneducated? To the other charge, one could reply that it was you made it personal by making an attack on my character or mental health, which is equivalent to a personal attack according to policy. --Ubikwit (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I should clarify that by asking if you really think I enjoy arguing with the self-proclaimed Zionist zealot Evildoer187 who is here on Wikipedia to carry out a personal crusade against phantom Anti-Semites?--Ubikwit (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the IBAN initiative. I am tired of arguing with this guy.Evildoer187 (talk) 09:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was mentioned here by Ubikwit without being notified I believe I have to address this subject. I have a problem with Ubikwit comments which relates to an entire ethnic group, namely Jews as engaged in continues attempt to " physically disposes through illegal occupation by settlers actual holders of the rights to lands in question" 1.[24]

Ubikwit commented "This is not a place for religious references. The Torah is irrelevant, as are all other religious sources. The term Palestine dates to the 5th century BC according to the Wikipedia article Palestinian people. Harry Truman was a Christian biblical literalist who also happened to be a Freemason and close acquaintance of Zionist activist Chaim Weizman, which many associate with the Knight Templar, who rose to prominence through the Crusades to the so-called Holy Land. The Crusaders thought that they had a claim to "land rights", based on religion--Christianity. Your assertions are all either misdirected and irrelevant, or simply incorrect. The questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. This kind of stereotypes where an entire nation (in this subject Jews) are described with such pejoratives are unacceptable by Wikipedia guidelines.--Tritomex (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Although I have nothing personal against Tritomex, and would imagine that he is an accomplished geneticist, he would appear to be motivated by emotional proclivities associated with his religious affiliation, calling into question his competence to be working on articles in the socio-political sphere where issues even tangentially connected to that affiliation are at stake.

The context of the above-quoted passage can be found here Talk:List_of_indigenous_peoples#Israelis_and_Palestinian. I basically draw an analogy between the Crusades and modern settler colonialism in Palestine in conjunction with a second analogy between the Knights Templar and the Freemasons, of which Harry Truman was one of the most prominent in the USA in the 20th century. Chaim Weizmann was one of the individuals involved with drafting the Balfour declaration, and is reported to have been a key figure in influencing Truman to recognize a "Jewish state" of Israel over and against the recommendations of his Secretary of State, George Marshall. It is one of the most scandalous affairs in the diplomatic history of the USA in the 20th century.

I provided some relevant references relating to those analogies in a subsequent section

For the record, here are three relevant references to Harry Truman, Chaim Weizmann and the Balfour declaration:

• A Peace to End All Peace, 20th Anniversary Edition: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin
• Counsel to the President by Richard Holbrooke
• Friends in High Places: The Rise and Fall of Clark Clifford by Douglas Frantz and Daivd McKean

The last two books on the list are about Clark Clifford, Trumans counsel. The wikipeedia page on him contains the following quote:

In his role as presidential advisor, perhaps his most significant contribution was his successful advocacy, along with David Niles, of prompt 1948 recognition of the new state of Israel, over the strong objections of Secretary of State, General George Marshall.

Regarding serious scholarship (i.e., RS) on the Templars, there is this book published by Cambridge[25]

Since I am somewhat new here, I see that it was unwise to introduce my personal research in this context, but response was nothing less than reactionary. And the response on the part of the voluntary administrators to that reactionary outburst--including accusations of "spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories"--was totally unacceptable in light of Wikipedia policy.

Tritomex further attacks me for basically representing the position of the UN with respect to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. --Ubikwit (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

@FiachraByrne and Maunus

First of all, there has been no mention of the Indigenous peoples article in this discussion. That discussion involved Maunus and myself, and Crock81, who was apparently working in tangent with Evildoer187 on the List page in a manner such as to undermine the RfC consensus-based definition in vigor for the articles, despite the disparity indicated by the italicized blurb preceding the lead of the Indigenous peoples article. Maunus at first didn't even appreciate the gravity of the situation until I cued him into a diatribe Crock81 had posted on an administrators Talk page User_talk:EdJohnston/Archive_28#I_have_a_concern. The following is the final sentence from Maunus' comment.

Crock81 is clearly trying to make the topic wide enough for him to shoehorn in Israelis as a part of it in spite of the fact that this is completely unheard of in the literature. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's get our facts straight, shall we? No offence intended.

Please refer to the following Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ubikwit.

Maunus had initiated an RfC on the List page to prevent discussion of the Palestinian issue as too politicized and controversial; however, there are current UN publications addressing the matter, and in light of the current geopolitical tensions surrounding the settler colonization of the so-called "E-1 Zone" by Israel, that situation is likely to have an increasingly high profile seeing the issuance of further official publications from the UN. So Wikipedia wants to shy away from it because it's politicized and controversial? Perhaps Maunus took offence at my initiating an RfC aimed at having the Palestinians included on the basis of at least tacit recognition vis-a-vis official UN publications.

I'm not sure about Maunus' rationale for advocating an "ARBPIA topic ban", but perhaps he'd care to venture an elaboration, so that I might have a chance to refute it.

While it is clear that you are all busy--as am I--and as I don't want to consume all of Wikipedia's mediation resources, I'll refrain myself from further response for the moment. --Ubikwit (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I corrected my Support statement above so that it now refers to the page Talk:List of indigenous peoples rather than the article Indigenous peoples.

In regard to the RFC/U which Evildoer initiated against you,[26] my statement there was highly coloured by Crock81's arguments at Talk:List of indigenous peoples which I regarded as specious in seeking to redefine subject of that list. I thought your subsequent attempt to have the Palestinian population considered an indigenous people on the basis of "tacit UN recognition" was misconceived. FiachraByrne (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not insult me in this thread by calling me things like "Zionist zealot". Thank you.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No offence intended, but I think that is fairly close to how you have presented yourself here at times.--Ubikwit (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And you have presented yourself as an anti-Zionist zealot. Probably not too far off the mark.Evildoer187 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not support the topic ban. I feel that I am more than capable of working with other editors, provided that they are reasonable, on these topics. Moreover, my principle interest lies in topics pertaining to Jews, Israel, and the Middle East. I think once this separation is in place and everything has calmed down, I will be able to work rationally.Evildoer187 (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• You asked for my rationale for suggesting a topicban, and here it is: You are both clearly editors pursuing a biased agenda in relation to Israel/Palestine, and you are both clearly doing it in a way that is disruptive and litigious, and which drains resources from the community. It will be easier to achieve a neutral coverage of articles related to Israel and Palestine if both of you are not participating. Wikipedia needs editors who are primarily interested in building an encyclopedia, not editors who are primarily interested in advocating particular viewpoints or in righting great wrongs. The good thing about a topic ban is that it gives you a chance to show whether you are here for improving an encyclopedia, or whether you are here for political advocacy. If it is the former you can simply proceed to improve the many other parts of wikipedia that are not related to Israel or Palestine. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus, thank for your reply.

I think that I've shown that I can edit productively on several pages, all of which are somewhat difficult because they relate to religion and politics. I collaborated with a couple of other experienced editors in straightening out the lead of the British Israelism article, for example, also brushing up against advocates. After that I read a book encountered as a source on the BI article to follow through with expanding the lead on the Lost Ten Tribes article, as well as the Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory article. I have approached that editing in a methodical, scholarly manner. And I have several other history books lined up in relation to the BI article.

Regarding the I/P conflict, what specifically is "biased" in my view? As I've said before here, there is an important distinction to be made between having a rational POV that is supported by RS and pushing an irrational agenda that is not supported by RS.

I've been working fairly hard on the lead to the Jerusalem article, in the preliminary discussions toward a binding RfC. The editors there generally have a higher degree of sophistication in academic disciplines of history, political science, etc., and the discussion are less acrimonious, though not exactly harmonic.

The Jerusalem issues fall squarely within the socio-political, so geneticists like Tritomex and Moxy are less active in advocating on that article talk page. Moxy accuses me of disagreeing with his interpretation of the sources on the List page while he has consistently been evasive in even offering an interpretation or address the facts presented in RS. I find his appearance on the comment list above while neglecting to respond to the content dispute I filed several days ago to be indicative of a bit of gamesmanship related to gaming the system.

My personal views on the I/P conflict are in accord with the majority POV of the international community, and I have supported that view with RS, some official publications of the UN or hosted on the UN website. In fact, Dailycare also presented UN sources on the List page by in response to the RfC, and those RS were not addressed in terms of the facts presented (being discounted arbitrarily for publication date, etc.). moreover, an official UN source was deleted by Shrike diif on the Settler colonialism article as per discussion under the following section of the Talk page Talk:Settler_colonialism#Removal_of_official_UN_source.

Editors like Evildoer187 and Shrike are not only attacking my, but the majority POV of the international community and the UN. And that is precisely what is at stake on the Jerusalem article, which is why I have been focusing on that. If they succeed in deprecating the the majority POV of the international community and the UN, then Wikipedia serves as no more than organ advocating their minority POV.

In discussions where religion is at issue, attacks on reason are fairly common, because the adherents of a religion want to believe in its teachings, not question them. The converse has also been demonstrated to be true here. That is to say, when an RS representing the majority POV of the international community and UN challenges the minority POV held by the group of pro-Israel partisans (whom I assume are co-religionists), they refuse to address the facts presented in the sources, or they attempt to deprecate the sources. In other words, they react in an irrational manner. Evildoer187 just happens to be the most extroverted activist among that group of partisan editors, who could be referred to as an affinity group in sociological terms.

The time I've spent here has seen a lack of administrator oversight in pointing out conduct issues (WP:NPA) in response to irrational and reactionary behavior on the part of one of that affinity group of co-religionists in the form of accusing other editors of being Anti-Semitic.

Had EdJohnston redressed Evildoer187 during the initial AE, then we might not be here on this page today. Malik Shabazz also missed opportunities to correct that behavior, basically giving him further license to violate WP:NPA at will, inadvertently adding a degree of support to his attempts to push edits without presented sources to support them because his irrational Anti-Semite labeling behavior was not being checked by more than one administrator. --Ubikwit (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on distorting what actually took place. I'd go more in depth, but I am not interested in starting yet another long and protracted battle with you.Evildoer187 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal to ban User:Craddock1 from further comment on the Amirite AfD

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

---

Craddock1 (talk · contribs) created the Amirite article on December 7th. Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) nominated it for deletion on the 28th. Since then, Craddock1 has edited the AfD page 73 times. This has included numerous attempts to discredit those who've !voted to delete (e.g. here), and the AfD has now basically devolved into an illegible mess of poorly-formatted text, more of it off-topic than on-. I removed some of the nastiness about other editors, only for Craddock to re-add them with another criticism in his edit summary; even after he failed to respond to my request that he explain himself, I was prepared to let all this slide, until I saw that he'd removed another user's comments himself, citing a reason that applies much more to his own points than to PeterWesco (talk · contribs)'s. Anyways, Craddock has clearly had a chance to make his case - indeed, he's made it many times over; combining the lack of a need for future comment with his history of disruptive editing on this page, I propose that he be topic-banned from further comment. Additionally, if the AfD is closed as "keep" or "no consensus", I propose that the ban be extended to any future AfDs on Amirite. It's worth noting that there are two SPIs pending against him (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Craddock1 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meanie), and that he's received a level-4 warning for removing comments, and it's quite possible that either of those might get him blocked before this proposal runs its course; however, I don't think the possibility of alternate sanctions should stop us from implementing the one I propose here, and I also note that both SPIs are in states of disrepair.

Incidentally, I consider myself wholly neutral in this case: My only involvement has been from a procedural perspective, and the AfD is such a mess that I haven't even formed an opinion yet on whether or not I support deletion. Perennial AN/I watchers may also recall that I have a well-documented history with one of the users whom Craddock has extensively criticized, so I think it should be fairly clear that my personal views do not come into play in this proposal. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I started off initially as a keep (based primarily on AfC creation), but on looking at the article further, concluded that the subject was not notable and changed to delete. From the very beginning, I also noted that Craddock1 went after the nominator and others who opposed retention of the article. This is classic WP:BATTLEFIELD behavior, and that, together with the existing SPIs, warrant an article (well, AfD ban for this article) ban. His position is clear, and it is hard to follow the legitimate arguments for or against deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 05:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, endorse block based on this comment "Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate." from Craddock1's statement above is exactly the type of conduct that is unacceptable, and has filled the AfD discussion instead of dealing with the merits of the matter. GregJackP Boomer! 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - At this point, it is probably wise to ban him as he has run out of arguments and has gone into discredit/personal attacks mode. He has had many chances to defend his statements, the sources, and he continues to go into circles. I believe Craddock to NOT be Meanie but somehow associated in WP:SPIP, WP:PAID, etc. This is a topic for the SPI, but I just wanted to make clear that I do not believe Meanie and Craddock to be the same person. PeterWesco (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and propose an immediate block - based solely on the rants posted below. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And we can add attempted outing to the reasons for an immediate block (this will need a revdel) AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it was not outing, as A.Wiggin13 had 2 userboxes which linked to sites disclosing personal details, including his age. They have been rev-delled by Avraham at my request. Mathsci (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support ban and Endorse block — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and one month block while the editor grows some manners indef block. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just gonna hat this. Everyone reading through this mess has enough poorly-formatted, irrelevant, uncivil text to read through. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 08:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Firstly I don't think a 16 year old, depressed (as mentioned in their Bio) child should be deciding my fate. I thought I read somewhere that this was only for 18 years and above. I would like to apologize if my behavior has been out of bounds at times. As you all know I am new to Wikipedia and so didn't fully know the rules. I have spent a good deal of time reading them now and understand them fully. I promise I won't do anything against the rules again. I do of course understand if it is too late for me to show you that I am sorry. I didn't see any level 4 warning but if I had I would have responded. I propose that if I do one more thing wrong then you can block me. I don't see anything wrong in making 74 edits since firstly I created the article and have only edited to make the article better and have spent at least 12 hours editing the aritcle. Some articles have edits thousands of times. The comment I made about PeterWesco (who will no doubt vote in support of this) was because the fact that he was banned will highlight his behavior and why he is acting the way he is. The fact that I am new and don't know how to format properly isn't really a valid reason for me to be blocked. I have explained the James account but no-one seems to read what I write. Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Craddock1 06:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Furthermore I am still researching high level resources for the Article and so this banning is a blatent attempt to get the article removed because these users have probably also been banned form the site and so have a 'grudge' against the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Craddock1, that was borderline on a personal attack. Please read This Thanks! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems coincidental how you are French too and share the same sexuality as Francophone and also under 16 Hidden by A_Wiggin13 - I would like to speak to someone over the phone who is over 21 and not involved in this case - I will also be reporting this conflict of interest to the governance committee Craddock1 06:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

(edit conflict) I don't decide your fate. The community decides your fate. I think that's a much more reasonable restriction than any one based on age or mental health. As for blocking you "if [you] do one more thing wrong", that's the type of overreaction that I've proposed this to avoid: To be clear, if this proposal is accepted, you will not be blocked; you will simply be ordered to not comment on this AfD, nor any future one on this article, though any violations would be enforced by block. See also WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Furthermore, a topic ban is no guarantee that your article will be deleted - as I noted, I'm indifferent, and you've already made your point as thoroughly as you ever could. In fact, the easiest way for you to avoid this sanction would be for you to simply agree to not comment any more on the AfD. Anyways, I hope your next comment here will be a bit less ad hominem, especially considering that this is the type of behavior that caused me to propose this. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do NOT place links about my personal areas thank you Craddock1! A Wiggin13 (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've indef blocked Craddoc1 for disruption, trolling, personal attacks, etc. Reading through the above and the AFD, I'm surprised it hadn't been done already. Enough is enough. postdlf (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

For some reason I've been in a very generous mood today, leading me to try to help Craddock get himself unblocked. Discussion to this end is located at User talk:Craddock1#My 2 cents. The wall I've come up against is that to have any realistic chance, he needs to find a mentor. It would, obviously, be quite an undertaking - ranging from interaction policies to content guidelines to minor things like indenting and not putting '''Comment''' before every comment. I'm firmly against applying the OFFER to first offenses, provided the account in question doesn't prove to be a sockpuppet, and I don't think waiting six months would change anything if no one shows him the ropes. Despite all of the policies he violated, even to the point that he became the first editor whom I felt seriously tempted to curse out, I honestly believe that he's editing in good faith. So, would any editor feel willing to agree to mentor him? The first step would be to finish my work of helping him compose a successful unblock request, citing the mentorship agreement as the prime safeguard against recurring trouble.

Also, if no one here is willing to help, could somebody please point me in the best direction to find someone who would be? WP:WER comes to mind, but this is one area in which I'm pretty much clueless. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe people were working on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user late last year, to get it up to code. Check that out, perhaps? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Franco&Andro, I would take a stab at mentoring him, but I am, too new at this myself and too hotheaded for that line of work. I suggest finding a user who is well noted for diplomacy for this little task. A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If no one else can be found, I would be willing to give it a shot...never done it before, but I have an adoption program (located here, if you want to take a gander). I have no experience in anything but general new user adoption, but I would be willing to give it a shot with a user coming off a ban. Let me know. Thanks. Go Phightins! 21:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please, Go Phightins, you're our only hope! I don't think anyone else is going to step up to the plate (and I can't blame them), so I say do all of the necessary reading, and if you're still up to it, tell him you're willing to mentor him, and to endorse unblocking conditional on his strict compliance with rules you set. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

All right, I posted something on his talk page? Does anyone object to me volunteering to do this considering my lack of experience? I read WP:MENTOR and have adopted several users, but am not experienced in this type of mentorship. I'm willing to take it and learn along the way, but if someone else out there (hint hint Ryan Vesey) is interested, I would be more than happy to step back and let them do it. Go Phightins! 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

AfDs added by a sockpuppet

Caalp (talk · contribs), one of the many sockpuppets of Mangoeater1000 (talk · contribs), has created the following articles for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronco Pep Band
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bronco Student Center
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cal Poly Pomona Broncos men's basketball

I am not addressing the merits of any of these AfDs, but since they were created by a serial sockpuppeteer who has an axe to grind against certain editors that have edited Cal Poly Pomona articles, can an admin remove or close these out?

Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Closed all as speedily kept. If a user who isn't a sock wants to start an AfD about them, their business. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe in the last discussion, we agreed that any bad faith AfD with no comments could even have the AfD page be speedy deleted (and some were), those with any other comments from non-sockpuppets were kept. Don't hold me to that though. gwickwire^talk_edits 15:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. See WT:CSD#G5, initiated in response my G5-tagging on the Cal Poly Pomona Broncos men's basketball AfD the first time Mangoeater created it. While speedy-keeping does pretty much the same thing, there's a case to be made that someone should still delete these three, per WP:DENY, and since, were the article ever to be nominated again, it would be listed as "2nd nomination", giving the implication that there was a previous in-process AfD. I can just imagine, five speedy keeps down the road, someone nominating with a rationale along the lines of "I see this article has been nominated five times, and in every case speedily kept on the flimsy rationale that the user was later found to be a sockpuppet. I think, however that the reviewing admin failed to consider"... blah blah blah, Randy-enabling bullshit. If that argument doesn't persuade you, Mangoeater's been disruptive enough that I think we should do anything in our power to crush his will, lest he think he's one even the slightest of victories. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 16:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunatly these, sensu stricto, can't be G5'd, as Mangoeater1000 is not banned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe G5 is worded so that it can be applied to block evasion as well: The tag is "Creations by banned or blocked users". Furthermore, I think the fact that we're discussing this here without anyone even coming close to suggesting that Mangoeater could be in the right, and in light the numerous unblock requests he's filed through multiple accounts, IMHO I don't think it'd be that much of a stretch to consider him de facto banned; but either way I think it's pretty clear that G5 can be applied to blocked users' socks. That said, while we're on the topic, what would others who've been following this think of submitting a formal community ban proposal, just to tidy this all up? He always seems to think that others will listen to him, so maybe seeing the massive consensus a ban would receive would (speaking optimistically, of course) make him realize that he's never going to accomplish whatever odd college-promotion-based goals he has. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support a ban. Over 50 confirmed sockpuppets, harassment of other editors, promotional edits of his school . . . all this, with no sense of remorse, means that Wikipedia would be better off without him. 72Dino (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you write the proposal, I'll gladly support it. I've only been involved in the behavioral side of things, not the content side, so I don't feel familiar enough with the case to write a proposal myself. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've never done a ban proposal before so it may take me some time. Can you provide me a link to a page that can help me with the process? Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And he's back as Wicaretaker (talk · contribs). 72Dino (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah,  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 00:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple Civility Issues relating to RFC on Article Talk page- Unsure How to Approach

Further information: Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 116 § Removing Long-Term Unsourced Material is Edit Warring?

I'm not notifying anyone at this time because I'm not sure whether this is an issue where Admins should get involved and I have no idea who I could talk to in order to determine whether or not they should short of coming here. I was hoping this problem would remain an "irritation" to me rather than something that I felt necessitated intervention, but...well, here we are.

I recently opened an RFC at an article's Talk page and I feel that multiple users have engaged in personal attacks rather than focusing on the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of arguments being made. If I wasn't an involved editor and frequent target (i.e. if other editors were being targeted) it's the kind of thing where I hope I'd likely warn the editors to knock it off, but under the circumstances I suspect that would only aggravate the problem.

I'm well-aware of the requirement to notify users if they're the topic of a discussion, but I don't know how that would be handled in this case; i.e. whether it's sufficient to leave some sort of notice at the Talk page of the RFC or whether it's necessary to notify each user individually (and at this point there are a significant number). Ideally I'd like to just have admins look over the discussion and take whatever actions they deem necessary...even if that's telling me that I'm out of bounds and should drop the matter.

In other words, I guess I'm basically asking whether it's prudent to provide more information, notify users in whatever manner you would recommend doing so and get this hopefully taken care of, or whether this is a case where I should just try to keep the high ground and hope it blows over.

Thank you very much for your time, advice, and assistance. Doniago (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Synchronous motor#Proposal B, if anyone is wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Quite the cesspool attacking an editor who actually believes that "verifiability" stuff. I've removed some of the more egregious personal attacks. NE Ent 03:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've restored them. It's time to take the encyclopedia back from clueless editors who hide behind tags and simplistic dogma, and "civil" editors who stifle any debate of this. This is an encylopedia and it is built of content. If you're not contributing to that content, you're not building it. If you're destroying that content, you're destroying the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And yes, clueless. The root of this specific instance here is that Doniago is self-confessedly ignorant of anything to do with the article subject, sees no reason to do a modicum of basic research before commencing, yet sees neither of these as any brake on his blanking of the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
      • There is no problem at Synchronous motor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (apart from the fact that some minor work by editors who understand the topic would be desirable). There was some confusion on the talk page where some editors gave the standard commentary that would be applied to a WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP issue (namely, contentious material must be removed until it satisfies WP:DUE and WP:RS)—however those comments are not applicable to the article in question where everyone agrees the text in the article is fine (although a little essay-like in some parts). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Your error is threefold:
  1. Assuming that you have the high ground in the first place. You do not.
  2. Not following verifiability procedure. The correct procedure, that was in our verifiability and deletion policies in the same step-by-step fashion for some years can be found at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. What you did, on the other hand, was laziness.
  3. Making the usual "People are telling me that I'm doing things wrong, so they must be personally attacking me." leap. The only thing that has come close to personal attacks has been someone foolishly throwing around the "dirty -istas" epithets, which have never improved a discussion, which I have been explaining for some years as having no basis in either history or analysis, but which you'll find almost no-one here will treat as personal attacks (because that would involve uprooting quite a lot of entrenched nonsense that people want to hang on to, because they don't realize that they were jokes, such as m:deletionism and m:inclusionism).
• You removed content that said that a motor comprised a rotor, stator, stator housing, and slip ring for being "without sources". Content is removed for being unverifiable. That's not the same as not having little superscripted numbers. As User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow explains, verifiability is the ability for readers to check Wikipedia content for accuracy. It's in the name. The correct approach to verifiability, and improving verifiability, is to attempt that check, and make the check possible for others if one's own attempt fails. If it turns out that one cannot make that possible, then is the point that one deduces unverifiability.

  Moreover, inability to make it possible here does not include mere inability to understand the subject on your own part. In any case: Knowing that motors have rotors, stators, housings, rings, and other parts is something that a ten-year-old with a build-your-own kit knows. Even I know it. It's outright stupid and destructive to remove such information from an article for supposedly being unverifiable. As was pointed out, there's scant difference in action and in effect between such an edit and the edits of section-blanking vandals.

  And it's lazy to then say that it's Somebody Else's Problem to deal with fixing the damage and not lift a finger yourself. Remember: When you say that "nobody cares to do the work" you are including yourself. If everyone around you is lazy and not working on improving the article, as is so often asserted by people in your position, then so are you. It's also seen as arrogant, because others perceive it as your setting the agenda for them, demanding that they work to it, without doing any share of the work yourself, and threatening that you will kick over the sandcastles if your demands that other people do work that you should be doing yourself are not met by your arbitrary deadlines. You are not apart from the other people whom you decry and demand should be working for you.

  This is why a lot of people are telling you that you are not putting verifiability and editing policy into practice, that your approach to editing is destructive, entirely uncollaborative, to the detriment of articles, and borderline indistinguishable from the section-blanking vandals in its practice. But since one person leapt to the "dirty -istas" epithets, you're ignoring the several editors on article talk pages and on noticeboards who have all told you how to put verifiability into practice properly, and concentrating on that one. It's the old they-told-me-I'm-wrong-so-I'm-calling-it-uncivil rubbish with an assist from one over-the-top fool. That one person used the "dirty -istas" is no excuse for ignoring the many people who have told you to pull your finger out, do what editing policy, verifiability policy, and deletion policy have always required from their very first versions — even though we mistakenly removed from policy the concrete step-by-step instructions showing how to properly go about it, leaving just the goal: an error that has caused a lot of grief since from the actions of people who couldn't figure out for themselves what steps to take — and not just sit on the sidelines doing nothing except demanding that other volunteers like you jump when you shout "frog!".

  Uncle G (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  • *applause* Nice. Puts me in mind of this edit claiming that a source was needed to claim positrons were involved in positron emission tomography... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy is fairly clear: "All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." NE Ent 13:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• They key word in that quotation is "verifiability". The content was removed for being unsourced, not unverifiable, and those are two very different things - it blatantly is verifiable. There are also riders on the second sentence, in that there is some content that does not need a source. It is plainly destructive to insist that unsourced material should be removed, even if it is blatantly accurate and can be easily sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I think "fairly" clear is about as far as it goes. The policy is not absolute, it's not mandatory. It's permissive. As such, the policy necessarily assumes the exercise of sound discretion and judgment on the part of editors applying it -- both of which have been lacking in the reflexive challenges and excisions at issue here. The policy cannot mean literally for example that any fact nominally challenged by any editor, without any articulable reason, is properly removed if thereafter no citation is provided. That's a recipe for mischief. It's also important that the policy says that the challenged material "may" be removed, rather than "must" be. Automatic, unthinking removal of content purely because it lacks a citation entails no judgment and is not consistent with the premises underlying the policy even if the removal is permitted by the policy's literal terms. JohnInDC (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• No, NE Ent, you clearly don't understand how to put policy into practice, either. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and that means helping to improve articles, not sitting around claiming that the burden is on everyone else and that one's own responsibility is only to kick over the sandcastles and set arbitrary deadlines for volunteers. This is basic collaborative-writing stuff that's been in content and editing policy for a decade. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Wikipedia can be destroyed by being full of crap just as easily as it can be by "destroying content." Here's more from our alleged verifiability policy:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material. Emphasis original NE Ent 16:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as the removed material -- rather than going on and on about how bad Donaigo is, why couldn't one of the editors actually spend 30 seconds googling a source (e.g. [27]) and just add it to the article? That would meet the requirements we are supposed to have and benefit the reader by providing a link to a more detailed explanation. Win-win. NE Ent 16:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• That question cuts both ways, and is more of the deflecting nonsense that so usual in these cases. Once again: Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem, and you are failing to ask "Why couldn't Donaigo actually spend 30 seconds googling a source and just add it to the article?". This is a collaborative project. And we're volunteers. Doniago had the itch. Xe should have scratched it, not tried to force the work onto other people. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I am slightly troubled by the interpretation of the verifiability guidelines here. It does seem to be giving editors with general scientific/engineering knowledge carte blanche control over content on technical articles. It means they can create unsourced content that may be easily verifiable via a standard textbook, but not directly verifiable by the vast majority of potential readers. It seems to betray the central principle of Wikipedia: that articles should be constructed from published content, that can then be corroborated by the reader. It feels like the meaning of "verifiable" is being reduced to a game of semantics. It's reasonable for a reader to ask "Where did this information come from?" If editors cannot adequately respond to that question, either by providing a chapter or page number from a book or whatever, then a reasonable challenge has been raised to the verifiability of the content. In the case of the Synchronous motor, there should really be nothing in that article that cannot be found in a standard chapter of a standard textbook about standard synchronous motors: after all, this is an encyclopedia article giving a basic overview of the topic. Doniago is entitled to ask for a source, and someone should be able to give him a chapter or page number. That's all it takes; if there are then any claims that are not backed up by the main source, an editor should be entitled to remove those or request further citations. We are building an encylopedia, not a tutorial! Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't understand how to put verifiability into practice as an editor, either, and your argument is self-contradictory on its face. Think! Content that is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" is verifiable content. You just said it yourself. And reasonable challenge does not include "I haven't bothered to check anything at all or make any effort myself.". Accuracy is our goal, with verifiability as the only way to get there given that we're pseudonymous people using a fully open installation of MediaWiki as our writing tool. Verifiability is our best proxy for accuracy, and it is ludicrous to be so thoughtless in one's practice of verifiability that one makes no attempt onesself to determine whether content is accurate. Stop conflating "unsourced" with "unverifiable". If sources aren't cited but the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook", then the correct course of action, that was stated in policy directly in the form of how-to instructions for years before we made the mistake of taking out the steps to leave only the goal, is quite clearly not to remove the verifiable content, but to act like a collaborative editor and attempt to help make the article better still by looking for those sources and adding the missing citations. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • And you are missing the point that verifiability is a process, and not a standard! Something that may be easily verifiable for someone with an engineering background may not be be verifiable for someone without one, and sourcing is the means by which such content is verifiable. They are not distinct concepts! You are confusing sourcing with citing, and while something may not be cited it may well be verifiable if a source can be provided for the article. No-one is expected to go through the article providing citations for each line, but it is reasonable to request a source for the content in the article, and it is unreasonable to prevent the removal of that content if the source is not forthcoming. We have a bunch of electrical engineers arguing for the retention of the content in the dispute, so if it is easily verifiable through a textbook why don't they just give us the name and chapter of such a textbook? If you cannot provide a source for the content how can you argue that it is verifiable? Just because you know something through your own knowledge or background does not mean it is verifiable through published reliable sources, so arguing for its retention on the basis of what you know is not a valid argument for the verifiability of the content. Betty Logan (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't even reading what you yourself wrote, let alone what I did. Think, for pity's sake! You are the one who stated that the content is "easily verifiable via a standard textbook". It's right there, above. We don't have to argue something that you yourself stipulate. And it's downright daft to say to someone who is explaining how to put verifiability into practice that it's a process. Of course the putting of something into practice is a process. And it's a process that you don't have the first clue how to apply if you think that content that you've already stipulated to be verifiable should be removed from an article for being "unsourced". Once again, go and read the original instructions from the verifiability policy, preserved at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and learn what you patently have not learned: that the correct action, in a collaboratively-written project, when sources are not cited but content is verifiable is not to kick over the sandcastles and remove the content entirely.

        This is basic content and editing policy, and always has been. It's also good sense. Indeed, it's even in the {{unreferenced}} notice. It quite clearly says "Please improve the article by adding citations of sources." not "Please just wipe out verifiable content wholesale and then sit around demanding that other people clean up the mess and damage without lifting a finger onesself.". One of the biggest of the many discussions where your error here has been pointed out time and again is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 83#Challenged or likely to be challenged. "[B]y definition Wikipedia is done by volunteers who work irregularly, who might not even be aware of challenges. Some of the worst work on Wikipedia is done by people who do rules-based work on articles where they do not know, or make effort to know, the pros and cons of what they are deleting." is one of the many statements there of how the robotic, unthinking, approach that dumbly section-blanks verifiable content, is wrong.

        Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

        • Amen. I could not agree more with everything you have written here. I just recently had to deal with this very issue in this discussion, facing the same attitude and same misinterpretations of WP:V and WP:BURDEN. postdlf (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
        • It would really help if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. Nowhere have I stated that this content is verifiable in a standard textbook. If I had a textbook that corroborated this content then I would cite it, and we would not be having this conversation. How do you know it is easily verifiable? Have you checked to see if it is? Are you assuming it is verifiable simply because a few engineers say it is? Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
          • "easily verifiable via a standard textbook" — your own words and description, right there. I told you that you aren't even reading what you yourself wrote. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I suppose, given how my original request for an opinion on how best to proceed has already been derailed...and frankly, I thought I tried to bring it up as mildly as possible...that it would be pointless to note that my reasons for coming here were, as stated, related to civility, not content. If one wants to discuss the content concerns, there is the active RFC.

I also suppose there are some editors who will refuse to believe me if I say at this point that the direction in which this has gone was never the direction in which I wanted any of this to go.

Thank you to the individuals who have shown an understanding, or at least an effort to try to understand, if not agree, with where I have been coming from with regards to all of this. Doniago (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• As you're discovering, that "civility" stuff doesn't apply to editors who swim upstream. Wish there was something I can do to fix that but realistically I can't. Sorry. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Only one person, the person who used the "dirty -istas" was even close to uncivil. Telling Doniago that xe is unequivocally and entirely wrong to make these sorts of edits is not uncivil. Our civility policy is not a suicide pact that prevents us from telling people when they are doing things wrongly and not working in a collaborative fashion to the betterment of the project. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Nor do I see where the discussion was "derailed", given that this thread was built on a false premise. Moreover, if, as is suggested, there is such a cesspool of incivility on Talk:Synchronous_motor, I'd like to see individual diffs/examples of it. I tried to read the whole thing but found nothing objectionable, excepting the RfC in the first place, a huge time and electron sink. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • As multiple editors have noted, the "huge time and electron sink" likely could have been averted had any editor cared to simply provide inline cites and consequently satisfied WP:BURDEN. It appears we all prefer to discuss the principles of the matter instead, so here we are. Doniago (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, here you are, still arguing that you were right when you were wrong, both in principle and in practice. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • This diff shows some specific content that was directed at Doniago and not towards improving the article -- "Neener neener" (in my chunk of the world, at least) is taunting and referring to another human as "it" is objectable to me at least. NE Ent 21:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Setup for suckers

Note the template which greets new editors on top of articles such as Synchronous motor

Notice how it says " Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."? It's just newbie baiting. NE Ent 17:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I do not understand why asking for citations is baiting new members. Please could you explain.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe the point NE Ent is aiming for is that while the template explicitly states that unsourced material may be removed, when unsourced material is removed editors protest the removal, even if the tag was in place for well over six months and the material was moved to the Talk page rather than simply being deleted, and we end up with an RFC on the matter if the editors protesting the removal revert any attempt to uphold it. Doniago (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• "May" means "it is permitted", not "it must happen". I'm generally sympathetic towards the argument that editors should be permitted to follow accepted interpretations of the guidelines on unreferenced material without being abused by editors pulling rank and shouting "it's obvious so do the work yourself", but this particular case almost seems contrived to contradict that (a fairly banal description of a common device, sans inline citations that could almost certainly be trivially pulled from online sources, being gutted based solely on process). No, having five guys on the talk page saying "this is obviously correct so stop whining" is not a substitute in general for actual direct citation, but it at least indicates that the article is not another Seigenthaler incident waiting to happen. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Five engineers knowing it is correct is a testament to its accuracy, not its verifiability. Many people who work in specialized fields acquire a sort of general working knowledge that may not be readily accessible in sources, since ground level principles can be sometimes pretty disparate. If something is easily verifiable it is generally not difficult to provide a source for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Which is why the advice to Doniago, from people who are experienced writers, is that that, rather than wholesale section blanking, was and is the right course of action, and xyr action was the wrong course of action. Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• As Thumperward said, you are mis-reading "may". It's a warning, not a direction to be slavishly followed. Uncle G (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • A warning? To whom, about what? A warning to the reader they shouldn't believe what they're reading? NE Ent 03:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • It's a warning, to editors, that if they add unsourced material it may be removed without further notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Provided that the material is first "challenged", a requirement that can apparently be satisfied by nothing more that the observation that the material is, in fact, unsourced. JohnInDC (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • To be perfectly honest, right now it seems like you consider it an invitation to delete 3/4 of the content on the project. Is that what you are truly advocating? This is one of what? Two or three users on here that are actively working to prove this WP:POINT? Don't get me wrong, I disagree with this tactic and I think that once it crosses the line into disruption they should be blocked for as long as it takes to understand that it is disruptive. If the policy needs to be modified, let's do that. Until then, would someone please protect the content of the encyclopedia? - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (edited formatting) - UnbelievableError (talk) 07:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • That's not helping. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In all seriousness

How's about we change that final sentence to "Unsourced content may be challenged, and unverifiable content removed"? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• In this case I would argue that that's exactly what occurred. The unsourced information was challenged when the CN template was applied back in March of 2012. WP:MINREF clearly states that tagging material is a legitimate method of challenging it. Material that was not established to be verifiable between then and December was then moved to the article's Talk page. I emphasize that because I feel some editors are trying to make a case that the information was deleted from the article as though it would be a significant difficulty to locate it afterwards, and simply put, that's not the case. Any invested editor with the resources to cite the material could easily determine what had been removed from the article, apply citations as needed and reinsert the information. Sadly, it seems that in some cases even editors who possess the resources to provide citations would rather argue about whether the removal was justified than take action to improve the article itself. Doniago (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:MINREF indeed says that tagging suffices as a challenge. But as Template:Citation needed makes clear, a fact should not be tagged simply because it lacks a citation. "{{Citation needed}} (also known by the redirects {{Cn}} and {{Fact}}) is a template used to identify questionable claims in articles that lack a citation to a reliable source." (My emphasis.) I am still at a loss to understand how an editor can appropriately or meaningfully tag an article when the editor disclaims any knowledge of the subject matter at all, and, when pressed, cannot or will not identify what of the tagged material is in fact "questionable". JohnInDC (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe it was made reasonably apparent that at least some of the material that was ultimately considered questionable was the material moved to the Talk page. Clearly if the material wasn't being questioned, it would not have been moved. Otherwise, material could have been deleted for lacking sources, which also would have indicated that an editor found it questionable. Of course, if any editors had issues with the article being tagged, they could always have, y'know, asked for clarification. They had quite awhile to do so. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) First, the mere act of tagging something does not make it "questionable". That has the cart before the horse. Questioned ≠ questionable. Unverified ≠ unverifiable. Second. Editors did ask for clarification. Repeatedly. Your response was, you were challenging everything that wasn't accompanied by a cite. It's not - helpful, you know? You'd find editors a lot more willing to dive into the material and round out the sources if you would describe what seems wrong about it to you rather than just complaining generally. All that being said, this discussion has become as circular as the original tagging and I think I've had my say about it. JohnInDC (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • To answer the original question, one should not notify editors when setting up an RfC (which is posted on the article's talk page), but should note on the article's talk page if one posts a discussion to a noticeboard. Interested editors have articles on their talk pages and notifying interested editors is canvassing. While you may remove unsourced material, continuing to remove material that other editors have restored is disruptive. Follow dispute resolution instead. TFD (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There has already been a discussion of the warning text, Thumperward. Remember Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 3#Seeking consensus on warning text? Uncle G (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support suggested change (with wikilinks added). NE Ent 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Chemgirl131 inappropriately exercising WP:VANISH, mass deletions from user talk pages, article talk pages, including archives

It's been said in this discussion[28] on Jmh649's talk page that Chemgirl131 is acting inappropriately because it is "a WP:TALK violation for her to go around not only removing her comments from talk pages (article talk pages after users have already replied and user talk pages without their permission), and even archived talk pages (which is a huge violation), but tampering with others' comments and changing their words. Not acceptable in the least. WP:VANISH does not give her that right. If anyone were to be sanctioned in this case, it would not be Doc9871. And other editors have also reverted her because she was removing and/or changing a massive amount of text on their talk pages, and even in their archives."

Asking for administrative assistance. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that changing talk page comments should not be allowed. And if one needs to do it for privacy reasons one should not attempt it themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what the precedent is for this, but this is their third username, and they are attempting to erase all posts under the earlier names. They are often going several years back into archives to do this, and when they are done the archives are a shambles. In the meantime, they are actively editing articles under the current account between removing archive posts, which does not seem like vanishing to me. If it's not vanishing, and it's not a clean start, I don't believe what they are doing to these archives is appropriate. Doc talk 21:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite get what's going on here. This can't be a case of WP:VANISH, because when one vanishes one just goes away and doesn't edit Wikipedia any more. One's old account can be renamed to something like "Vanisheduser xxxx" by an admin, and that's that. That is not the case here because Chemgirl appears to want to keep editing under her new name.

This also doesn't seem to be a WP:CLEANSTART, because in a clean start one starts over again with a new name and avoids connection with one's old IDs and the areas they edited, and Chemgirl is going out of her way to delete her old comments, making an indelible connection between herself and those IDs.

There's also the problem that the comments being deleted are those of at least two accounts (I haven't looked at all the deletions, so perhaps there are more). If both these accounts are Chemgirl's, were they properly connected at the time? Did they overlap in edits? Was there active sockpuppetry going on?

I think that Chemgirl needs to explain these things, and why she is doing what she is doing. I think that an admin should revert her deletion of her old edits as not being legitimate (especially when she deletes the comments of other editors), and injoin her from making any new deletions until we have a proper understanding of what's happening. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that Kww blocked Chemgirl a few minutes ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked until she agrees to stop doing this. Anyone can unblock at that point. I've restored the archives.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A correction to what I wrote above. Chemgirl did not have two previous account, but one account that was renamed. User:Rocknroll714 was renamed to User: el3ctr0nika on 13 August 2009. User:Chemgirl131 was created on 21 January 2008, and made their first edit on 13 August 2008. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand why El3ctr0nika was listed as having no edits, when I could clearly see at least one edit here, but it seems clear now that Chemgirl131 is not a new acount but a rename of el3ctronika - see this diff for the edit above. I don't understand why the rename is not listed on the log for el3ctr0nika, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

...it is listed on the User rename log for 21 December 2012. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I had crossed paths with this issue at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology, and Doc James left me a note on my user talk, leading me here. An additional thing that has struck me as needing some explanation is why an IP editor showed up with an SPA-like interest in undoing these edits; I say that because Chemgirl made some reference to hounding in one of the edit summaries I saw her leave. I agree with other comments here, that it's not OK to modify the comments made by other editors. But, unless Chemgirl turns out to be a false impersonator of the purportedly "vanished" account, I'd be inclined to cut them some slack for simply replacing the old account name with "snip" or "redacted". (Not the other stuff, like refactoring other editors' comments with respect to gender, or changing archiving, etc.) It's true, as someone pointed out on Doc James' user talk, that there's a Streisand effect, but if someone wants to (clumsily) erase appearances of a previous user name, that's not really disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If Chemgir131's intent was to disconnect her current name from the previous names of the account, she certainly went about it the wrign way. Probably the best way was to do nothing at all. All she's really managed to do is to raise a minor brouhaha. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If all Chemgirl did was change her name in the archives to the current one, that's one thing. We know the account has been renamed twice. Instead they are removing absolutely everything they said under the previous names. As far as her declaration [29]: this is a public website. Demanding that users not post to her talk page because she does not want her discussions to be public is sort of absurd. Doc talk 22:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Tryptofish. I was particularly puzzled why an anonymous IP would be undoing edits to talk pages. If the talk page "owner" insists on keeping that material that is another thing. From the few med-related edits it appears quite plausible Chemgirl131 is el3ctr0nika. It is not entirely unusual to edit/redact own "posts" wherever they may be - including deleting them. Richiez (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

They explained it elsewhere, somewhat outing-ish self-protection related, which I won't link here. It's not really wp:vanish or wp:cleanstart, and it is innocent. We should not talk it to death here....we should just close this out, & someone should just give them direction regarding the redactions and expect it to be followed. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

We had a case of someone requesting sig-fixing by bot some years ago, which was turned down. In the case of RL stalking etc., this seemed a little churlish at the time, maybe its something we should reconsider.

Meanwhile I think it needs an admin to go and make a suitable unblock offer. Rich Farmbrough, 01:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

They already agreed in the request for review. This looks like a person in distress on a sensitive matter who may have innocently tried the wrong fix and wants to discuss it here but can't. Can somebody do something? North8000 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

North8000: You are pretty much completely spot on. I suppose it would probably be in good interest of mine to simply go ahead and post the following explanation here (it is an excerpt of a message from me to an admin/personal friend of mine):

• http://pastebin.com/2fi5rva3

I didn't want to have to post all of that (i.e. privacy), but it's for the best I think. (Moved message to off-site location for my own personal privacy.) Hopefully it will clear up a lot. Help?! – Chemgirl131 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: I have to go for tonight. I'll be back tomorrow. Good night~ – Chemgirl131 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User is unblocked, given her agreement to stop making these edits.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)\

My 2¢: I'm just boggling at these attempted deletions performed by Chemgirl131 to Talk:Transitioning (transgender)… you see, arguing there against the needless WP:SPINOUT of the Transitioning (transgender) sections pertaining to the "Real-Life Experience" into Real-life experience (transgender) and trying to counter the bizarre prejudices against transsexuals expressed by User:Rainbowofpeace early on in the creation and editing of an article on "Binarism" (since renamed Discrimination towards non-binary gender persons) proved to be the final gasps in my ongoing struggle to cope with the flood of cranky "Joe Random IP Address" and pseudonymous editors here on Wikipedia… and just about everywhere else. As a consequence, I'm no longer trying: no Queen Canute, I: I quit! Though please note: I've not formally resigned, and if anybody actually wants my help with something super-important (such as this), I'd be available. PS: "Stealth" transitions of the sort Chemgirl131 claims to be seeking are nowadays exceedingly difficult to achieve. SINCERELY, - "Not A Pseudonym" - bonze blayk (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Competence issue

With this edit Chemgirl appears to have deleted a significant amount of this page. I have no idea how to restore the damage she has done, but she needs to be told that she shouldn't edit in places and in ways that she doesn't understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems that Moxy reverted her edit, so there's no damage to the page, but the competency issue stands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

She meant to post something but somehow the section got antecedently blanked, so what? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think she was only trying to remove her own quote, above, and post some explanation - she's clearly stressed and tired, so give her a break! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, look at little closer at the diff, she deleted a significant portion of the page while trying to add her quote above (which she later deleted in another edit.) I'm sure she did it "antecedently" , but that's really not the point, is it? No one is accusing her of deliberate disruption, but WP:CIR exists for a reason, since the project can be just as easily disrupted by incompetent accident as it can by deliberate action. Chemgirl131 really needs to find an admin or veteran editor she trusts and determine how to go about what she wants to achieve, since her own efforts have been, up to this point, decidedly disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The pedantic details don't matter - if you read the quote above, you'll surely understand why she's stressed and not working at her best now? A bit of personal consideration is what's needed now, not banging on about competence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Her problems, in respect to the project at least, are solvable, it just takes the right choices to do so. She's made all the wrong choices up to now, so I don't think it's unreasonable, considering her (apparently) fragile emotional state, to ask that she stop and get some advice from someone she trusts about what to do, instead of messing things up even more. After all WP:Wikipedia is not therapy. The last time I looked, we were here to build an encyclopedia, no? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "The last time I looked, we were here to build an encyclopedia, no?", there's no need for sarcasm. We also care about the people who edit here, and there's absolutely no damage been caused whatsoever. And she has indeed stopped editing in other areas, and is simply trying to discuss things and seek help. I also see you reverted her removal of her own quote. It is very detailed and personal and was posted on the most widely-seen of our drama boards, and if she wishes to redact it (while putting it somewhere else that is accessible), we should honour that. I am going to remove it again - please do not restore it again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You reverse the damage done by reverting or repairing the edit. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you really dont't know what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Help:Reverting. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks, I have over 100,000 edits but I've never known how to revert until you showed me the way. --- Oh, and you still don't know what you're talking about. (Hint: Look at the page's history.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought that "you" was an "I". Still, you had no idea how to restore the damage, one way is reverting. How the heck is saying "I'm afraid you really dont't know what you're talking about" constructive, frankly, it's pretty uncivil. If you think that statement is constructive, maybe it's your own competence you should be questing. I looked at the page history and that didn't tell me anything. Unless I'm missing something here, I think your making something out of nothing, the damage was nothing a simple revert couldn't fix. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• A non-issue. AN & ANI periodically get messed up. We restore from history and move on. NE Ent 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• That edit was almost certainly the result of a section edit that conflicted. It's happened to me in the past. Uncle G (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm still concerned about that IP. Is anyone paying attention to that? And this discussion has included (from some participants, not from all) way too much insistence on doing things by the letter of policy, and too little attention to recognizing that we are dealing with real human beings. I hope that one or more experienced administrators will guide Chemgirl through what it takes to protect their privacy without making difficulties for other editors on the project, and that Chemgirl will cooperate with that guidance. Beyond that, it's time to tone down the criticisms of Chemgirl. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I second Tryptofish's and Boing's comments. What is needed here is more understanding and less browbeating. I am also concerned about that initial IP who is clearly an experienced editor that apparently prefers to remain anonymous. Boghog (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm incredibly busy and I simply don't have the time right now, but I am not going to stand for what Doc9871, Beyond My Ken, and certain others are attempting to do to me and to my reputation here and elsewhere (link and link). Exaggerations and outright mistruths have been made about me (which resulted in an unfortunate, and in my opinion, completely inappropriate (and now revoked) block), and I have been made to look like an incompetent, rule-breaking, and even emotionally unstable mess. The level of character assassination that has been orchestrated against me is unbelievable. I will be back tomorrow and/or this weekend to explain my side of this whole unfortunate debacle and straighten things out here as best as I can. Then, I will not be dealing with the users in question anymore. Be back later~ – Chemgirl131 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• No comment on the general competence issue but as others have said, I wouldn't read much of anything in to the problems she had which caused most of ANI to disappear. Various things could cause this which even an experienced editor may fall for. If it keeps happening it may be a problem but a single instance doesn't say much. I myself have done a similar thing 5 or so times (reverted all but one or two myself) when my browser crashes but since it's a decent browser it doesn't lose what I was writing however if I just submit it will kill everything but the section my comment was in. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando editing against consensus of single-payer/USNHCA

Since our last dispute in 3RR, the consensus was established for single-payer healthcare and the United States National Health Care Act‎ pages.

Since then Thargor Orlando has done everything he could to overturn the consensus without going to dispute resolution. These include:

• Canvassing a sympathetic editor who then edited against it using weasel words (diff)
• Editing against that consensus (diff)
• Adding POV tags to delegitimize the page (diff)
• Moving the section (diff)

Even if we consider the contributions of North to no longer show a consensus, both editors are steadfastly against to any kind of dispute resolution and will simply edit war until they get their consensus. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that a close read at the article talk page (and recent changes on the article) and the "canvassing" link pages that CartoonDiablo just linked will pretty clearly disprove most of what they just wrote. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried WP:DRN or Mediation? --Jayron32 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We've done the NPOV noticeboard, which CD decided consensus was reached and abandoned. I've done WP:DRN with him on a separate conflict, and it didn't really go well, as he seems to misunderstand the basic points and intents of DR. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We tried DRN but Thargor left and refused to participate. Afterwards the consensus was established but Thargor tried going to NPOV where no new consensus was reached. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As the DRN page notes, "It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." As the issue was being discussed at the NPOV noticeboard, your discussion was shut down and moved back there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So, so much incorrect here.

• I did no canvassing, he's mistaken me for an administrator. Thread is here
• Two administrators have pointed out to CD that there is no actual consensus: [30] [31]
• I'm actually not against dispute resolution. I'm actually the one who initiated a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard, which CD abandoned: [32]
• CD is only here because he's up against the revert wall on the two articles in question:
  • 1st revert: [33]
  • 2nd revert: [34]
  • 3rd revert: [35]
  • 1st revert: [36]
  • 2nd revert: [37]
  • 3rd revert: [38]

This is a six-month long issue that's shown no sign of stopping because CD refuses to discuss it with anyone else who disagrees with him. It's an article ownership issue, it's a consensus issue, it's a content dispute issue, it's a verification issue. I'm perfectly willing to work with him on these issues, but this has long stretched the bounds of good-faith editing. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see the talk page at Talk:Single-payer health care for a good feel of what is happening. Also CartoonDiablo just did 4 reverts in about 2 hours on the article page. North8000 (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Solving the dispute

By that standard those "reverts" (one of which was not) were the same as the ones brought up in the previous 3RR of Thargor. My proposal for solving this is going to DRN or Mediation but both Thargor Orlando and North8000 refuse to do so. For reference:

• In the first DRN Thargor refused to participate: "The proper place is the talk page of the article, not to rush to DR"
• He has refused to do so here as well: "will you work with us here, at the article, to come to a conclusion? Otherwise, DRN would no longer be appropriate, as it would become an issue of your conduct at this article." CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You've departed so far from reality on even matters of simple fact that responding is getting to be a waste of time. Thargor Orlando NEVER approached me. Second, I haven't been involved in this dispute, and was never asked about DRN or Mediation much less turned them down. My whole involvement has been a few quick comments in November and then yesterday & today when after an admin asked if I had any ideas to resolve. North8000 (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To this point, North8000 was involved in the NPOV discussion and favored Thargor's position. He commented on North8000's talk about this topic. That is a WP:Canvass. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

CD, we tried dispute resolution. It was closed because of the discussion at the NPOV noticeboard, which you abandoned. Just like you abandoned it last time we had a dispute. What reason do I have to believe that DR will work this time? How much good faith am I forced to assume when you use DR as a stepping stone to sanctioning editors you disagree with? Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To explain it a bit, you left the first DRN discussion (DRN is not NPOV noticeboard) it "failed" because you left. The NPOV noticeboard discussion was "abandoned" because the consensus was established.

No, I left the first DRN discussion because it was a duplicate of an existing discussion at the NPOV noticeboard. The DRN volunteer agreed with me and closed the discussion. Read the thread. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Now would you be willing to go into DRN and this time not leave it? CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your conduct, I'm not sure if DRN will accomplish anything anymore. All indications are that you want dispute resolution to build a case against an editor you disagree with, not resolve the dispute. And you abandoned the last discussion, so why should this go any differently? The issue, at this point, is your conduct. We address your conduct and I believe we'll be able to build a consensus at the article. After so much of this, my good faith is nearly exhausted. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The June discussion was not a "duplicate" of the October discussion and the only person who has been avoiding dispute resolution and editing against the consensus has been yourself. If you are unwilling to solve it, it means you're only going to edit war until the problem is solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the October was a duplicate of the discussion at the NPOV board, which is why it was shut down. I took part in the DRN in June by noting that it was premature, and the person who volunteered to help didn't seem opposed to keeping it at talk for a time. We went to DR when it was clear the talk page wasn't going anywhere. As for consensus, that's been discussed above already, and repeating it ad nauseum doesn't make it true. At this point, it would be good for an admin to step in. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but it is true, and the only way to reconcile it now (barring an edit war) is to go to DRN. I'm willing to go and completely ignore any past behavior if it means we can get this solved. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

After going through this issue the past couple of hours I don't see how DR will resolve anything if it is going to be a continuation of the previous discussion. However, the DR discussion did resolve a question I had. If sources are referring to single-payor to be like Medicare than that is the language to be used. Polls are notoriously difficult to read, and it doesn't help the reader to rephrase the question to fit a description that an editor thinks it should mean regardless if any source says that Medicare is like Single-Payor. Arzel (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Except no DRN came to that conclusion? Virtually everyone from the Washington Post to NPR calls them single-payer polls so unless it was POV-pusing the discussion would go to DRN or ArbCom anyway. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect again, per our discussion here where you admitted to being wrong about what the Washington Post actually said. NPR is a similar issue, crediting the term to Dennis Kucinich, not saying so themselves. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

An update: we could really use administrator help here

We really could use administrator intervention here to try and direct the discussion a bit. CartoonDiablo opened a DRN request which is likely to be closed due to this discussion and his behavior, and attempts to discuss at the talk page are being met with severe resistance and a desire to move the discussion to ArbCom, which probably wouldn't be good for some of the parties involved. As a 3RR violation was reported but not addressed, CD is taking that as a validation of his actions. Any help here at this point would be greatly appreciated, as it has received basically no administrator attention. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

major edit war on Vietnam War

Two users (TheTimesAreAChanging and MiG29VN) are reverting each other multiple times (and have gone long past 3RR)[[39]] in addition TheTimesAreAChanging is rejecting sources as he does not agree with them [[40]], and both seem to be unable to accept a compromise that involves mention all the figures. TheTimesAreAChanging has refused to stop editing, and the actions of MiG29VN indicate (essentially) a SPA and POV pusher (he has also refused to stop reverting [[41]]).Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was careful to avoid violating 3RR.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR is not a right, it's an upper level. You can be blocked for two reverts if you're being contentious. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:R.Arden

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

---

The user is edit-warring in Gérard Depardieu. In particular, they made this edit, writing in summary "rv vandalism". I issued them a warning drawing their attention to the fact that it is not vandalism and should not be called such (note that they were reverting edits which were not mine, but the third party, and generally I have no interest in this article, having made two edits - one of which they reverted, and three edits on the talk page). Instead of taking the warning on board, they issued a what they called vandalism and civility warning to me. For the record, this is my first ever warning in English Wikipedia (not speaking of accusations of vandalism). I request someone to look at the issue. The user will be now notified of this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently, in their "warning" to me they accuse me of somenthing I never did. I am pretty sure I never reverted anything in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, i am not edit-warring, as stated by above user, as i am actively discussing on the talk page and reverting several cases of identified and banned vandalism such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531099940&oldid=531099915 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531098154&oldid=531097916 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G%C3%A9rard_Depardieu&diff=531098154&oldid=prev

My post at Ymblanter's talk page was meant as a response to what i perceived as badgering against me due to the fact i reverted an edition he supported, after it was made ignoring the talk page and abruplty changing the content of it in the midst of an ongoing debate.

The mention of vandalism however, was not meant to him but to X ziomal X, with whom i confused him.

-R.Arden (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It doesn't matter who it was directed at, it's not vandalism. I encourage you to read the link before you continue falsely accusing other editors of the same. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Said user just ignored the talk page, removed several references and just claimed as "Edit Summary" "15:57, 3 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . Gérard Depardieu ‎ (nationality =/= citizenship, get over it)". If that is not vandalism, it is close to it, specially in the context where the exact points he changed were being debated on talk page... -R.Arden (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You quite obviously have not read the link provided. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no point in putting any effort into it; he already showed us many a time today that he was not able to read anything besides what he wrote himself… He constantly comes back with the exact same “arguments” and source material that others invalidated before, as if nothing had happened. (212.7.192.145 (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC))

That is a remarkably weird accusation, coming from a guy who has not edits whatsoever on the article (and somehow has most of it's editions on a talk page endorsing another's person opinions, and less than 5 editions in anything else). Could it be someone else logged off just to "re-inforce" it's own opinions? -R.Arden (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Urgent admin action required, please!*

The above user being reported is displaying Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND, Wikipedia:IDHT, WP:OWN and POINTy behaviour as well as accusing other users of vandalism,[42] when it most certainly isn't. They have no consenus but repeatedly and bloody-mindedly keep on reverting other users' best attempts to get the article back on track, insisting on inserting the fact that Depardieu is now indeed a "French-born Russian" and changing the IPA pronunciation to Russian. Oh did I forget Wikipedia:Edit warring, as we are now at over a dozen reverts of valid material (all the while calling it vandalism)[43] in a four-hour period. Thanks, I'm informing them of this addendum to the original post, and then I'm off to get the article back to where it was. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 18:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not even editing anything other than the talk page anymore, so spare me from your accusations, please. I tried talking on the talk page, i tried to reach a consensus, and all i got were slanders. So i gave up. Simple as that. Next time someone claims Gérard Depardieu was born in Mordor [44][45][46] revert it yourself. I am no longer taking part of this, as clearly i have been ganged up by the hordes of IRC.

IRC, what are you on about? And your so called vandalism reverts just put all the shit back in (IPA, birthplace = Mordor) as well as your Russian nationality stuff, and wiped out all the good changes editors had been trying to make. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 19:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Just one of them left a reference to Mordor unchanged (due to an edit conflict), and it was quickly followed with a fix to remove said reference. -R.Arden (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, i was not the one responsible for the edit changing the IPA pronunciation to Russian. You may want to actually read the page history before acusing me of that. Also, talk to user:Yulia Romero, as it was her contribution to the article.

The IPA pronunciation to Russian was done by me yes. But a later realized it was a mistake since other "immigrants to Russia" do not have IPA pronunciation to Russian in there Wiki articles (I had expected that they did). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Other than that, i am out. I am done with this uncivil atmosphere.

-R.Arden (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid we need to add AGF to this list of abbreviations [47] (as I already advised them on my talk page). For the record, I am not on IRC and have never been.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, further ignore this reference too: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/world/europe/putin-makes-gerard-depardieu-a-citizen-of-russia.html?hp&_r=1& -R.Arden (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about content dispute, please do not take it here. It is about your behavior.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

My behaviour was caused by the content dispute, specially by some considering that i was not reverting vandalism (in the form of removal of correct content and sources), when in fact, i actually was correct, as demonstrated by the article above. That does matters a lot, at least when it comes to enciclopedic content, and not ego disputes or nationalistic claims. -R.Arden (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid you have not learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the lesson you are trying to teach me is one i learnt long ago, but that i refuse to abide by. I rather live, BE BOLD and be banned when it annoys someone than just be a meek editor with a lot of personal lobbying with other editors. If getting "uncivil warnings" and perhaps even blockade is the price for it, it is a price i pay gladly in exchange not be forced into some extreme conservativism (in the behavioural sense - not political) when writing and to the ever-lasting inter-user personal lobbying. I revert vandalism when i see vandalism. I correct wrong information when i see wrong information. And i add information when i have new sources to back it. Be bold and disliked or be meek and popular. My choice is for the first. -R.Arden (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The user was blocked by Bwilkins, see below, so that this thread can be closed for the time being.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Captain_Screebo

After disagreeing with said user in an article talk page, and posting a reference that proved his statement wrong, i got my reply erased and the following message [48]:

(cur | prev) 20:50, 3 January 2013‎ Captain Screebo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (32,587 bytes) (-447)‎ . . (→‎Good now you've locked it down: btw reformatting other people's talk page comments is not on, so why don't you fuck off (from what you're doing, please, to keep it civil)?)

User was repeatedly claiming that i was edit-warring in Gérard Depardieu, yet he is the one who actually tried to recruit an army to "fight off the like-minded souls" in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Gérard_Depardieu, in order to force down his opinions on talk page of said article.

Given that clearly uncivil behaviour (telling other editors to "fuck off" from a talk page), and the other notice created against me in this noticeboard, i would like to ask the administrators to keep an eye on this situation.

-R.Arden (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, adding this link [49], where i have been called full of shit, a huckster a sham and a fraud, after pointing out that said user should be working to make the article better and as close to the truth as possible, not just to enforce his opinion over the others. -R.Arden (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you notified the user of this discussion? JohnInDC (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see it there. JohnInDC (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed i have. There are already enough people trying to damage/block me, so i better not grant them a reason myself. -R.Arden (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, guilty on all charges, of trying to deal with a gaming, wikilawyering, IDHT, battleground pest, see above section for reference and diffs, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:R.Arden, are you seriously going to let this t**ll go on, several editors have chimed in, contributed, tried to discusss with x/he but we have "tried to recruit like-minded souls", "edit-warred" and "brought down the hordes on IRC", hmmm, who's the victim here I wonder, oh that was just a stick with aboriginal doodahs on it, (I hope). Sorry, but the tehter's end has been reached for this night, I do doth my cap and bid ye all a merry farewell! CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet again, i get insulted by Captain Screebo in the Edit Summary [50], now calling me "a complete fucker".

And i would also like to point out that many of the "several editors have chimed in contributed, tried to discusss with" are likely to be IP puppets or have NO VALID EDITS AT ALL (being most edits on the SAME TALK PAGE), such as IP 212.7.192.145.

Anyway, after this extra insult on this noticeboard, i would like to ask special attention to this matter.

--R.Arden (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to know why this user's completely unacceptable behaviour, edit warring, accusing others of vandalism etc. referred to above has been completely ignored but now you're worrying about if I have been warned of this discussion, I can't even get away from my computer because of this Rearden, x/he should have been blocked hours ago. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And that pretty much summons it: Captain Screebo's crusade to get me blocked for disagreing with him and actually editing the page. --R.Arden (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding another link, of yet another insult by Captain Screebo in Edit Summary [51]:

21:12, 3 January 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-362)‎ . . User talk:Captain Screebo ‎ (→‎Uncivility warning: Yes well now you can fuck off my talk page as well

-R.Arden (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How about you pull back the reigns on what I perceive to be a confrontational/judgmental approach, and Captain Screebo practice a bit more civility? 192.76.82.90 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both blocked for 31hrs - 1 for outrageous personal attacks (especially in edit-summaries) and the other for overall disruptive editing (EW, BATTLE, etc). No points if you guess who got which one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Banned user still making edits

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

---

Recently banned user Necroshine95 (along with his sockpuppet Phantomlord95) has returned under a new name, and has once again began making pointless edits, adding sources without attempting to format them and adding sources which are clearly lifted from Wikis. Given the user's past disruptive history, I have a strong feeling his mass-edit sprees will begin again at some point. Best keep an eye on him. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest letting the folks at WP:SPI know.NE Ent 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouch.. all of that looks complicated as hell. Never mind. I'll pass. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

He's blocked. Don't let the SPI form frighten you. It's actually pretty easy to fill out once you click the button.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And it's even easier if you use Twinkle -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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

"libellous statements" - legal threat

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

---

Legal Threat directed at who knows...? diff [52]. Not sure whats up - brought it here. Outback the koala (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be a legal threat. Saying an edit was potentially libellous does not say they're instigating legal action, nor was it an readily-apparent attempt to chill discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And really, those _were_ some pretty nasty changes the IP was reverting. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that clears things a little for future reference. :) Outback the koala (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Insults by User:Sayerslle

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

---

Sayerslle (talk · contribs) makes personal insults and refuses to discuss the edits on the talk page. Here [53]. Sceadwefax (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see two editors having a discussion via edit-summary which is wrong, but I see no personal insults (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

"before you knee jerk delete O'S" is clearly an abuse. Sceadwefax (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, "knee jerk" means "reflexively" or "without thought", such as "a knee jerk reaction" ... how is that abuse? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sceadwefax is not a native English speaker and does not seem to know the breadth of English language idioms.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

...although he claims on his userpage to be "near-native", and as such, the idioms such a "knee jerk" should be clear. As well, he claims to be a researcher, and thus has the ability and resources to have looked it up (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We might have an issue of WP:BOOMERANG then. I like how this account's first edit was reverting an edit by William M. Connolley.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think we need to do anything at this point besides close this thread. No abusive comment was made, as has been explained. If there is some other problematic behavior, let's take that separately. LadyofShalott 00:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Uncivility and Te

I'm thinking we're at the point where a block is warranted for disruptive editing after this [[54]] ani post, the editor continued making attacks at myself and others on various pages, basically attacking anyone who tried to explain themselves on ANI saying they were just my friends. I do have his page on watchlist due to the attacks and what not and I saw him sanitizing the page from a legitimate discussion [[55]] and I quite nicely didn't even template as I thought it would not help with an encouraging message [[56]] which was responded to in typical uncivil fashion [[57]] and also [[58]]. I'm thinking we have a user that needs a enforced break to read through our policies as he WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anything any of the editors have thus far told him. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have requested rather pleaded this user not to interfere but he has been putting up stuff on my pages which are not only annoying but also very discouraging. Being new to this wiki world it takes time for any editor to be fully knowledgable but this user from the very moment I have joined Wikipedia has been very disruptive. He has been non stop putting up tags. Whoever has given me an advice in a nice manner, I have not only acted upon but have requested help to those editors. This user has got on to my nerves. I just want to quit Wikipedia because of this person. I don't understand when I have requested him not to communicate, he still wants to be the champion to make unnecessary corrections. There are many editors who have been helpful and have tried to make the article better. This user has not contributed in any manner but just tagging! There was already a tag after AfD decision and I was working in fact other editors were also helping me out. If being a senior editor, he wanted to contribute he would have made corrections and should have asked others for help to but he rather requested other editors to go after me. If people like him remain on Wiki then there will be no room for new comers and he will keep of harshening them like he did to me. I am so fed up of him that I will delete my user account myself. -- Lubna Rizvi 02:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is not true Lubna, please reread my responses here [[59]], [[60]], [[61]], I even tried to find Farsi editors [[62]]. Not sure how that is not being helpful. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And the only person I've engaged asking for any action regards to you have been Admin, please show proof where I enlisted anyone to come and pick on you. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Easiest solution is to take the page off your watchlist. NE Ent 03:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is an easy solution, if that ends up being the consensus and my actions are found to be inappropriate I'm willing to do that. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence HiaB's actions are inappropriate and my statement was not intended to imply such; rather I was implying what JBW explains below. NE Ent 12:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• The way I see this is as follows. Lubnarizvi started editing Wikipedia. Like many of us when we are new to Wikipedia, he/she found things rather confusing, and made some mistakes. Various other editors, including Hell in a Bucket, tried to help Lubnarizvi to understand how Wikipedia works. Lubnarizvi was generally grateful to these editors, including, at first, Hell in a Bucket. However, when Lubnarizvi did not like what other editors did, he/she unfortunately tended to take a battleground approach, with threats and incivility. Lubnarizvi has now been advised against this, and we are to hope that things will now be better. After at first being friendly and grateful to Hell in a Bucket, at some stage, Lubnarizvi changed his/her attitude to him (possibly as a result of Hell in a Bucket taking an article that Lubnarizvi had written to articles for deletion). It is clear to me that Hell in a Bucket has been acting in good faith, attempting to help Lubnarizvi to develop a better understanding of how Wikipedia operates, but that is not how Lubnarizvi sees it. For the last two days Lubnarizvi's editing has been 100% concerned with the problems between these two editors. This conflict is not helpful to either of the two editors, nor to the encyclopaedia.
• Although, as I have said, Hell in a Bucket is acting in good faith, his attempts to help are not being taken in that spirit by Lubnarizvi, and so are not being helpful. I think it would be better for Hell in a Bucket to stop trying to help for now. It would also be better for Lubnarizvi to try to stop seeing anyone who does anything he/she does not like as an enemy, and viewing anything that person does from then on as attacks. Edits such as this one are not helpful. Rather than using such language as "Just F off from my User page" it would be better to say something like "can you please avoid posting to my talk page at present, as I have, unfortunately, found your comments unhelpful". I have already explained to Lubnarizvi that incivility, threats, etc, are unacceptable, and may lead to a block if continued, and he/she really needs to take that advice on board. At present I don't think a block would be helpful, but it will come if similar editing continues.
• To summarise, my recommendations are:

1. Both editors should avoid one another, since, for whatever reasons, interaction between them is not helpful at present. I hope that, once Lubnarizvi has become better used to how Wikipedia works, they will be able to work together constructively if and when they happen to come in contact, but I suggest that for at least a month or so it will be better if they avoid any interaction with one another.
2. Lubnarizvi needs to try to bear in mind the need for civility and collaboration, rather than confrontation, even to editors who he/she thinks do not deserve civility. In this connection I should say that most of Lubnarizvi's interactions with others have been civil and constructive, but there are some exceptions, not all concerning Hell in a Bucket: for example, see this edit. It would also be helpful if Lubnarizvi could try harder to assume that most editors are acting in good faith, and avoid accusations of bad faith unless there is strong evidence to support such accusations. It is a fact that the vast majority of Wikipedia editors are sincerely trying to be helpful and constructive, even when they do things that others see as unhelpful and unconstructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems with this the problems that I had were when policy was being broken. I do believe friendly notes are needed to help explain policy at times and hopefully in time they can understand what was and is being explained by myself and others. I will indeed back away for right now so they can calm down a notch. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am more than happy to act upon on your advice but only on one condition that this user Hell in a Bucket do not communicate with me. I don't want his interference on either my user talk page or on the articles I am editing. Thanks James -- Lubna Rizvi 10:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

And this is why I think we still have a WP:OWN issue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I recommend the temporary communication ban on each other's talkpages (not a full WP:IB) between the two editors, it is clear that Lubna is not yet competent enough on Wikipedia to restrict HiaB (or by anyone else for that matter) from the same articles they edit. HiaB is fully within policy with their edits to the article so far. Be warned: you'll both have to use article talkpages rather excessively now, and note Lubna that if you make an edit and it gets reverted by anyone, you may not re-revert, or else you will be edit-warring. We have a be bold, if it's reverted then discuss concept forever. Lubna will quickly find that this restriction is a pain in the ass, but it's clear they're not willing to listen to HiaB's advice at this moment in time. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with commiunications ban. I agree with BWilkins that my articlespace edits are not an issue so I am not agreeing to avoiding articles Lubna edits (fully understanding those potential edits will be scruntized by the community at large due to the issues) but I will refrain from posting on his talkpage and instead bring it to Admin attn if warnings are needed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI I am a female.-- Lubna Rizvi 11:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahh apologies when I first started I had that problem to my username was HellinaBucket and people thought I was named Hellina. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok Hellina. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

YOu made me laugh out loud for real on that one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Sauloviegas (talk · contribs) repeatedly canvasses his "Neighbourhood" friends each time he is engaged in a disagreement with another editor. I first noticed this last month when I had a discussion with him over the reliability of a source. After failing to respond to the validity of my argument, he then went and canvassed his friends so that they would give their opinion to the discussion. I decided to ignore it and move on after the discussion dragged on and was going nowhere. Yesterday, he was involved in a confrontation with Hotwiki (talk · contribs) on the article Beautiful Cause You Love Me in which they were reverting each other's edits. Again, he went and canvassed his friends so that they would "help" him in the situation, and one of them eventually assisted in restoring Sauloviegas's edits to the article. I'm sorry but it's quite clear that every time this user is involved in a confrontation or disagreement, they have to canvass their WikiFriends for them to help and no that's not okay. Till 03:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that when I visited the contribution page of Sauloviegas (talk · contribs) and one of his friends reverted my edit to Sauloviegas' edit without consideration of Sauloviegas' edits such as changing the release date to "TBD" without a source, copying and pasting infos from the other Wikipedia articles and changing the format of the article.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not know about WP:CANVASS. I can even remove the "Neighbourhood" from my page and not contact the users about that anymore. But what I was concerned is that SuperHotWiki was stating that my edits were Vandalism when they clearly weren't, at least, not in my eyes, reverted my edits and then added all the info I researched and added like it was his own. Of course, I made a mistake with TBD on Beautiful Cause You Love Me, but if the correct was 17 December 2012 and the format of the article was initially created by him, he only had to change those things, not claim that everything I did was vandalism. - Saulo ^{Talk to Me} 17:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

71.93.140.237

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

---

Would someone please block 71.93.140.237 for vandalism and general nicompoopery? I'm not going to even bother notifying them. IAR.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  06:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Admin Qwyrxian

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

---

Admin Qwyrxian is violating WP:Involved and WP:Own by removing information supported by WP:RS in Sri Lanka page and also using tools to block users,protect in content dispute where he has reverted to his preferred version.He was asked to stay away as he was involved and there was a discussion but instead of letting other admins to act ,he choose to use his tools in violation of WP:Involved and WP:Own.Please ask other admins to handle disputes in Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.202.138.106.1 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This has already been addressed at length at Talk:Sri_Lanka#Full_protection; multiple administrators have reviewed Qwyrxian's actions and agreed that Qwyrxian's actions, including very minor edits and protecting the Wrong Version do not constitute involvement. NE Ent 12:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) What I see here is that Qwyrxian has reverted to the version before the edit war and protected the page. He didn't change the content (that would be construed as a violation of WP:INVOLVED) but he acted "purely in an administrative role" (quoting the policy). What I also see is that there is a discussion about what content to include, and I suggest you participate rather than report an editor for doing nothing wrong. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 12:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC here as well) Floating Boat and NE Ent have covered this much more succinctly than I; nonetheless, I'll include my statement for completeness sake.

Basically, this user doesn't understand the policies s/he is citing. First, there's no way I could be WP:OWNing the article; I don't even know what 99% of the article says, and I've made almost no edits to it. As far as the actual events, my detailed description is here:

Extended history

On November 30, Intoronto1125 added some material to Sri Lanka. Some editors removed it, some restored it, and there was a clear edit war. I don't recall what brought my attention to the article, but I fully protected the article on December 2. In addition, I reverted to the pre-dispute version. WP:PROTECT explicitly states, "Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists." In general, this is the approach I prefer, at least when there is a clear starting point, without other intervening constructive edits, which involved a clear change from a status quo; that was exactly what I saw here, so that was the version I chose to protect. After protecting the article, a number of editors tried to claim on the article talk page that I was involved, which is simply not true. I don't know why the editors don't seem to listen to me when I tell them, but I really, honestly, truly, absolutely do not care what version the article finally ends up in. All I want is for involved editors to make a consensus-based decision. However, no one bother to do discuss the matter, even after I tried to help by starting a TP section that summarized the arguments that editors had made in the edit summaries. The full protection wore off on Dec. 9. Still, no discussion. On December 30, Intoronto reinserted the info; he was reverted by SinhaYugaya; he undid the removal calling it vandalism; SinhaYugaya re-removed it. Since I had already made it clear on the talk page that further edit warring would result in blocks, that's what I did. After looking at the comments of both editors and history, I indefinitely blocked Intoronto and blocked SinhaYugayafor 24 hours. Intoronoto has been blocked for edit warring multiple times, has been indeff'd three times, and whose last unblock log notes that any further edit warring would result in a final indef. SinhaYugaya is new and had no history of edit warring; I probably should have not blocked at all, as another admin pointed out on my talk page. If I made any bad judgment calls throughout this process, it was this one, in that I probably erred to much trying to appear "fair" by blocking both "sides".

The short version is this: I'm not involved, I followed WP:PROTECT, and several other editors have already made this clear on the article's talk page. Intoronto is indeff'd because this is just the latest in a long history of edit warring; subsequent unblocks have been declined by 2 other admins and make it clear that Intoronto is simply unable to contribute to the project w/o edit warring. Nonetheless, several involved editors seem to want to focus on this side issue rather than actually discuss the content. I do not know why this is. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: there was more than one editor claiming I violated WP:INVOLVED; someone else may want to notify the article's talk page to let them know this is being discussed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. GiantSnowman 12:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Qwyrxian's actions. Protecting an earlier version of the article, under WP:PREFER, was entirely appropriate, as was the subsequent block for edit warring. I can also see nothing in Qwyrxian's article edits that violates WP:INVOLVED; of the twenty edits he has made to the Sri Lanka page, none (save for administrative actions) are related to the current dispute. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a couple of months as most IP edits seem to be problematic to that article. I haven't reverted the most recent addition as I take no opinion on it - however I recommend strongly no more reverts happen there before talk page discussion. (PS: the protection system is kabloomed... Twinkle removed the move protection, then when I manually restored it the edit protection upped to sysop... huh??) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The actions of Qwyrxian after the discussion on Talk:Sri_Lanka#Full_protection in which the some editors including a editor he blocked clearly told him that he was WP:involved and he should have avoided taking admin actions in this dispute any further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankancats (talk • contribs) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Just because involved editors tell an admin he is involved doesn't make him so. The policy WP:INVOLVED determines that. You can't justify that claim in policy, in fact Qwyrxian has quoted in policy where he instructs him exactly what to do and you've ignored it. Instead you're going off feelings of "Well this is unfair to me" and in your mind that makes him involved. Well guess who cares, no one. He ain't involved, according to policy, and the whinny attitudes at that page make we want to trout some people.--v/r - TP 17:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I care. But I'm kind of "no one," anyway. As I've previously stated, Q's actions are righteous (except perhaps they didn't really need to comment here at all), but WP is really quite a complex place and folks are going to get whiny. So I'm perfectly fine with as many editors as Q needs saying they were copacetic before Q allows the thread to be closed, and I'll say as many times as necessary "not involved" but "no one cares" is harsh. NE Ent 22:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The surprising thing would be if the editor he blocked didn't claim he was involved. Also, the sudden appearance of Lankancats to comment here after not having been active since June raises an eyebrow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• I too have reviewed Qwyrxian's actions and find them uninvolved. What is sad about this is that the chance of actually getting Intoronto unblocked, slim as they were, were not helped by another user pushing this accusation on his talk page. I do not think that the accusation was made in bad faith, though. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC).
  

Note he indef blocked Intertoto only after being asked to take action in his talk page by another editor involved in the content dispute.Despite questions being asked about his being involved.He should have asked another admin to look into this dispute.202.138.106.1 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Further it was fully summed up in his Rfa here :I was asked to weigh in on this. Based only on my own previous interactions with Qwrxian, I do not believe he is an appropriate candidate to be an administrator of WP at this time. I found that Qwrxian was more interested in policing Wikipedia than editing it. In his zeal to voluntary enforce WP guidelines, I found that the user came off as brash, simpleminded, and authoritarian. This is because the user appears to have a very narrow and rigid understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I'm afraid that if he was given the position, he may potentially abuse it. Wikipedia does not need more administrators, it needs better editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a bureaucracy. mezzaninelounge (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)202.138.106.1 (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you find a problem with Qwyrxian's conduct either tell him (if he's open to recall, which I'm not sure about) or file an RFC/U, but keep in mind that, as demonstrated here and at the article's talk page, no one will agree with you. - a boat that can float! (watch me float) 09:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought of initially not to raise or get involved on this issue at ANI but at RfC. But I want to clear certain misinterpretation here, before I start the RfC.

After the revert and full protection of the article by Qwyrxian, I have raised that particular incident to number of editors, they have come out the response that Qwyrxian is right.

But I have't provided the following diffs at that time to them to get an over all picture of the Qwyrxian's involvement in the Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles;

Qwyrxian has closed the discussion while the "Civil War" section is out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) from the page as No-Consensus though Qwyrxian encouraged for mediation.

Qwyrxian has blocked Hillcountries though he/she encouraged for a talk page discussion while the "Category: Sinhalese people" is in(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) on the Prince Vijaya's page.

Again, Qwyrxian has reverted the controversial content out(which the Sri Lankan nationalists prefer) and then protected the page.

But I dropped the issue pursuing further against Qwyrxian and agreed with other editors that his/her actions are right since "Qwyrxian may be an honest admin, but the coincidences made others to think he/she is biased or overly involved with his/her admin tools with pages on Sri Lanka and its Conflict."

And, "The above may be mere coincidences until someone could travel into someones' brain cells and study how things are recorded at that time and the intention and the motives behind."

But after the IndefBlock of Intoronto I am of the view that Qwyrxian acted as a Judge and a Jury concurrently on the situation and the individuals(Intoronto) involved.

I agree with IP: 202.138.106.1 that "...Despite questions being asked about his being involved. He should have asked another admin to look into this dispute."

Even User:Richwales is approached by email after the IndefBlock of Intoronto and Richwales has come out with the statement,"...I was asked (in private e-mail) to intervene in this situation. However, I am not going to do so, because I do not feel it would be constructive or helpful for me to get involved further at this time. If there are disagreements over whether Qwyrxian's admin actions here have been proper or not, I believe WP:RFC/U or WP:ANI would be the best place to discuss the matter."

If Richwales has agreed with Qwyrxian's Indefblock,he/she might have simply stated that Qwyrxian is right. So Richwales also not sure of the situation.

That is why we need a RfC not only for the remedy for Intoronto's Indefblock but Qwyrxian's involvement as an Admin in future on Sri Lanka and Sri Lanka related articles.

Again, Qwyrxian's might be a good admin elsewhere on Wikipedia but not with his/her involvement on number of Sri Lanka related articles which are more confused, complicated and sensitive even for a seasoned diplomat to handle.Sudar123 (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudar123, I don't think those things make me involved. I closed a discussion as no-consensus, and recommended further mediation. That was an administrative action, not me acting as a content editor. Second, I blocked a user for edit warring on a different page on a different topic about 8 months ago. How is that related to this issue? And the revert has been explicitly and directly explained as conforming to our policy on protecting pages. Seriously, could you please explain what I have done that violates WP:INVOLVED? Maybe it would help if you explained what you think that policy means, because maybe you're just misunderstanding that. That policy says, basically, that you can't use administrative tools to gain an advantage in a content decision. Is there some way in which I've tried to get the article to look in a certain way and then used my tools to enforce that way? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My guess is RichWales knew Qwyrxian was right, but was trying to guide you rather than tell you. You and the IP are simply wrong. What you describe as actions that make Qwyrxian involved are administrative actions which by the very clearly explanation in the policy do not make him involved. Further, Wikipedia does not work like the outside world. "Qwyrxian acted as a Judge and a Jury" is perfectly fine on Wikipedia. There is no jury because no one here can get the death penalty. Administrator actions can be reviewed after the fact for accuracy. In this case, the review shows that he acted appropriately, was not involved, and the block holds. WP:Involved is very often misused on Wikipedia because folks read the name of the policy instead of reading the policy itself. It doesn't say what a lot of folks think it does. More often than not, involved is used inappropriately for one primary reason: every admin is aware of this policy's existence and that it can be the end of the bit for us, so we're especially aware of when we are involved or not. We are experts in this policy and we make sure we steer far clear of it. The likely hood of us breaking the policy, because we are experts in it, is far less than the likely hood that you've misinterpreted it, because you are not an expert who is subject to it. The policy ain't all that hard. Administrative actions != involved. I'm passionate about this because I've personally been accused of being involved by two different people in the last 6 months who refused to read the policy. One of them is blocked, the other makes an embarrassment out of himself every time he speaks out. Try to be different, read the policy. If you have a problem with the block, WP:Involved isn't it. You need to figure out what was really wrong. Maybe you think it's too harsh, maybe unbalanced from the other user? I don't know. But this line of argument that you and the IP are holding will go no where because those of us experienced in the policy know the flaw in your reasoning and have tried to explain it to you.--v/r - TP 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can only state my agreement with TParis that Qwyrxian is not involved. I'd bother citing all the policy reasons, but honestly, TParis and Qwyrxian themselves have already said it all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Qwyrxian's actions. - First, if dispute is there he should take some actions against a edit war. So he protected the page. Intoronto is a user who think as high profile user. He doesn't give reasons for his decisions ( for an example Vandalism) don't participate to discussion in talk page, but take actions think he is 100% correct. If some one gone through his edit history most of his reverts, edit are unethical. He don't care to give reasons. look it here. He has used edit warnings to prevent opposite people goes against his opinion. First, if he involved in a edit war , he should not give edit warning since he is just a party of the war. He is not in a position to judge the situation. Other thing is he should state his stand in talk page to convince others. If only no objections he can go with it. Otherwise Wikipedia has a process to proceed. And it is not the reporting the admin who take best actions to get the page on all agreed version.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.170.32 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 January 2013‎

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

IP editor violating copyrights

A IP editor is persistently violating copyrights by directly copy pasting information from http://www.ozarkscivilwar.org/regions/greene in Greene County, Missouri. Please look into this. I am reporting here because I read at Wikipedia:Copyright violation that copyright infringements should be reported at ANI. Forgot to put name 12:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I see one occurrence, which you reverted. Why do you describe it as "persistent"?—Kww(talk) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two occurences this morning (1, 2). The latter is more ambiguous as copyvio. Twice in the same morning being called "persistent" is arguable, but it is certainly repeated. Salvidrim! 17:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion(s) at Talk:Harry Partch

I'm becoming frustrated with the discussion(s) found at Talk:Harry Partch. I'm willing to admit that my behaviour is not flawless, but the discussion has gotten out of hand. User:Curly Turkey wrote the following on it: "What this article needs ... not [is] petty squabbling over personal preferences by editors who ... are not willing to make meaningful contributions to it, and ... [engage in] persistent disruptive editing." I consider this a personal attack—since, as I explained on the same page, I consider his accusations false—and as it was directed at me, I overreacted and removed his comment. The discussion at the moment is not going anywhere, with accusations coming from both sides, and I would welcome the enforcement of a civility standard—even if it may get me into trouble—as I do not wish the page in question to be dominated by what I perceive as Newspeak. Thank you for your time and attention. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute, and hence more suitable for WP:DRN, although I'm frankly baffled at how something as simple as an infobox can bring out so much red mist and aggression from editors. I don't think anyone has made a direct personal attack; in the above quote mentioned, Curly Turkey isn't actually referencing you directly. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

His comment was directed at me; it dates to 22:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC), and in it, he links to this edit by me. You can see it here. The infobox issue is being debated, among other places, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and WP:VPP. My main concern in this case is civility. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to say that I find their comment "What this article needs is some content generated, and a lot of references, not petty squabbling over personal preferences by editors" to be very much on point and well worth remembering. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to discuss the value of the rest of the comment in question. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That talk page looks toxic, especially with snipes by Toccata quarta, so beware the boomerang. I agree with Ritchie333 that the article content should be the focus rather than trying to win a point in arguing, here or there. Anybody want my 1974 edition of Genesis of a Music? I haven't cracked it open since 1981. It should go to a good home. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How is my behaviour ruder than that of User:Curly Turkey? I find that assessment unbelievably unfair, considering I was defending myself against accusations I perceive as false. The user claimed that I was engaging in "persistent disruptive editing", even though his comment dated from 3 January 2013, and I had not edited the article since 28 December 2012, nor violated WP:3RR. He later defended his claim with a false definition of the word "persistent", which I refuted. So how are those statements by him anything other than lies? Please enlighten me. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

How is any answer I give you going to help the article be better for the reader? Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not the purpose of this discussion. Please answer my question, instead of avoiding it. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Then it appears we are at cross purposes. If you are not here to improve the article I should think it is time to step away from its talk page. Binksternet (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility is a prerequisite for discussions on talk pages, isn't it? I created this discussion because I wanted to improve the atmosphere over there, so that changes to the article could be discussed in a different manner.

Once again: please answer my question. If you are willing to accuse me of being the rudest person on the talk page in question, then I would expect you to reply to my rebuttal. Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. How can there collaboration on a talk page, if one user refuses to communicate with another? Toccata quarta (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You came out swinging with "As you can see, the ones who added a crapbox were the ones behaving illicitly", a purposely inflammatory opening. After that, the fight was underway—no surprise there. I agree with Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing) that adding an infobox was not "illicit", it was merely an expression of the BOLD in WP:BRD. The hidden note telling the potential infobox-adding editor to "seek consensus on this article's talk page" was being followed, per DISCUSSION in BRD. The hidden note's injunction to seek consensus "before" adding an infobox was not justified or authoritative, in my opinion. At any rate, my assessment of your involvement on the talk page is that your sharp and accusatory comments served to raise the level of friction and dissonance, more than others, more than Curly Turkey. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not notify Curly Turkey that he was a subject of an ANI discussion. I have done this for you. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

With due shame I confess I misread that instruction; I read "editor" "as "administrator". Thank you. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I have the feeling that most of the discussion - which I watch but can't read all - did not belong on an article talk page anyway. I see two topics of more general concern than a specific composer: can a project request that their articles should not have an infobox? What should an infobox for a composer contain? - My understanding is that even if a request for no infobox is in place, it can be ignored as not binding, - on the other hand infoboxes are not mandatory. - I have a personal history of reverting infoboxes (because of the request) but came to understand that they are useful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Doncram and NPA

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

I believe that a WP:NPA block is needed for Doncram, based on the following recent comments:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive243#request_admin_help_to_close_improper_AFD — Accusation of bad faith in starting an AFD: the nominator "fully knows this is a valid Wikipedia list-article topic"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#User:Doncram is deciding who can and can't participate in an RFC on a WikiProject talk page — he says that someone else "has several times expressed hatred against me and fanned flames of contention involving other editors"
• I'm an idiotic non-person, and I'm "dedicated to disruption and hatred and so on".
• Accusations that someone else "has long expressed hatred and has harassed me for years. It is long term harassment, bullying, evil" and "urging on bully assistants"
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive778#Doncram_at_lists_of_various_churches — Various bits in this massive section of which that's a part. For example, I'm "extreme and unreasonable". Another editor and I have been behaving in ways that are "unduly aggressive and bullying in nature", and the other editor has written "truly horrible things...that are not forgiveable" that have "seemed calculated to dehumanize me, to treat me as a non-person".
• Elsewhere, he says that someone else is "assert[ing that] others are stupid or fools or naive or not-tough-enough-to-deal-with-tough-persons-like-yourself, or whatever".
• Just two days ago: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29, where my deletion of some recently-created implausible redirects is stated as being in bad faith: "The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria". I warned him on his talk page after this accusation of personal behavior: he's presented no evidence that I intended to violate deletion policy. If it weren't for this bit, I wouldn't have taken issue; there's nothing objectionable about the idea of someone filing a DRV about one of my deletions.
• In response to my warning, I'm told that I gave the warning "intentionally in bad faith". Over at the DRV, Doncram says that he doesn't know why my motivation is, but nevertheless he speculates that it's "driving me away from Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed articles". Again, no evidence, and likewise no evidence that my removal of images from some Indiana bridge articles (the first time I can remember a WP:OWN violation being alleged) is a WP:OWN violation regarding Ohio articles.

I've heeded WP:CIVIL's instruction to "Consider ignoring isolated examples of incivility, and simply moving forward with the content issue", and I'm only coming here to dispute resolution because "there is an ongoing problem [I] cannot resolve". We routinely sanction people for making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, including baseless accusations that they're doing things in sneaky bad faith. We routinely sanction people for "insulting or disparaging an editor...regardless of the manner in which it is done", and that includes telling them that they're not even human. Someone who demonstrates a long-term pattern of WP:NPA violations is tendentious, especially when he knows that his editing drives off people and when his block log shows one block for disruptive editing (including personal attacks) and another for WP:NPA violations. Please stay on topic and discuss why you believe that Doncram should or should not be sanctioned; the last time this came up, the discussion (found in archive 778 linked above) petered out without resolution because people turned off onto other issues. Someone else please warn him about this thread; the IncidentArchive776 thread will show that he saw notification of an ANI thread by the thread-starter as harassment. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

From recent discussions, it seems that the consensus is that this noticeboard is suited towards addressing individual incidents, but not so much for discussion on a pattern of behavior. If you want to get the pattern of behavior addressed, you should consider filing an RFC/U or taking it to arbcom. Ryan Vesey 00:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what WP:WQA was for - before it was closed with the declaration that AN/I was the place for such things... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any perfect tool for dealing with longer-term problematic behaviour. RfC/U has had its fair share of criticism too. One of the points in AN/I's favour is that it has teeth. bobrayner (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No comment about this case, but I wish admins would take NPA more seriously and warn/block when users show a rude pattern of behavior. I almost left for good in the first month of editing because of someone's baseless accusation that I was vandalizing wikipedia because he didn't agree with my edits. FurrySings (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

According to WP:WIAPA, Doncram's recent insistence that "80-100%" of Sitush's participation on two particular pages consisted of misrepresentation, attacks, etc. qualifies, as it wasn't supported by diffs (and isn't supported by reviewing the comments). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

keepalive ping --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Having been a target of Doncram's negativity (I've been repeatedly called "evil", "hateful", "nasty", "snarky" and a variety of other things) for some 4-1/2 years now -- and having interacted with him for a total of more than 5 years (as near as I can determine, we first met in late 2007, and the encounter was reasonably productive), I think that Wikipedia is long overdue for a discussion of the behaviors that are so upsetting to a significant (and growing) number of us. For a long time, I have contended that things would go substantially better with Doncram and the rest of us if he could somehow learn to refrain from personalizing his interactions with other users -- instead, focus on content. That's not the only issue between Doncram and the other users he spars with, but his persistent focus on personalities tends to poison his interactions. Unfortunately, I probably made matters worse between us when I pointed this out to Doncram -- telling him that he apparently became convinced that I was "out to get him" (not necessarily the words I used at the time) before I even realized that I had debated with the same person on multiple pages within a relatively short period. This period was July–August 2008, and the multiple discussions were at NRHP Wikiproject talk page, NRHP Wikiproject focused discussion page, and a featured list nomination, as well as a few other discussions in the same time period. Looking over these old pages, I notice that Doncram used my name five times in his post of 07:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) on the featured-list nomination page, which was a reply to my review of the FL he had nominated. In retrospect, I see that as undue focus on a person rather than content. That same sort of pattern has repeated itself over time in his interactions with Nyttend, Sitush, and others who he has also accused of being "out to get him". --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've just noticed this thread. While doncram appears to have a way with words when it comes to emphasising personalisation by others, my big beef is that of misrepresentation. However, as noted in the most recent prior thread concerning doncram here, it seems that they are preparing a submission for ArbCom. - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unarchiving. Since I created this thread, Doncram's comments have continued in this same manner; see the "Mark a lot of pages for microformatting" section of WP:BOTR, where he calls for people to "attack you personally for gross ignorance" when talking with someone else. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Andy is plenty thick-skinned enough to ignore that quite bizarre equivalence, but it was sufficiently tortured in any case that it doesn't really count as a personal attack (to you, Sitush, Andy or anyone else it was directed at). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't bother, but my point is that he's literally asking for personal attacks against someone else over a thoroughly minor issue — it's just another piece in a broad pattern of behavior. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Meanwhile below... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

False references and BLP misquotes: block user as hoaxer?

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

---

I notice that NuclearWarfare recently indef blocked User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a for creating the Bicholim conflict hoax many year before. Ssilvers then changed A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a's user page to reflect that.

At User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems, more than ten months have gone by since editors started cleaning up after Legolas2186's false references and fabricated quotes, especially ones attributed to Madonna (entertainer), a BLP. We were all hoping Legolas2186 would join in cleaning up the mess he left but he has not done so. He has not edited since 12 February 2012. Is it time to block him as a hoaxer? If so, should his user page reflect that fact? Binksternet (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be a purely punitive block.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is that User:A-b-a-a-a-a-a-a-b-a was blocked as a hoaxer even though he hadn't edited in five years. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No idea on blocks and stuff, but the user shouldn't be a reviewer or an autopatroller. I have hence rectified that. (Note: haven't touched his rollback permission). Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I have also notified the user of this thread. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a moot point as neither A-a-etc or Legolas is likely to return under those accounts, but I can't object to some note being made, either in the user page or block log, that this account has deliberately compromised the integrity of the encyclopedia. It's certainly reasonable to not allow either account to edit until they've explained themselves. 28bytes (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

When an account is blocked indefinitely, it seems to me that the blocking admin should make a prominent note on the user page and talk page to alert casual Wikipedia users of the fact. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Subtle hoaxes seriously undermine enwiki. If there is some possibility that a hoaxer will start editing again in the future, then a block prevents that harm. It's not a big possibility though, since a hoaxer who gets caught would probably prefer to come back with a different account. It's certainly a good idea to have some kind of permanent record, somewhere, for the benefit of future editors who notice something else suspicious (including similar edits by a new account) but aren't yet sure that it's a hoax... bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a list anywhere of users known to have perpetrated hoaxes? Should there be? LadyofShalott 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked. This reason - damaging the integrity of the encyclopedia - has been used uncontroversially before for indefinite blocking. This case seems to rise to that standard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive jingoistic behaviour by User:MervinVillarreal

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

---

This user has for the past few weeks been involved in nothing but the pursuit of a jingoistic agenda, arguing and edit warring with other editors over nationalities, primarily marking anything and everything as American and eliminating other nations even where sources say otherwise. When approached with sources or policy like WP:BRD he continues to edit war and tells the other editor to discuss, except discussions have been had and he ignores them.

For instance here: Talk:Prometheus_(film)#Nationality and here: Talk:The_Dark_Knight_Rises#Nationality and here: Talk:Rockstar_Games#Nationality_of_Rockstar_Games and here: Talk:News_Corporation#WikiProject_Australia.3F and here: Talk:World War Z (film) Among others.

Multiple attempts at a jingoistic agenda at Prometheus including 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7 And repeatedly restoring a banner with GA status to a non GA article here 1, 2, 3, 4. Warring at Chronicles of Narnia, Chronicles of Narnia 2 i think?, another Chronicles of..I'm not big on Chronicles of Narnia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_On_Stranger_Tides&action=history and Pirates of the Caribbean, ignoring BRD]. All of his edits relate to either his talk page where he's getting told off by someone or pursuing this singular agenda to the abandonment of reality, policy or consensus.

At Prometheus, the discussion went on and on partly because the user is 15 and partly because the user does not natively speak English as far as I have gathered. Despite the discussion he believed that he alone had achieved consensus, and then has repeatedly made efforts to move the added "united states" nationality above the previously existing "United Kingdom" nationality for no reason. Despite repeated warnings (that he has deleted from his talk page) and opposition in each of these discussions, he refuses to listen to others, repeatedly readds his edits and ignores any policies given to him. His actions are incredibly disruptive, and on pages not actively monitored, detrimental. I'd say a time out would be good but I don't think that would have any affect on him, but something needs to be done because discussion does not work, and its not fair that he continue to consume hte time of volunteers in endless argument and then edit wars over his perceived and personal notion of what makes something American. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

hello, are different pages, then, are not considered vandalism and is also needed to reverse the article at least 3 times in less than 24 hours. MervinVillarreal (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment Being a part of several conversations with this editor it is my belief that he has no interest in collaborating or compromising with other editors. It should be noted that on this version of his talk page specifically says that he is here "to change nationality, LOL, no <3"He repeatedly spouts the same "Facts" and it seems like he is trying to "Shout the loudest" and is quite obviously following an agenda. Most of his sources are in Spanish and so not readable by the average English reader. MisterShiney ✉ 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for one week (before seeing this thread). User shows no apparent interest in cooperating with other users. And just to comment on his statement above; you were edit warring, and 3RR is only one part of that policy. Bjelleklang - talk 18:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional Comment It should also be noted that I suspect that this user socks using IP's to further their agenda and try and get past the 3RR. In particular this edit and this talk page addition. Among other older edits with different IPs. MisterShiney ✉ 19:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week. I suppose Marvin's next block is indefinite. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• There's more on their talk page, including reference to blocked IPs (three by now). Mervin seems to completely oblivious to just about everything, but appears to have a new IP available at the click of a power button. Maybe some smart person can look into it. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • With the IP addresses given, a rangeblock would have too much collateral damage, unless there's a smart-person way to narrow it down. As an aside, I had a tussle with this user not too long ago about copyright, and his misunderstandings and violations thereof: the thread can be viewed here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 23:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yep. And look at how much time we've wasted on this. Oh, on the talk page he claims something about his IP address. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Rollback needed

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

---

User:Gilded rod III (link to Talk Page) has been blocked indefinitely after editing for only one hour (is this a record?). However, looking at their contributions, they left quite a mess. Will somebody who has rollback (or some other tool) please clean this up. (I have not notified the user who is the subject of this discussion; didn't see the point. I tried to put this notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism but, as the user is blocked, I was directed here.) HairyWombat 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like HappySailor has already done so. It looks like someone obviously likes owls. a13ean (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit: there's a few left, taking care of them now. Now done, mostly by HS. a13ean (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Lemmy Decker/User:Iggy Decker

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

---

About a while back, Lemmy Decker (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week after mainly disruptive editing/vandalism, including two page-move vandalisms at Baskin-Robbins and Mario Kart.[63][64] Lately, I noticed that another user, Iggy Decker (talk · contribs), began editing Mario Kart, also disrupting the page in a fashion similar to Lemmy. Also looking at Lemmy's contributions, I noticed that Mason Decker (talk · contribs), vandalized Baskin-Robbins, as like Lemmy. This is probably not worthy of a clue, but Lemmy has also given Mason food with nonsensical summaries.[65] Probably based on the "Decker" part though, but is it worth saying that all three are the same person, or if different, a potential meat-puppet network? ZappaOMati 19:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Might WP:SPI be more relevant? If that's your concern, I'd ask for an investigation there. Rutebega (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• They're all blocked indefinitely now, as vandalism-only block evaders and obvious socks. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Barsoomian's civility

Barsoomian needs to be more civil.

• Responding to an editor on his talk page: You made your smarmy comment on Wrathful's page minutes after mine [...] I don't want, need and will not follow your advice or admonitions. And specifically, don't write on my Talk page ever again unless it's a required notification.
• In a discussion on WP:VPP: I have no idea why you felt the need to make these idiotic remarks [...]
• Believes that characterizing others' comments as "idiotic" is okay: That was a pretty mild response considering how how gratuitously insulting he was to me.
• Ownership of talk page: Well, if that's your attitude, then I'll clarify things: Never write here again for any reason.
• Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian to be less "BITEy" to another editor: Haven't you got anything better to do than breathe down my neck?
• Personal attack against that user: Changed the user's initial section heading from Less teeth, please to Pompous windbaggery

I'm involved in one of these (this one).

I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously, and the later response that Barsoomian gave to User:Jack Sebastian (we each tried to address the civility issue). Sancho 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Scrap that second one (and the third one likewise)--there is nothing wrong with this remark: it's an appropriate comment to an idiotic analogy which I'd see as an ad hominem also. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay. I can disregard those. Maybe I was wrong about them, but I was acting based on what WP:CIVIL says: "If others are uncivil, do not respond in kind.", and "Someone may very well be an idiot. But telling them so is neither going to increase their intelligence nor improve your ability to communicate with them." Sancho 21:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure--but if person A says "government sources aren't necessarily reliable" and person B says "that's like saying you should wear a tin-foil hat when you go outside", then person B can be told that their analogy is not just incorrect but also derogatory--it's close enough to saying "you're nuts". Drmies (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Your statement is incorrect and derogatory" would have been a much better way to respond, I think. Sancho 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are entitled to your opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• For better or for worse, it's pretty much standard practice that editors are permitted to ask others not to post on their talk pages. The only one of the above that genuinely causes me concern is the last one (changing another editor's section heading), but it's an attack on the edit, not on the editor, so it's hard to describe it as a personal attack. I don't think you're going to get any administrative action just on the above, therefore, although clearly Barsoomian would benefit from some advice to play more nicely with others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• That would be good advice well taken. But for now, in these diffs, they're staying on the right side of 'comment on edits, not on editors'. Not nicely, but still. BTW, I agree that the changing of a heading is not kosher--"Less teeth" was appropriate and "pompous windbaggery" is an insult...but again, it's pointing at the comment, not the commentator, though it's awfully close. AT any rate, Demiurge is correct: no admin will take any kind of action on these diffs alone. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I don't recall a single instance of collaborative or civility while editing with this user - and I know I am not the only one who shares this opinion. And I believe that while one can dick with their pages in most cases, refactoring the posts of others (altering, instead of removal) is especially odious. This appears to be a deeply-seating anger issue waiting for an outlet - any outlet. We lose enough new users as it is; why bite the new contributors while they are testing the waters? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't speak for other people, but as for me, I'll not block on these edits — but I will block without further warning (and advise anyone else to do likewise) for any future edits of this sort. After all, his block log is currently clean; it's not as if he's already in the middle of escalating WP:NPA blocks. I'll let him know this. Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Responding to the specific points that have not been struck:

Regarding Sanchom's remark "I bring this up here rather than trying to talk with Barsoomian myself because of the response I received previously" -- I am astonished at this. I responded civilly, though I did not agree, and Sanchom never came back. I assumed the issue was settled. Drmies has now explained it more clearly than I did, so I hope that now it is settled.

• Responding to an editor on his talk page: You made your smarmy comment on Wrathful's page minutes after mine [...] I don't want, need and will not follow your advice or admonitions. And specifically, don't write on my Talk page ever again unless it's a required notification.

I believe on my own Talk page, I am allowed to tell people not to post. Am I wrong? Sebastian (the person it was directed at) has on his own talk page "If I have asked you to not post on my usertalk page, please respect that request and don't do it. If you do anyway, I'll simply delete it and seek your block."

• Ownership of talk page: Well, if that's your attitude, then I'll clarify things: Never write here again for any reason.

Same point; "my" talk page. Also, this was after I had told the IP editor this was addressed to who kept putting "tb" tags on my talk page every time he responded on a discussion page. (Which each generated an email alert.) I told him at first that this was unnecessary, as I was watching the discussion page, but he kept doing it. This was in response to his comment "this won't be a problem unless you ignore my valid arguments" which indicated he was likely to keep doing so, so I was more forceful.

(added) Earlier requests had been made and ignored: [66], [67]

• Responding to a user coaching Barsoomian to be less "BITEy" to another editor: Haven't you got anything better to do than breathe down my neck?

I have told Sebastian many times I don't want his advice on any issue. His "coaching" is simply a way for him to patronisingly criticise me. This specifically was Sebastian butting into a routine and uncontroversial exchange I had with another editor that was resolved amicably despite Sebastian's attempts to make it all about me rather than the substance of the edits. Also note that he characterises my remarks as "biting a new user", when the remarks (in response to repeated reverts by said user) aren't overly aggressive and the user in question has been editing since 2007 and, if not prolific, could not be called a newbie.

• Personal attack against that user: Changed the user's initial section heading from Less teeth, please to Pompous windbaggery

Sebastian's initial heading Less teeth, please was patronising and implied that I was engaging in "biting" new users, which was completely false, and there was no "new user" involved in any case. And in mitigation 1) I thought better of it and deleted the whole section a few minutes later 2) this was in response to Sebastian's continuing to make personal remarks to me on my Talk page, after I had asked him not to post there again. At great length, and with great self importance -- thus "pompous windbaggery" describes it concisely. But, since I'm being charged with making a personal attack, please note that "pompous windbaggery" is a description of the text in the section, not of a person. Barsoomian (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Bedtime for me, so no long response. I gave you that warning particularly because of this last section — windbaggery, for example, is produced by windbags, and more generally, statements like this about the text necessarily are statements about the one who made them. Additionally, many of your comments don't link to those comments or otherwise tell us how to find them; remember that WP:WIAPA prohibits such statements without evidence. Please provide links soon, unless you already did, in which case please show me that I overlooked them. Nyttend (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't provide new links since the text I refer to is on the same page as the link in the complaint. I've now added above some refs for "Ownership of talk page" if that helps. Anyway, since it seems that "pompous windbaggery" is a trigger for this, I will address that: First, it was on my own talk page and I deleted the words 19 minutes later. Do I get no credit for that? It could only have been seen by someone actively trolling through my history looking for something to take offence to. Also, is "windbaggery" really offensive? It's not complimentary, but come on. Definition:

Collins Dictionary: "(informal) lengthy talk or discussion with little or no interesting content". Now I know that tit for tat is no excuse, but have you seen what I was (briefly) describing as "windbaggery"? See here. For instance, Sebastian describes my edits as "nonsensical, unnecessary comment". Is that not equally, or more, offensive than describing his words as "windbaggery"? He goes on to attack me personally "You are not the smartest guy/gal/whatever in the room" (attacking both my intelligence and sexuality). I shrugged this off and deleted it, along with his various threats and misrepresentations of what I had said, but apparently such foolishness is worth opening an ANI. I am being sanctioned for deleting these insulting words with a dismissive comment. I'm sorry I'm not saintly enough to just turn the other cheek. Barsoomian (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to add that I think civility to other editors is hugely important, especially in not putting others off the project. I found this user's recent messages on my talk page to be uncivil and uncollegiate - it was the main part of what made me decide to take a bit of a wikibreak this month, so I don't have to feel attacked. Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? I was uncivil to you? What specifically was "uncivil? I "put you off the project"? You don't seem to consider that your reverts of my edits and your subsequent actions did the same to me. That was the only thing I expressed in my comments. In retrospect I might have been oversensitive, but if you construed any of that as an "attack", I'm sorry. Barsoomian (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand why Sancho came here, as Barsoomian's attitude to others has been problematic for a long time and it doesn't seem to have improved any in at least two years. My first interactions with Barsoomian were over his addition of copyvios to List of Primeval episodes in 2010. A discussion on the article's talk page lead to further discussion at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems where his tone was less than civil, at one stage comparing me to a troll and referring to other editors as "a bunch of self-appointed bureaucrats".[68] One of the edits I discovered today, while on a totally unrelated matter at Talk:Tron: Uprising, was an inappropriate change to one of my edits.[69] (God only knows what was in the zip file he added) It's very hard to collaborate with Barsoomian, his snide edit summaries,[70] and generally offensive behaviour towards others makes interaction with him highly undesirable. During "discussions" it very quickly gets to the point where nearly everything he says seems to be an attack, and I can see why Sancho took offence at the two struck-out items above. While Nyattend is correct in saying "it's not as if he's already in the middle of escalating WP:NPA blocks", this is certainly not the first time his actions have been raised at ANI or other places.[71][72] Despite this, his editing is generally constructive. If he'd just play nicely with others, and accept that we do things for a reason instead of complaining about the way we do things (as was the case here and here) he could be a real, and appreciated, asset to Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks for reanimating all your grudges from 2010. I see you're a believer in "revenge is a dish best served cold". And "complaining about the way we do things" -- what he means is "disagreeing with me and engaging in debate". Even to complain about an obvious copy-paste error I made, again years ago, that no one noticed at the time. Even debates he prevailed in, yet still wants to beat me down for daring to challenge him. Barsoomian (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, "complaining about the way we do things" is demonstrated by the opening of this very, very recent post. Even though we addressed the issue of what constitutes a copyvio at Wikipedia way back in 2010, "The copyright cops will tell you that rewording a press release is copyvio -- it's not in the real world, but that's what the policies here add up to" is still "complaining about the way we do things" two years later. Accept things and move on. Don't continually complain about things that can't be changed. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Look, I actually SUPPORTED YOU in that case and said what the copyright policy is. Despite my thinking it's silly, I have upheld it. I've reverted edits that violated it -- repeatedly, in that same article, for some weeks now. ([73], [74], [75], [76], etc.) Complaints about my "civility" is what this is about. I didn't know that "complaining about things" was subject to sanctions, but if you want to complain that I don't Love Big Brother, you should start your own ANI issue. And it's pretty rich to tell me to "move on" when you come here to try to make a meaningless typo I made two years ago into a sinister act. Barsoomian (talk) 9:55 am, Today (UTC−5)

Hey all, let's all just settle down a bit. This isn't a requests for comment. Admins have already taken the action they're going to take (asking Barsoomian to be more civil). That's a good enough outcome from this, so let's not get things off to a bad start by just piling on. Barsoomian, please ignore this extra stuff that's been added if you can (it is from a long time ago). Everyone else, Barsoomian's been asked to be nicer, so let's give it a chance. Sancho 15:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding User:ChrisGualtieri's edits with Ghost in the Shell and refusal to Discuss

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

---

I've tried to discuss with this editor on what the article Ghost in the Shell, the editor at first discussed refused RFC or DR. I really need some help. I'm trying not to revert but at the same time im trying to find a way to edit. I've attempted RFC but another editor (User: John F. Lewis) reverted. All im asking is for third party opinion (not here though).Lucia Black (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First off you are required to notify anyone you mention here. You did not do that. I had to find out about it from John Lewis. Secondly, I was the GAN reviewer, I can fail the article if it doesn't meet standards. You do not need to open an RFC or a DR because you didn't get the answer you wanted. Third, it was you who unilaterally merged content and tried to change the scope of the article mid-review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I must explain all of my reverts jus to give clarification on the situation. Lucia nominated the page in question for a GA, Chris had already dealt with the nomination and was waiting to close it was a fail, on the page he added the under construction template to sow he is working on improving the article, about 5-10 after, it was reverted by Lucia under the claim of no consensus. Immediately ChrisGualtieri come to #wikipedia-en on Freemode asking for help, at this stage I stated to discuss tihs with him while dealing with the invalid revert. After some time Lucia opened a RfC regarding the GA (from what I gathered) however the review had failed so I reverted it under not being exactly appropriate. After some time I was faced with a few reverts and changes my Lucia that I felt in my position as an editor was in need of me to revert under invalidity or a policy. If any user has any question solely about my actions I would be more than happy to cooperate. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@Chris. I did. This wasnt here that long. And you shouldve given it more time.

@John.Clarification, the edits are more about changing the article rather than improving on it for what it is. Improving the article atm is "subjecive" if its about changing the focus.Lucia Black (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been notified now by Lucia. Also the diff of Lucia Black changing the media franchise to the manga mid-review is here.[77] I was under the impression I was going to be reviewing the franchise per the hatnote and began doing so. And Lucia Black unilaterally decided to move the content from the Ghost in the Shell (manga) after commenting on the talk page at Talk:Ghost in the Shell (manga) It caused a bunch of errors with the templates from other pages and made Ghost in the Shell awkward to read as a result. This move never should have been done, so I reverted it and doing as Lucia said, "I'm gonna be bold about it. If someone has an issue we can discuss it once it gets reverted." Well, I reverted it. We've discussed it to, in depth on my talk page and the GA review page. I was still discussing it with her up to the filing of the ANI. So that claim is wrong. Though in all fairness, convention seems to be that related media (movies, games, shows) in a franchise should have proper material to lay out the franchise and what is in it. Such as Mortal Kombat or Final Fantasy. The unilateral change did not have consensus and I am not removing content or distorting it, but restoring it and trying to fix it. Lumia Black changed the focus, not I. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, you've claimed that Chris is biased, without having any apparent reason. He admitted that he's a fan of the franchise himself, but how does that translate to bias against the article's nomination for GA status? I don't see any fault with Chris's behavior in any regard, and he appears to be attempting ultimately to improve the article. Furthermore, the edits he's making to the article seem to me unequivocally to be improving it, so I don't follow what you're saying when you claim that the improvements are "subjective", "changing the focus" or "changing the article". Rutebega (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Rutebega. I'll post more about this for clarity and ease of reading. This is how the article looked prior to the move. [78] On 03:02, 20 October 2012 turned the manga page into the redirect to push the content into the franchise page.[79] And these are the first three changes made by Lucia Black in which the content was copied and pasted in. [80] The page was previously the franchise and there was nothing wrong with it, it was just lacking depth. Though I should also point this out. In moving the content to the Ghost in the Shell page which was the franchise page the meaning and scope is completely changed. The story is not linear, it is disjointed in spots, but it is the same universe, the plot which Lucia Black merged in also isn't even accurate so anyone arriving from a search engine like Google is going to be given the wrong impression. Lucia's argument about having the Ghost in the Shell page be about the manga was based on the apparent non-notability of the franchise otherwise, as if the content had to be merged together in order to exist on Wikipedia. Despite Ghost in the Shell, better known for the #1 Billboard hit movie, carries the same name, and the video game which has an entirely different plot was also a huge hit on its release. The manga is a hit, yes, but I do not see any reason for having the main link be about the manga. The video to this date is still more popular and carries the exact same name, better to not confuse readers and give them the full scope and proper context at the overview from the franchise level. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)It seems to me that what has been demonstrated here is that the article very obviously fails the stability criterion of GA at this point, whether or not it meets any of the other criteria. LadyofShalott 01:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for late responce.This is far about the GA review. Regardless, the issues were being brought up were getting subjective. And provided no coherent advice.

The extensive knowledge was good but then started to rely on subjective issues. for example: the issue was just a misconception of the article. Continued to mention about his knowledge but not in a helpful way, but rather in a demeaning way. The subjectivity continued in his talkpage, for example: Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex (SAC) video game being in the main article even though already extensively covered in the SAC argued. He argued that they werent really part of the same continuity, therefore not related to SAC. I mentioned they share the same subtitle and in the end, it came around with Chris stating that they are.

My edits were in accordance to the style and nature quality/featured content of WP:ANIME's scope. Theres no point comparing Final Fantasy or Mortal Kombat as they are more focused video game series. I dont know why the mention of the film supercedes the manga is relevant as the film has its own article.

The issue is now about changing what the article is, for one, how can we separate the original manga from the media franchise overall without the article's info being overly redundant. This isnt a necessity of the article, but a choice of what the article should be mainly about. REGARDLESS the issue is more about lack of consensus and refusing RFC (from another editor) and not even trying to reach consensus. I've warned the editor that we should reach consensus first, but refused. Hence why we're here.Lucia Black (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, I'm not trying to be a pain here, but answer these two simple questions. Ghost in the Shell, Ghost in the Shell, Ghost in the Shell. Which one is the manga, which one is the film, which one is the video game? Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex. Which one is the TV series, which is the PS2 game and which is the PSP game. It isn't a port either, they are different games. Ambiguity is fine and can be handled on disambiguation pages, but outside of Wikipedia or any incoming internal Wikipedia link for Ghost in the Shell will wind up at the manga instead of the franchise. You are attempting to remove matter of the franchise because you said it was non-notable and would be merged anyways. Lucia Black said, "I have thought of a "compromise" such as separating things by "series" but, the outcome will lead to either the manga being split and the media franchise not being notable on its own (and had to sourced extensively on how the franchise as a whole supercedes the manga) and most likely be merged back with more organization and eventually go back to the layout we had before the GAN. ".[81] That's the key problem. The franchise is notable, it can stand alone. Though it also should stand because any time someone types in Ghost in the Shell into a search engine, Wikipedia is the #2 entry and readers can learn about the franchise and what it is. Other articles can split off and deal with matters of continuity, but if readers cannot find or access such material easily and directly, then the article is useless. According to the tracker Ghost in the Shell has been viewed 61308 times in December and the article is ranked 8278 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.[82] Its a top 10000 article. I consider presenting it as a whole franchise essential for our readers to understand the topic. The manga is just one facet of what Ghost in the Shell is. It should cover the topic of Ghost in the Shell, broadly, and not solely the manga. Let Ghost in the Shell (manga) hand the manga. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any need for admin intervention or sanctions here. Everyone seems willing to discuss things now, so I suggest this be closed and the discussion taken to the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior at DRV

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

---

Anyone got a large trout handy for someone edit warring over a close? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Use this, remember to subst. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

I applied a block-sized fish, but anyone can unblock with my blessings if he agrees not to edit war any further on it. The trout by itself seems inadequate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we need Wikipedia:Deletion review review, for editors like Doncram who can't accept what should be a final answer for a Wikipedia process. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Deletion review review review... postdlf (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to poke or taunt him more at the moment, please... Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Ubuntu

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

---

There is currently a disagreement at Talk:Ubuntu for Android#Ubuntu about Ubuntu's new smartphone software (see http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/phone) and what relationship this has, if any, to Ubuntu for Android, a previously announced project. Right now the two participants are me and User:Walter Görlitz. I argue that the new Ubuntu phone software is pure Ubuntu and should be covered in Ubuntu (operating system); Walter Görlitz argues that it is derived from Ubuntu for Android and should be covered there instead.

The reason I have brought this here instead of WP:3O or the dispute resolution noticeboard is that Walter Görlitz appears to be no longer interested in discussing the issue, and has resorted to posting single line, mocking replies in response to legitimate requests - requests like please provide some sources. For example, I posted a direct quote from a WP:RS, reporting on comments by CEO Mark Shuttleworth, which very clearly and unambiguously settles the matter, to which Walter Görlitz responded flippantly "feel free to add your source as a counter-point and tag the contentious statement". I asked him to provide any kind of source at all to support his assertions, but he responded "Of course my opinions are just those and carry no more weight than yours."

It would be nice if someone could weigh in on whether this kind of approach and attitude to dispute resolution is appropriate. – Steel 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There are three involved editors including User:Yworo.

The order of events is wrong. I did restore the referenced statements and after Steel's continued insistence to remove it I have decided that others need to discuss it.

This is entirely the wrong forum for this discussion and I apologize for wasting your time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Cut and paste move

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I was looking over the history of the War in Afghanistan (1978–present) article when I noticed that it abruptly ended.[83] It appears that a user had done a copy and paste move from the Afghan civil war article.[84] Is there a way to fix this? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. 28bytes (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Administrator deleted article to make way to a manual restore; article's history lost in the middle

1. I move Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's) to Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's).
2. I improve the article and add some content to it.
3. User:Marine 69-71, an administrator, deletes Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's).
4. User:Marine 69-71 manually restores Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's) through a copy/paste—the article's history is lost in the process because this is the redirect created on step 1.
5. User:Marine 69-71 creates a new Puerto Rico Gag Law (no 's) as a redirect to Puerto Rico's Gag Law (notice the 's).
6. User:Marine 69-71 posts the following on Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law:

Please do not rename an article without consulting it first in the article "talk page". That is the way we do things here in Wikipedia.

All my actions fall under WP:BEBOLD and WP:AGF.

Below is the confusing deletion and move log:

(Deletion log); 22:06 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)
(Move log); 22:06 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:03 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Puerto Rico Gag Law to Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:02 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Move log); 22:02 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) moved page Puerto Rico Gag Law to Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(The proper name is "Puerto Rico's Gag Law" since there are other countries who had similar laws)
(Deletion log); 22:00 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(G8: Talk page of a deleted page, making room for properly titled article)
(Deletion log); 21:59 . . Marine 69-71 (talk | contribs) deleted page Puerto Rico's Gag Law ‎(Redirect is being deleted because the proper name for the article is Puerto Rico's Gag Law and that is waht should be placed there)

User:Marine 69-71 abused his administrator's privileges.

I'm requesting an undeletion of the article up to where I updated it and a de-adminiship of User:Marine 69-71.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

x

Really? Why? Bold move was reverted and is a dispute to your edit. Now discuss it on the talkpage and find consensus for the article title change you desire. You can also use Wikipedia:Requested moves but your initial move had no discussion to begin with so I support Tony's move. Frankly....it cuts out a lot of drama....or was at least attempting to. Try a little AGF there yourself Ahnoneemoos.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahnoneemoos was right that the history of the page was actually gone, with nothing before the move back being visible in the view history section. It is however now visible again, for some reason (bug or restoration?). Ahnoneemoos's reaction above was perfectly understandable in light of the fact that their edits actually couldn't be seen anymore, so it was more than just a revert. However, as it's there now, both editors can enter discussion. CMD (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tony should not have G6d the article to make way for the move unless a notification was given first. However, this is not a redirect issue (as stated on the talkpage by the OP). Its an issue with moving the article without discussion. Did either discuss first? Doesn't appear so. OK, we could go the extreme and de-syops Tony, but then a boomerang would be appropriate for the OP just as extreme. On the other hand we could just say both were not entirely in the right and not entirely in the wrong and move on.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue was that the page history was deleted, which is definitely an odd occurrence. While it'd be interesting to know what happened, it's not administrative anymore. You're right that normal dispute resolution can occur now. CMD (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing it but am I right that not only was no attempt made to properly ask the admin before bringing this here why the heck they deleted the page and effectively did a cut and paste move but they weren't even properly notified of this discussion asking for deadmining (a comment was left on the article talk page complaining and saying it was being taken to ANI but nothing on the admins talk page)? Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for input, and if it boomerangs that's fine

In scientific tests, 8 out of 10 editors involved in a talk page dispute decided to forget all about it after seeing a picture of this kitten.

I'll try to be short, sweet, and to the point.

I removed some tags on an article [85] then when they were replaced without using the talk page I re-moved them [86] and created a place for discussion [87].

Since then I've had a couple of administrators giving me medium-weight grief, during which I said on my talk page that they were being "tiresome twat[s]". Can we either tell Guy Macon and SummerPhD what edit warring and personal attacks are (e.g.:questioning competency is not a personal attack) or can we tell me why what I did was one of those things?

Oh, and can we also tell Macon that it's not cool to tell users to fuck off, as he did to me?

124.168.221.199 (talk) 09:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think a key problem with SummerPhD's comments on the talk page is that he seemed to answer the question he'd like to answer ("What does {{external links}} mean?") as opposed to the actual question ("Why is {{external links}} still relevant for this article?) I see Canoe1967 has actually fixed the problem in the article, so the tag is no longer relevant. I would at this juncture consider the dispute resolved and advise deep breaths and pictures of cute kittens all round. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sure...kittens all around, but let us not forget that if you remove a tag, you need to provide and actual reasoning why you did so beyond "It isn't having an effect". Simply put, the tag was a challenge to the content and the removal without addressing the content issue was not the right move. I would love to discuss why someone would tell another to "f" off when being called a "tiresome "t".....but I am certain editors already get that.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Templated maintenance messages may be removed by any user when there is no supporting section on the talk page. So, zero support for Macon's consensus that I was edit warring? That is my main concern. And, while I do take your point Amad that I was being less than cordial in calling him a twat when he was stomping around my talk page... But for that Macon told me to fuck off while telling me to stop making personal attacks.' - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 10:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of templates, I should have thought that Guy Macons detailed explanation have covered that subject quite nicely. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, and even if I was, administrators don't use their tools on pages where they are involved. Nor have I called for a block. The behavior I describe below arguably merits a warning template, nothing more.

The issue is not, as 124.168.221.199 implies, whether he did something that would call for a block, such as WP:3RR. The question is whether, as I claim, proper behavior when a dispute arises over content that has been in place without complaint for months or years is BRD (You Boldly make the change, someone Reverts it, then you Discuss it with the original content in place) or whether, as 124.168.221.199 claims, proper behavior is BRRD (You Boldly make the change, someone Reverts it, you Revert the revert and only then Discuss it, having forced your changes onto the article). I would not have gone to ANI over such a minor issue, but now that it has gone to ANI, I really won't consider this to be resolved until the BRD vs. BRRD question is answered. If left unanswered it is certain to come up again.

The civility issue doesn't concern me, as long as the targets are experienced editors. I would be concerned if the insults and personal attacks are ever used against a new editor, because of our ongoing retention issues. I think a gentle warning to all involved (myself included) that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are policies that apply to all editors and all pages might be appropriate. It does give one pause when an IP editor with ten edits starts citing arbcom findings of fact. One might even suspect sockpupettry.

My exact words were "I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram." This was after 124.168.221.199 said that I was lazy, incompetent, tiresome twat (five times), condescending, head up arse, idiot, boring, dick, and having trouble with reading comprehension. (From Wictionary: TWAT: Noun (vulgar, slang) A vagina, pussy, vulva, clitoris.) given the fact that 124.168.221.199 filed this ANI and accused me of a PA over my reference to Arkell v. Pressdram, I think perhaps WP:BOOMERANG might apply. ---Guy Macon (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, great, so you're all clever when telling me to fuck off, great for you. Do you win some kind of prize? You are being lazy when you not only warn someone improperly, but when the page you pointed me at in your "detailed explanation" says pretty clearly "Anyone who sees a tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag". Since we're not all doing the kittens things here, can we start with that? The very essay I was pointed to says that my removal of the maintenance tag was fine. We can perhaps discuss Macon's reading comprehension problem (e.g. not understanding what edit warring is, what sock puppets are, or even the difference between an essay and a policy) later.

124.168.221.199 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a pretty essay. It may have been ok for you to remove the tags once because you had a belief. However, once the tag(s) were returned, you were never permitted to re-remove them, and that's from policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

See, that was both polite and relevant, thank you Bwilkins. Link to said policy, please? And not the pea-soup of letters, thank you. (The reason I pointed out that essay was because it was the first thing pointed to me when telling me I was wrong... Is that somehow not coming across?) - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, first let's start by the hierarchy for a moment: a policy (set by the community) outranks a guideline (usually also set by community, but could be a subset) which really outranks an essay (sometimes written by only one editor). Guidelines and essays often amplify/clarify a policy. The essay on tagging and untagging amplifies basic editing concepts, especially related to problem articles. The policy on edit-warring states that "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions...an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring". The tags are for this purpose considered to be content. You disagreed with the content of a page (its tags), so you removed them. It was reverted (as per be bold, revert, discuss). When you re-removed them, you were repeatedly restoring to you preferred version, as per policy. Note: the three revert bright line and edit-warring are related, but different - you can actually be edit-warring with a single edit (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I actually do understand the hierarchy, apologies if I didn't make that clear, I was suggesting that there were others in this discussion to whom it seemed quite vague. And is there a reason that you chose to remove "rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion" from the quote?

Back to the point at hand: I am sorry, but there's nothing there in the that I can't do what I did. And yes, I do understand that three reverts isn't an entitlement, but FFS, I made a section on the talk page explaining my single revert AND informed the user on their talk page of both the reversion and the discussion site, if I recall correctly. Rather than spending all this time schooling me, and with respect failing in doing so, perhaps we could re-visit what started all this: Ham-fisted warning for a single revert? I finally ask, given that the page on edit warring says "repeatedly", how can you claim a single edit can be edit warring? - 124.168.221.199 (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a warning, it shouldn't be ham fisted, and it shouldn't be worried over or responded to argumentatively. Nor should it be held against the warned editor (unless they ignore it, and carry on reverting, of course). No one should be using bad language, even relatively mild bad language - many people have uncharacteristically used bad language occasionally, we don't make a big thing about it, perhaps we should, but we do discourage it.

If someone uses bad language it is a bad idea to respond in kind

Be aware that most warnings are also templates, which often can be ham fisted - and some of us have worked on them to make them less so. The alternative, however, is hand written warnings which often neglect a vital point, say something incorrect or are even less felicitous.

A BRR is not the end of the world, but it is to be avoided - it result in trouble more often than not.

From the descriptions above Guy gets a trout for incivility, IP get a boomerang shaped trout for the same and a herring for the original revert, plus a mackerel for not hearing that it is BRD with only one R.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC).

Trout accepted. I did violate WP:CIVIL, and I should not have done that, no matter what the provocation. "He did it first" is never a justification for incivility.

I believe that the BRD vs.BRRD issue and tag removal issues have now been clarified so that everyone is running from the same set or rules. I would like a clarification regarding the theory that there exists somewhere an Arbcom finding of fact that says you have "latitude" to freely violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on your own talk page.

If and only if such "latitude" actually exists, I would like clarification about the implied corollary that those who you attack on your own talk page cannot be uncivil or engage in personal attacks when they reply. (Implied by filing a case at ANI complaining about someone doing that) --Guy Macon (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original history

The {{toomanylinks}} template was added on 10 July 2011. Four days later, the same editor removed a link from that section. Perhaps that editor still thought that there were too many links but as they didn't start any talk or otherwise indicate which links were superfluous, we can't tell. Later, the template was moved from that section to the head of the article. As the template had then become considerably separated in time and space from the original concern and the original editor had also taken action himself, it seems to have been quite reasonable for 124.168.221.199 to have removed the template. It was therefore unhelpful for editors to force this template back onto the article without establishing whether it was still appropriate. Banner templates at the top of BLP articles should be used with restraint because this is a common complaint made through OTRS — that the templates seem derogatory. Warden (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP removed the template because, in their opinion, it didn't seem to be working, not because it wasn't valid. I restored it saying it was still an issue, with a template stating it may not have been their intention to remove the template without giving a good reason. It should have been clear that, if nothing else, I considered it an issue. At this point, the editor could have clarified that they had removed it because there was no issue. Instead, they restored the tag and reiterated that "It's clearly not having the desired effect" and, despite my edit summary, asserted that I must have ignored theirs. A third editor fixed the issue then removed the tag (and good for them). Whatever.

The personal attacks are an issue, mostly because the IP apparently does not see personal attacks as an issue. Edits contrary to their intent and standard templates were "made lazily and in haste". The IP has also asserted another editor's "incompetence". When another editor warned them to be civil, they decided to "be direct: You're a tiresome twat. (See, that was a personal attack.)" When warned for that personal attack, they asked for clarification of which personal attack they were being warned for (after all, how could they know that their "personal attack" was a personal attack, I suppose. This warning was also labeled a "repeated and useless warning". Unfortunately it does seem to have been useless in this case as the IP told us we were "being idiots" (but not saying it because, after all, they crossed it out "I won't stoop so low as to point out my opponent's long history of alcoholism"). They then called me a "A twat, or 'A person regarded as stupid or obnoxious.'" The other editor was told "you're being a grade-A arsehole here. F U CK OFF." and calling their discussion "self-serving bullshit" and advising "Don't be a dick. Being mildly clever in telling me to fuck off does not make you less of a dick." That the IP does not see a problem is clear enough: "I'd do exactly the same thing again. Probably including calling you a twat, because you're being one. Let me repeat that, as you appear to be having trouble with reading comprehension today: If, on some other article, exactly the same thing happens, I'll do exactly the same revert-and-make-talk-page-entry. So whatever warning you think you've given, whatever message that you are trying to impart, you've failed in doing so."

Yes, we are failing to get the message across: making personal attacks is not acceptable. A personal attacks that you call a "personal attack" is not acceptable. When warned about a self-identified personal attack, reiterating that personal attack is not acceptable. Saying that you would make the exact same personal attack again is not acceptable. The point is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia." This is the message the IP doesn't hear. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

User:MeasureIT and SPI comments

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

---

There is currently an SPI investigation against two users. On seeing that the discussion was developing a number of interwoven threads, I extracted my comments and moved them to a separate section (as is the norm for arbcom discussions). To date, there had not been any responses to anthing that I had written, so I did not break any threads in doing so.

User:MeasureIT, one of the editors under investigation as a sock-puppet then merged my statements back into everybody else's. I believe that he was hoping to have such a confused argument that an administrator could not find their way around the diuscussion. Although I could have initiated a discussion, my past dealings with MeasureIT convinced me that a WP:BOLD approach was needed as he would probably have disrupted everything. Martinvl (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You misrepresent the situation. At least one of your comments had further comments nested under it - here is a diff of one being added: [88]. Removing it upset the context of that part of the thread. Many of your "past dealings" with me do you no favors at all, many of them being the subject of outstanding noticeboard discussions of one kind or another, as you well know. I know it would be more convenient for you if I was out of the way, but please don't misrepresent or exaggerate my actions. MeasureIT (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Any kind of admin interest in this SPI would be welcome as there is a history of muddying SPIs where these socks are concerned, making them hard to read. A more disruptive user than De Facto / Lucy-Marie / Eff Won I have never encountered, and these new two (Curatrice and MeasureIT) are showing every sign of being the same person. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't concern yourself with comment refactoring. So little evidence is required for a check (one diff per account and a few sentences of text) that 95% of what's written on that case is probably totally irrelevant anyway. I wouldn't waste your time responding to them; if a clerk or a checkuser needs anything then they'll ask you for it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Legal threats and incivility from User:Old Lanky

Old Lanky has threatened to notify the police about two IP contributors (or, perhaps more likely, one contributor with two IP addresses). His reason is that they're trolls, which, apparently, is illlegal in the UK. Reading User talk:Old Lanky#Back Again, I'll agree that they're being a bit rude, but he more than makes up for it with his own incivility [89], even giving me shit after I did him the courtesy of not being a dolt and checking to see if there was anything of actual substance to his claims. (I mean, sure, the comments are a bit mean, but if I tried to have everyone who accused me of sockpuppetry arrested, the prisons would be overflowing.) Regardless of merits of his complaint, this seems like a pretty clear-cut NLT violation, and since he's stated repeatedly [90] [91] that he's willing to be blocked, I suggest we give him his wish. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Given this response you made to him, I'm inclined to block you both. However that would be ultimately self-defeating, so I instead choose to bash your two heads together and tell you to play nice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone is clearly being a WP:DICK and accusing him of being a sock, without the cojones to actually file an SPI report. Continually accusing someone of socking without filing is WP:UNCIVIL. However, the response by Lanky is almost "methinks thou do'est protest too much". His talkpage isn't going to be protected as he asked for because it's not harassment, not at least how he's linked it. If Lanky wants to make legal threat, then yes, block'em. If he wants to revert and ignore (because he cannot block by himself), then it's the most intelligent way forward. If the person starts edit-warring with him, etc, it will become more of an offence (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Add: Deskana, don't forget to block the IPs :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to semi the talk page, especially if it continues. Those IP edits don't looked like an unbanned user without a problem to me. Not excusing that response in any way. BTW, I seem to have come across Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft. That's the IP, right? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair point Bwilkins. IPs blocked for one month due to clearly not being here to contribute constructively. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In re my response, perhaps I was a bit crabby, but he'd already engaged in all sorts of nasty language, and I don't see much of a problem with not taking nicely to being talked down to by someone who I was trying to save from an NLT indefblock (which is what I was doing - I could've easily taken him here after his first refusal to retract the threat). Either way, as I said, the incivility isn't nearly as much of a problem as the threat. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He's been warned for it and as far as I can see hasn't done it since, so I consider the matter resolved. You definitely need to be more civil though, because honestly you don't help your case when you report someone for violating policy and you're also guilty of doing so yourself. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really think I had a case to be helped - I was under the impression that users have to retract any outstanding legal threats if they wish to avoid being blocked; was I mistaken? To me, the incivility was just gravy, and if you really think my comment was equal to some of his, then I don't see how I can convince you otherwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 14:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Been looking at some of the stuff in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive per zzuuzz above who has definitely hit the nail on the head. It is a long saga of abuse and disruption aimed at the WP:Cricket project in general and at two of its members in particular, both of whom were named in the allegations levelled at me. I note especially that the troll has formerly used this tactic of accusing new users of being an alias of one of his two enemies to try and get all parties discredited. He has failed each time, mainly because his targets have always been genuine editors, and I daresay he will not go through the proper procedure you mentioned above because he knows he will fail. He has picked on me because I found an attack on Associate Affiliate and challenged it. I see he is subject to WP:BAN which looks very final, but evidently is not. May one suggest that the site should allow members only to edit? "Anyone can edit" does tend to mean "anyone will edit". --Old Lanky (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One may suggest it but it's unlikely to happen as explained here. NE Ent 15:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Agostinelli and User:Spacevezon, violation WP:NOPR

Hello, I see you semi-protected the Robert Agostinelli article without imposing any block or restrictions on the primary offender, User:Spacevezon, who is an employee of Bell Pottinger (worth a read given its extensive history with scrubbing Wikipedia bios on behalf of its clients) and he has now set about scrubbing all mention of his firm's role in the Robert Agostinelli article, as well as attempting to re-insert outlier sources discredited and removed by consensus. This is a paid editor and advocate in violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NOPR and I just wanted to write to you to remedy the situation as it is getting out of hand. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk • contribs)

Hi, 95.141.31.4. I have notified User:Spacevezon that you have opened this thread. I don't agree with you that he appears to be a paid editor (in fact he mostly edits articles about London bus routes); it looks like normal NPOV editing to me. His sources and posts seem reasonable and neutral to me, unlike your own. -- Dianna (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Expert editor DGG has confirmed at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that the Forbes source is a reliable one: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Robert Agostinelli. -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology just cites that they rely on recommendations from journalists, meaning it's subject to being influenced by PR efforts. That appears to be the case here since a PR firm Bell Pottinger is known to be employed, and appears to have successfully created confusion between the subject's net worth and the value of the fund he manages. There is still no evidence to suggest that the more reliable hard data shouldn't override this, particularly since (a) it's a huge outlier, and (b) the raw data sources are taken from actual filings and the numbers and details themselves are visible to all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The Forbes methodology bases their reports on the investigations (not recommendations) of their journalists, discloses what they do and do not take into account, and differentiates be tween the assets someone has and the assets their firm controls. It has two editors for the section who list themselves and take responsibility. See for their methods and bylines. They and the magazine, put their reputations behind it. It's as reliable as anything a magazine publishes. This of course does not mean they are right in any given case: even the best financial journalists make errors, and so do all other sources. That they give only a rough approximation in this case indicates to me that they are being honest in the presentation: they don't say more than they know. A less careful source would write out $1,000,000,000. Essentially no source is 100% reliable. It's not definitive, and any other reports should be used also. If challenged, as here, the technique is to say "According to Forbes, ...". Using it does not imply someone is a coi editor or not a coi editor; both would use it. It says nothing about an editors skill or carefulness: it's the first place people look, and unless there is a controversy, I would rarely look further. Any good source will give individual net worth as an approximation. because it is the most widely used source in the field. This is not a comment on the present matter at issue at ANI, which I may comment on when I've checked the situation & the diffs. DGG ( talk ) 16:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the history. The London Bus Routes editing was from months ago. He is not a regular editor and only picked back up again when required to scrub this page. The Robert Agostinelli page is the only one he now edits, save for adding punctuation here and there to the odd random article to make his history look legit. You think Bell Pottinger Digital Team doesn't know how to appear legit on Wikipedia? They've already been the subject of media articles about their activities here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Based on a report at WP:ANEW, I semi-protected the Agostinelli article, mainly based on my view that the editing by different IPs was inherently suspicious.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@ 95.141.31.4: I did investigate, and have seen paid editing before; this isn't it. Your accusations are serious, and require you to present actual proof in the form of example edits where you demonstrate his behaviour is "scrubbing" articles or proof of paid editing. It looks to me more like a collection of IPs have been removing favourable content - sourced content - from the article. -- Dianna (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Go through the history of the article itself. There is a clear pattern of paid edits and scrubbing, some of which resulted in user accounts being terminated for doing so. They appear to have gotten more clever this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The very first edit that User:Spacevezon made to the piece was to scrub his own firm. That doesn't strike you as suspicious? Nor the fact that he's hunkered down on a bio belonging to one of his paid clients? http://www.pelhambellpottinger.co.uk/clients-and-transactions/financial-institutions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.141.31.4 (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you persist in these accusations without offering any evidence (not a single diff, let alone a pattern of diffs), I will block you for personal attacks and close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone just run an IP check on User:Spacevezon already to see if there's anything suspicious or if it resolves to anything linked in the past here on Wikipedia to Bell Pottinger? Seems to be the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be more apt to run a check-user on User:Authentication2864, who has found his way to this discussion on his very first edit. -- Dianna (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh so no one has a right to register a Wikipedia username? Ah, okay then. There are several of us in the investment community monitoring this article as we have our own good reasons to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC) This might help in understanding the sudden mass interest in the article's subject since mid-December, Robert Agostinelli: http://www.generali.com/288451/Press-release-at-CONSOB-request-corrected.pdf . It's a case watched closely by the investment community involving the Italian SEC (CONSOB). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Come on now kids. Here I'll help the poor soul out on the suspicious diffs edits: Bell Pottinger scrubbing: [92] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Agostinelli&diff=531438962&oldid=531381639 Adding obscure gossip blog sources: [93] Reverting to questionable sources without using talk page: [94] [95] [96] [97] And all this within the last approx 24h with no edits on any other Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authentication2864 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, a brand new account jumping in at ANI. Are you the same person as all the IPs, some of the IPs? Putting the obvious socking aside for the moment, the only diff worth anything above is the one citing to GossipExtra, which is almost undoubtedly an unreliable source. The rest is old hat and has already been rejected as evidence of nothing. As for the material cited to the Gossip website, it's been removed (I may have done that myself when I cleaned up the article a bit but didn't go back to check).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked Authentication2864 for one week for abusing multiple accounts (there is a pending SPI report).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• A note about Spacevezon's edit history. They have 2,403 edits total, of which 785 are to article space. They have made 14 edits to the Agostinelli article and no edits to Rhône Group.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

IP vandalism of MMA articles

188.75.201.153 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was warned and then blocked for vandalism and abuse of editing privileges on 24 November 2012. Since then, the IP editor has returned to vandalism of MMA articles on several occasions. On 9 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Brandon Vera and was reverted. On 11 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Gabriel Gonzaga and was reverted. On 17 December, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Pat Barry (fighter) and was reverted. Today, s/he vandalised the MMA record of Alexander Volkov (fighter). I noticed after another IP blanked the section, an action I thought was vandalism and reverted but then noticed that the record was ridiculous (fights in 2028, for example). The IP has not had a talk page message since the block, so an AIV post would be pointless but my just posting a vandalism warning seems an under-reaction. I have not seen any edit that was constructive, though I haven't checked every edit. Would an admin like to take some action, please? I'll post the ANI notice to the IP after saving this edit. EdChem (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I have posted notification at the IP editor's talk page. EdChem (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate actions, including talk page censorship, uncivil and unfounded accusations and edit warring

Could I please bring attention to the actions of Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), which has included to date:

• odd bits of edit warring
• further edit warring and no attempt to take the matter to the article talk page.
• false accusations of edit warring; and
• further accusations of "disruptive editing", which led to:
• an implied threat of "acting like an admin", closely followed with
• a direct threat, despite there being no indication of any further edits about to take place (as the article was correctly formatted at the time). This was followed by:
• a false accusation of my "willingness to edit war", despite there being no need for further edits, as noted above.
• censoring the comments of others; not once but twice, despite being told not to (his reversions also constitute minor edit warring on this point also).
• uncivil and unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry

I think that the editor has lost his sense of perspective over this and is throwing increasingly wild and ridiculous accusations around without any basis whatsoever. I asked the editor to withdraw his baseless accusation, but no retraction was forthcoming. - SchroCat (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This editor has edited in violation of DATERET, despite being informed, and has been repeatedly uncivil to me, and has directly told me that I do not understand the guidelines of which I am partly the author. Given the behavior, I suspect the user is someone I have had a conflict with in the past under some other name. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the sequence of events:

• 23:02 3 Jan - Fanthriller removes a space in a category
• 23:05 - I notice the edit and revert it
• 23:08 - I notice the date formats are inconsistent, and reconcile the access dates to the majority format, fix one access date that it not in an approved format, and fix the ref marks. At this point the article has consistent access dates.
• 23:16 - Fanthriller does a blanket undo of my edits
• 23:30 - I restore it with more descriptive edit summary
• 23:47 - Fanthriller posts on Schrodinger's talk page
• 23:50 - I provide explanation of MOSDATE there. There is no problem at this point.
• 02:54 4 Jan - despite the explanation, User:Schrodinger does a blanket revert of my edit, including the other fixes I made. This is a problem.
• 05:57 - I notice the blanked undo of my edit, and restore the date formats to the consistent form I had left
• 06:00 - I also restore the other fixes that were removed in the blanket edit, but without touching the other edits User:Schrodinger had done
• 06:04 - After noticing the edit, I consider that the user may not have understood the STRONGNAT guideline they mention, so I draw their attention to it specifically, and the blanket undo
• 06:05 - User:Schrodinger undoes again, after being informed, and while discussion was ongoing on User:Schrodinger's talk page. This is a problem, in my view.

I see I have made the mistake of trying to engage, discuss, and explain longer than I should have. I tend to mistakenly assume that this a professional environment. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These allegations resemble some past ANI threads about Gimme, that came from a now community banned editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was my suspicion. In particular, User:Schrodinger works with tables and sorbability, and even the format of this complaint, are similar to Merridew. I know that's not proof, but it's a similarity. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Gimme, could you please provide a sample of a Merridew complaint resembling the format used here by Cat? There are too many Merridew socks to sort through and find an example of the formatting in archives. What I noted is that the Cat frequents the talk pages of the same editors as Merridew's Wikiassociates, although curiously some of them don't show on the Editor interaction tool, and has similar editing interests as you point out. If a serious look is to be taken here, an example of the formatting issue may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632#Gimmetoo.2C_again, for instance. I guess that doesn't look quite as similar as I thought. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your lack of good faith in this is dispicable and you are clutching at straws after some extremely shoddy behaviour. 2 minutes checking would have shown that Brer and I are entirely separate individuals. He resides in the US and I in the UK. You did not even bother to check something as basic as that. You can look at the archived talk pages of Ian Fleming and Peter Sellers to see he and I arguing with one another about infoboxes, if you can be bothered. Perhaps if others have also complained about this admin then maybe, just maybe, his style of interaction with others and his inflexibility of approach is questionable? Alarm bells ring if he has been here more than once because of his style in dealing with people. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to know a lot about "Brer"; I didn't know he resided in the US, in fact, I thought he was British. Regardless, I suppose a calm look here by impartial and uninvolved editors would be most useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Merridew always sounded American to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Cat, could you please provide a diff to the past discussions you reference above, where you argue with a Merridew sock? If a serious look is to be taken here, diffs will be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than chucking around innuendo, why don't you provide diffs that back up these allegations. As yet all we've really established is that SC has filed a complaint about an admin that a banned sock supposedly complained about. Betty Logan (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read more carefully before responding, so that this issue can be addressed calmly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• First of all SchroCat is a respected member of the James Bond project who has successfully led many articles through GA and FA promotions, so he's not a troublemaking editor. Second of all, he did not initiate this dispute. The dispute started between Gimmetoo and User:Fanthrillers (another prominent member of the James Bond project) and it was only in this capacity that SchroCat became involved after Fanthriller's requested a third opinion (see [98]). He has become involved in this dispute through a completely natural process, the same process that led to me commenting at the talk page of Talk:Bond_girl#Dates. The dispute clearly revolves around the interpretation of WP:STRONGNAT, in which three editors interpret the guideline differently to Gimmeetoo. If this dispute resembles another dispute that Gimmeetoo has had with another editor, is it not possible that Gimmeetoo's interpretation of the guideline has led to a similar type of conflict? My suggestion is this: if Gimmeetoo honestly believes SchroCat is a sock (which I sincerely doubt) then he should file a case at the appropriate forum for dealing with such accusations. If Gimmeetoo believes that WP:STRONGNAT is being misinterpreted by three separate editors, then the best course of action for addressing the main dispute would be to initiate an RFC to see which interpretation consensus supports. But informing other editors that they are misinterpreting a guideline (because you helped author it) is not a trump card and entitle you to keep reverting, and threatening admin action in a case where you are involved in an editorial dispute is not really acceptable either. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nice, but. It would be interesting to hear from uninvolved parties; in past similar ANI threads, certain editors could be counted on to weigh in, but if Gimme is again being hounded, a serious look by uninvolved editors is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point that considering Schrodinger's cat is alive a sockpuppet of anyone is a serious lack of perspective. Also, we shall be discussing the issues brought by the user and evaluate if they require any action (against anyone who needs to be admonished or whatever needs to be done) instead of being throwing sockpuppetry accusations. I know that all the recent events led to an overall high level of suspiciousness, but that's no excuse, in my opinion. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Unhelpful. Considering the history, we owe it to both editors (Cat and Gimme) to get this right, without peanut galleryism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly, we should focus on the issue brought here, and nothing else. Per the diffs provided by both Cat and Gimme, I have the feeling that both users did some mistakes. Cat shouldn't have reverted Gimme more than once, and the same goes to Gimme. I am aware of Gimme's actions (I mean, all the stuff about the dates on references and keeping the article consisten with its history) and i like it, although I prefer to talk instead of talk and revert at the same time, which is unproductive (and this goes to both users). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm confident everything will be looked at in due time; there is no rush. And I suspect you've never been on the receiving end of serious Wikihounding (I'm envious of editors who haven't had that particular joy). I have, Gimme has, and anyone else who has knows that pursuing these discussions calmly is warranted and helpful, and that all involved parties deserve that. If either has been unfairly accused, a calm discussion will benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. I have been hounded just a couple of times, and not at the size Gimme has, thankfully. As I said, we can calmly evaluate this, although I think that this should have been solved on the talk page. Just a couple of I'm sorry for reverting, what about a coffee and a calm chat? would have been enough... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I probably shouldn't have made the on-wiki mention of socking, though I won't deny is was going through my mind. The problems with Merridew strongly involved two actresses who played Bond girls. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Diffs pls

Outstanding diff requests are:

1. Gimme, do you have a diff of similar formatting in ANI archives? Now discussed above by Gimme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
2. Cat, do you have a diff where you argued with Merridew et al? Provided below by Mathsci. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
3. Cat, how is it that you are familiar with where Merridew lives?
4. Does anyone know why the interaction tools aren't working in this case; [99] for example, they don't show the overlap of editors here.
5. Gimme, the tools aren't working correctly for me, but it looks like Cat has been active at Bond girl for a while; what brought you to the article? Provided above in edit conflict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• They both edited Talk:Georg_Solti#Infobox, giving diametrically opposing views on info-boxes. Mathsci (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Helpful, thx. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'll take it as less likely this is Merridew. The Merridew dispute strongly involved two "bond girl" actresses, which is probably why that came to mind in this dispute at "bond girl". Gimmetoo (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly they argue on Talk:Ian_Fleming/Archive_1#Civility, another discussion about infoboxes at the same time. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Helpful again. I'm still bothered that the interaction tools aren't working ... partly because Merridew had so many socks that they are practically invalidated, but there is a clear error in the diff I give above, where interaction on user talk isn't showing up in tools. Perhaps some techy type can explain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Based on editing style I'm quite certain they are not the same. Further, not sure where the hounding bit came from, but SchroCat seems to specialize on Bond topics, he did not follow Gimmetoo there. Amalthea 18:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Already indicated above that Cat did not follow Gimme to the article. Thanks, Amalthea. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Original dispute

There seems to a preliminary consensus that Cat is not a Merridew sock based on evidence presented. I apologize to Cat for my suspicions, but the similarities were there and had to be analyzed, and having been the subject of serious wikihounding for many many years, I don't blame anyone who begins to see shadows. Perhaps now folks can look at the underlying dispute with that in mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing, edit warring, spamming, personal attacks and uncivil behaviour

Rothbardanswer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Almost all of User:Rothbardanswer's edits involve either POV-pushing, edit warring, spamming, personal attacks or uncivil behaviour. His legitimate edits are outnumbered by the unproductive and negative ones. His account has already been blocked for violating Wikipedia guidelines, but his bad behaviour has resumed with a vengeance. He has been warned many times on his talk page but he deletes those warnings.Spylab (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Spylab, can you please provide some diffs? I checked the talk pages of Anarchism and Free market and didn't find anything considered a personal attack or uncivil behaviour. Maybe I looked at the wrong place... — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm the only contributor using the talk page before using edits. Every edit I've made has been preceded by using the talk page and every edit I've made has made reference to a different author article and site. Still these editors are displaying bad faith, aren't engaging in discussion on the talk page, are editorialising, and displaying ownership of the page, and political POV pushing. Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rothbardanswer just violated 3RR on Anarchism. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Tellyuer1

Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Tellyuer1 has been edit-warring at Moshe Friedman. The editor has also spammed virtually every Wikipedia noticeboard concerning the article. Now Tellyuser1 is canvassing editors. Will somebody please put an end to this disruptive editing? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Am consistently trying to engage in dialogue on this very serious issue concerning Holocaust denial. Simply wish for sources to be accurate. Happy to stop as long as engaging in dialogue which Shabazz and 1 other editor refuse to do.

18:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellyuer1 (talk • contribs)

---

(Consolidating my report with the above. —C.Fred (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC))

• Tellyuer1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moshe Friedman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm too involved to take administrative action myself, so I'm filing a report here.

The actions that led to this report have all taken place in the past 24 hours, including the user's edit warring at Moshe Friedman, for which he has had a WP:ANEW report filed against him. He's then started canvassing other users' talk pages in an apparent campaigning/votestacking attempt to push his changes through the article.

I've tried to assume good faith and help this user, but the straw that broke the camel's back was this message at his user talk page. I'll let some stuff slide, but being accused of "supporting anti-semitism" (his words) counts as a personal attack in my book.

Additionally, the WP:ANEW report against him includes vague allegations by other users that Tellyuer1 may be involved in sockpuppetry.

I think it's time for an uninvolved admin to come in and address the situation—not just the edit warring, but the whole of his conduct. —C.Fred (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not vague accusations, he had three socks and also used an IP[100] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• FYI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tellyuer1. Amalthea 18:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Rather than using fancy terms simply do what is supposed to be done on wikipedia - accurately reflect information. I have all accurate information and editors refuse to review the actuality of what the sources say and article says. And yes its anti-semitism to say jews werent killed in the holocaust. NY Post isnt a valid source but some obscure vienna newsletter is? Tellyuer1 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)