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

Harassing, island-hopping IP editor

This individual, who seems to hop IPs every few edits was blocked for similar (although more aggressive) behaviour in November and has long been back with a vengeance. Although this person's editorial mishaps extend beyond mere edit-warring to harassing, I felt it would be easier to single out a single behavioural issue. Also, at Tainan this editor showed his/her true intent of tracking me down by reverting in a non-politically contentious content area. The questionable conduct extends to the 111.243.45.* and 61.219.36.* ranges as well, including outright vandalising of other user's talk pages. It is high time that this person's ranges are executed Wiki-style. GotR ^Talk 16:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the IP should be blocked and harassment has not, should not and will not be tolerated. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And (s)he's back to it again! GotR ^Talk 16:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected List of cities in China. Vandalism on Makecat's talk page has died down; if it flares up again that talk page should be semi-protected as well. There isn't much else we can do, I think, but an IP-range specialist can maybe figure something out. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Abusive emails (Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis)

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

---

I received three emails this morning from User:Nero1990, an account with no contributions. There is no clear place to report an incident like this, so I'm posting here to receive administrator assistance. They are all identical, and read as follows (email addresses redacted):

from: Nero1990 <XXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com> via wikimedia.org
to: Siafu <XXXXXX@XXXXXXX.com>
date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:22 PM
subject: GAS THE ANTI-SEMITES!
mailed-by: wikimedia.org

LONG LIVE ISRAEL! DEATH TO THE ENEMY!


--
This e-mail was sent by user "Nero1990" on the English Wikipedia to user "Siafu". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents.

The sender has not been given the recipient's e-mail address, nor any information about his/her e-mail account; and the recipient has no obligation to reply to this e-mail or take any other action that might disclose his/her identity. If you respond, the sender will know your e-mail address. For further information on privacy, security, and replying, as well as abuse and removal from emailing, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Email>.

As per this you should not paste an email on-wiki, not sure whether we can do it on ANI also an admin will be able to help you. --sarvajna (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the email addresses, so no outing is occurring. As for not posting emails, I find this to be a strange thing to say to me, as I'm receiving weird offensive emails from someone I don't know, being delivered by wikimedia.org; the inappropriate behavior is not mine. There's no copyright violation in posting this, either. siafu (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I've had similar in the past - it's someone who creates accounts just to send email abuse. I expect the answer will be to block with email access removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Apparently a lot of editors who participated in the discussion at talk:Germans andthe ANI discussion surrounding the block of User:Guitar hero on the roof received this kind of abuse yesterday. I received 20 death threats myself. They were not from the same account who sent the email to Siafu. Blocking these throw-away accounts is not really an effective solution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This sort of crap has been going on for at least a year and a half with many prior discussions, see User talk:RolandR#Hundreds of threatening messages for example. RolandR is a frequent victim. It sounds like some progress has been made in that a throttle has been implemented of 100 emails per hour [1] but there's still no proposal to better stop the problem. There is a plan bto allow emails to be controlled by the abusefilter [2], but if people have other suggestions, they may want to make them in an appropriate place. (I don't think discussions at ANI are likely to achieve a solution since the prior 10 or so haven't really.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I received several this morning from User:Liandarnody. It's obviously JarlaxleArtemis again, using an extremely offensive hmamail account name. The subject line of my messages was "I'm going to hunt you down and kill you, CommuNazi scum". Account now blocked. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Did any of the other accounts start with "Nero"? In any case, disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution, especially if the reason weren't given (WP:BEANS). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps I should clarify when I say there's still no proposal I mean there's still no proposal that seems likely to be implemented. There have been some other proposals which don't look likely to be implemented for a variety of reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I recieved the same mails as quoted by the OP this morning sent by a User:Nero1990. And yes I also (briefly) participated in the discussion at Talk:Germans. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got a message (happens to me quite often but I just delete automatically) from the some idiot this morning, only it read 'Gas all Arabs' to judge from the heading, since I didn't open it (probably also telling me I'm euroscum). Wouldn't have mentioned it had it not been raised here.Nishidani (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I just deleted them and moved on. Although I can understand that the possibilites in the present system for constant email harrasment by trolls needs to be curtailed. I support the idea of removing the email function for editors with no edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, the one I got in December, from User:Enemy of the Jihadis was titled "GAS THE ARABS!". I reported the abuse to hmamail and they quickly blocked the account, but that doesn't stop the creation of lots of throwaway ones. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I got more of these than anybody else. :-) In analogy to WP:DENY I originally decided not to mention them on-wiki, but simply notified the email address given at WP:Functionaries. It think this is the preferred reaction; if not, maybe one of the functionaries can let us know. Hans Adler 16:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I for one liked to know I wasnt the only person to receive these. Email disabled now though.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its rare that I see a good idea on ANI, but disallowing accounts with no edits to send E-mail might be a partial solution qualifies. I would raise it to a minimum of 50 or 100 edits though, or maybe only autoconfirmed accounts. nableezy - 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Its user:grawp and I agree with user:nableezy--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that must be the first time I have seen the above comment! It is indeed a good proposal, and one I have raised before. However, I have been told that this is impractical, and reasons have been given for not introducing this. In particular, it has been argued that victims of BLP violations sometimes need to contact an editor for changes to be made. I'm not convinced that this therefore requires a facility which enables a serial abuser to send thousands of racist death threat emails to scores of editors. Nor why a user is allowed to send via Wiki mail emails from an address threatening to kill another editor. This really needs to be addressed urgently: I have received more than 1500 of these in the past 18 months. RolandR (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it naive of me to suggest that the sending of so many abusive and malicious messages and death threats is a police matter? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

As I noted in the subject line and Wikimedia Foundation well knows: This is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/JarlaxleArtemis. One editor reported he received an email in my name which doubtless is from JarlaxleArtemis who has been making up offensive User names with my name in it on various Wikimedia projects. (Is this the email people are referring to here?? Feel free to send me a copy if so.) So he WILL escalate his behavior when he decides to really come and get you. If he finds out you live near him in Southern California, you might really be in trouble.

As you can see, he's been at it a long time and Wikimedia Foundation has made efforts to stop him, including contacting his family. Please add your complaints to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis under current activites, favorite pages, or anywhere else you feel it is necessary.

Obviously if anyone bothered to go to the feds (and this is not a threat since I won't), a whole case could be opened. The stupid kid probably would face decades in prison under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Threatening the government officials of the United States, Terrorism or any of the zillions of other laws there are out there. Instead of getting the psychological help he obviously needs. But he's no Aaron Swartz so it's not like Wikimedia Foundation has a duty to protect him. CarolMooreDC 01:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll dig out one of mine and send it to you, I've been meaning to do something about it since I saw your name on it. Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, do I really need to mention that since these incidents are all related to editing in the Israel-Palestine area (or more recently against editors who questioned a WP:OR definition of who is German or Jewish), that this is political terrorism plain and simple? Does it matter if the person does it because they are oppressed, or because they think they are oppressed, or they are pushing some nefarious political agenda of a state? It's something Wikipedia has to deal with. If there is war vs. Iran it will get much worse on articles related to that topic. So it should not be just written off as hijinks of bored trolls. CarolMooreDC 04:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's stretching a point to call this terrorism, and I think predicting a war with Iran is not reasonable to guess at. But what Grawp is doing would certainly be illegal in UK law, and if I were in a position of influence I would recommend throwing the book at him. We're not here to provide a hosting service for bigots and promoters of hate-speech and death threats. But this is a matter for the discretion of the the Wikimedia Foundation, and so my opinion is worth approximately what you've paid for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt these actions violate any federal law but they almost certainly violate a number of state anti-harassment and anti-cyberbullying laws. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Jesus H. Murphy, Grawp is still around and trolling? Kurtis ^(talk) 20:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Ai-yai-yai-yai-yai! Grawp is on the loose again? Not good. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

New policy proposal?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Email policy proposal

NE Ent 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of JarlaxleArtemis violent threat .gif

WMF is aware, thank you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Which was just posted on my talk page and I'm deleting now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carol..gif Please save a copy for Wikipedia's legal dept. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Also ban User:Tablorprizerna who put it up again after I deleted it. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 01:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP issues at Anita Sarkeesian

As many of us know, the Anita Sarkeesian article has been a particularly sensitive BLP issue since the subject was the victim of a sustained harassment campaign last May. Mostly this has been handled through scrupulous patrolling, however one particular user, Niemti, continues to use the talk page in a manner inconsistent with BLP, the talk page guidelines, and general competence, and it needs to stop. Niemti, coming off a ban as HanzoHattori and currently the subject of an RFC/U about his behavior, dislikes Sarkeesian and feels the article is primarily about video games, entitling him to add negative material from video game blogs.[3] Worse, for over two months, he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants that disparage the subject, circulate negative gossip, and derail any discussions about actual article improvements.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]
He has been warned about this various times,[13][14][15][16] but won't or can't stop his disruption. Most recently he started a facepalm-inducing RM that's a pretty transparent attempt to shift the focus of the article in the hopes it will let him introduce negative material from video game blogs. He's spent the last three days bludgeoning any RM participant who disagrees with him (which, naturally, is every other editor) and going off on yet more disparaging tangents.
Enough's enough. It's clear Niemti can't participate at this article in any collaborative fashion. He needs to be banned from the article and its talk page - and any discussion of Anita Sarkeesian on Wikipedia. It's also time to look more comprehensively at the issues brought up at his RFC/U.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I support Cúchullain's analysis of the situation. Classic case of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT that has gone on for far too long. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I can support/reinforce what Cuchullain is saying too. It's the same problems I come into every single time I interact with Niemti. (For the record, I rarely have actual personal conflicts with him, it's more that editors are always coming to WP:VG asking for help with dealing with him, a place where I frequently provide assistance.) He has ownership issues, and you can't hold a rationale discussion with him on talk pages. His responses are usually long confusing rants filled with condescending, saracastic remarks..

It's hard to recommend what to do though; as difficult and rude as he may be, he usually keeps within the bounds of blockable offenses. (He reverts people without explanation, but usually stays within 3RR. He's rude, but usually doesn't violate WP:NPA.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

In this case his strange gossip is clearly a BLP issue, and his refusal to get the point and talk page railroading is disruptive. He needs to be banned from all discussion involving Anita Sarkeesian. And please, someone close that disruptive RM.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's make it formal. My proposal: Niemti is indefinitely banned from the Anita Sarkeesian article, its talk page, and any discussion of the subject on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Niemti's issues stretch beyond just this article as noted above, but if this works in halting some of his disruption I don't see the harm in supporting a ban. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I also support Cuchullain's topic ban proposal and if this works in preventing some of his disruption, I do not see any problem with that per David Fuchs's comments on this situation. I agree with Cuchullain that it's perfectly clear that Niemti cannot participate in this article in a collaborative fashion and also that it's about time to look into the situation over at the user's RFC/U. This pattern of disruption is unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to ask at this juncture whether anybody not editing from Sympathetic Point of View with Sarkeesian will be treated as part of a larger "harassment campaign" and blocked. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the actual situation here.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the RM has been closed by TRPOD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Nobody is suggesting the AS article should be free of criticism or critique, merely that all such be cited from RS. The editor under discussion has long since passed the threshold of disruptiveness. BusterD (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. This editor has gone too far beyond constructive dialog and consensus-seeking and is way into disruptive territory, and clearly will not stop voluntarily. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with a topic ban. Niemti hass shown time and time again to be incapable of separating passionate personal views on the matter from what is relevant to article content or talkpage discussion. As long as there is zero understanding and not even the mild intellectual sympathy of feminist media analysis in video games, Niemti's interaction with the topic will remain destructive. Peter ^Isotalo 05:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support See also recent AN ban discussion, closed as no consensus. NE Ent 13:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went to the Anita Sarkeesian article and talk page expecting to see a woman-hating disruptive editor harassing other editors, based upon the description given above, but that's not what I saw. Many of the editors Niemti suggested did, in fact, advance the cause of NPOV policy. He has a clear view, but it's clear that certain editors are wikilawyering to prevent that view from being even mentioned in the article. When editors try to argue that an article about a woman known for criticizing video games for sexism has nothing to do with video games and therefore sources about videogames cannot be used in the article, that's crazy. When they try to prevent published criticism of the topic of the article by saying that the source is not reliable because it is a video game blog (video game blogs can be reliable) but allows a lot of primary sources and feminist blogs to be used as sources, that's not following WP:RS, that's cherry picking sources to use the article as a promotional piece advancing her views and her career. In my opinion Niemti is not any more guilty of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT than the editors currently their rejecting his input. Wiipedia editors are far too quick to try to block people over disagreements over views instead of actual behavior. This is just civil POV pushing. DreamGuy (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
  • All I can say is that regulars of WP:VG appear to have a thing or two to learn about critical analysis of references. Some of the nonsense sourcing (blogs, forums, fan databases, "quote references") that many video game articles get away with would never be tolerated in other fields. This is a perfect example of what happens when those standards are applied outside the somewhat sheltered views of gaming aficionados. Peter ^Isotalo 03:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't stress enough that WikiProject Video Games does not call the source in question (Destructoid) "reliable". This is something that Niemti keeps on saying that simply isn't true. WP:VG classifies it as "situational", as it can only be used in rare instances, because sometimes their stories are picked up by more reliable sources, showing it's likely reliable/true information, yet Destructoid should ultimately get credited for being the source. There's no way that this is one of those scenarios where WP:VG would deem the source useable. So don't misdirect the issue here. Sergecross73 msg me 04:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Content matters aren't at issue here. The issue is Niemti's behavior, which has been totally disruptive to the article. Comments like this have no place anywhere on Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 04:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this your diff shows exactly what we disagree about. In the diff, Niemti simply makes an argument that a person is not really notable. This may or may not be a correct argument (I would have to do my own research), but I do not see this at all as a BLP violation or a personal attack. I would never make such comment. However, if someone else made such comment in discussion with me, I would consider this comment as frank and straight to the point. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it. Niemti has repeatedly attempted to insert his own favored POV into the article in obvious violation of WP:RS and without any understanding of the topic at hand. Niemti has plagued the talkpage with long-winded rants, general incivility and only two days ago a disingenuous attempt to move the article. He has time and time again shown that he is unwilling or incapable of listening to arguments or to respect consensus.

Are you trying to tell us that Niemti's behavior in this case has actually been helpful and constructive...?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wishes, again, this isn't about the content matters Niemti brings up, it's about his disruptive behavior. In that single edit, Niemti went, FORUM-style, on an irrelevant tangent about some other YouTuber, ignored previous warnings to stick to discussing article improvements, and claimed, with no backing or relevance whatsoever, that Sarkeesian engineered the trolling campaign in a "media-savy way" to "start a huge moral panic" in order to benefit financially from it. Oh, and he suggests she should have just rolled over for her harassers or "counter-attack literally using her vagina". Are you really suggesting this is appropriate and productive talk page discussion? And people wonder why few women edit Wikipedia.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was probably an inappropriate statement, but a quote from elsewhere and about a different person. Still, I would advise Niemti should stay away of this page. As about women in the project, come on, they simply have more important things to do than waste their time here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That kind of blasé comment does not alleviate any concerns, you know.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not be so much concerned about this particular statement to bring the matter to ANI. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I still do not think that any statement by Niemti provided in the diffs above (on the article talk page) represents a clear-cut BLP violation. However, I would strongly advise Niemti to voluntarily stop editing this page, stop commenting about this person and make a clear statement about this here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per my comments above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral agree with DreamGuy. While Niemti's view may be unpopular, I don't see any blatant BLP issues by him in the discussion. Note also that TRPoD's closure of discussion was not appropriate, as he has already voiced his opinion in the discussion with comments, he has a conflict of interest and should not close the move discussion. As I'm not a participant in the actual discussion, however, I'll just go with neutral !vote. Still waiting for Niemti's statement, though... Satellizer ^talkcontribs 23:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)I've decided to remove my !vote per the comments responding to this and other comments; I thus have no opinion on this issue.Satellizer (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, I understand where you're coming from. Personally, I'm not as much bothered by the BLP problem as much as that there's clear consensus against what he's trying to do, and yet time and time again he wastes editors time with his incoherent rants and attitude, and has even made comments that seem to suggest he's going to just go against consensus once editors lose interest in the topic. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You may be neutral in your vote, but you're definitely not neutral in your commentary. It's not a matter of unpopularity. This is a classic example of "Experts are scum" in my view, something which I thought was rather rare on Wikipedia these days. The views Niemti is trying to push so obstinately are about as relevant as the views of an oil lobbyist in a debate about global warming. Gender studies may not be as "hard" a science as climatology, but it sure as hell is more absolute than the opinionated and uninformed editorials of video game reviewers. Peter ^Isotalo 03:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If a source is reliable, it's reliable. Your comments here suggest that you don't think games journalists can be considered reliable for a game-related topic, which seems pretty absurd. Niemti might not be a productive Wikipedian but your attitude is not helpful either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
      • It's really simple. Hot Rod Magazine might be a reliable source when it comes to the topic of cars, however it is not a reliable source for the theory of relativity...even if the theory of relativity is applied to cars. Similarly, game journalists might be reliable sources for games, however they are not reliable sources for cultural studies/women's studies/etc...even if those things are applied to games--which is what's going on in this instance. So no, a reliable source for one topic isn't a reliable source for another topic. As mentioned above, failing to get this point (WP:RS) is one of the problems. DonQuixote (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Comment. Clearly I believe that taken as a whole, Niemti's rantings, many of which just introduce unsourced gossip, disparaging innuendo, and personal gripes about Sarkeesian and her motivations, constitute a BLP issue. But even if you disagree on that point, there's still the matter that his repeated violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and the WP:TPG, his unwillingness to get on track despite numerous warnings, and his bludgeoning of editors who disagree with him. This is patently disruptive and it needs to stop.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
  • My thoughts, exactly. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. 5.12.84.224 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as my analysis mirrored DreamGuy's --Nouniquenames 03:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support in agreement with comments by Cuchullain and Sergecross. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Niemti is an excellent editor when working alone on uncontroversial subjects, but terrible at working with others. He is unable to make even the slightest concession to other editors and becomes demanding, patronising and sarcastic almost immediatly upon sighting an alternate point of view. This issue is not about what the Sarkeesian article should look like, but the way he goes about the discussion, which is wholly inappropriate and completely disruptive to civil, useful discussion. Euchrid (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• First, and foremost, I'd like to start of by saying that I do not consider Niemti to be sexist, at all. The arguments sighted on the article's talk page stem more from a disagreement about the source of Sarkeesian's notability than any misogynist sentiments on his part. Nevertheless, the concern is that he is using said talk page as a platform to express his opinions (or as he may call them, "facts" — of the variety that cannot be adequately verified by any third-party sources) regarding the subject, and specifically the reasons in which she is considered significant enough to have a biography on Wikipedia; it delves into BLP-violating territory when he says that her fame mostly comes from the harassment campaign levied against her, which cannot possibly be substantiated in the article. It's hard to really get a good sense of what he's trying to accomplish in his contributions there, and it's unfortunately stirred up a great deal of ill will among the participants. Therefore, I'll have to echo the sentiments of My very best wishes in suggesting that Niemti disengages from the topic altogether, precluding the need for an actual community sanction. I think he would find much more satisfaction in editing other topics of interest than from continuing to beat this particular dead horse. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Echoing DaveFuchs and NE Ent, as I see it there's already consensus that Niemti should not be editing video game articles at all. bridies (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I came from my weekend and I see what. You "should not be editing video game articles at all", too, but also maybe first decide if this is a video game article or not (allegedly it sin't). The article is also using Kotaku, which is a very unprofessional video game tabloid blog (as noted by the acclaimed game director Hideki Kamiya[17]). And you know what's "disruptive"? Not allowing a discussion on talk page, replying with "fucking deal" and such, doing things like this thread. Bye. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, amd also I just though about it, and this single-event article should be merged into something like "Women and video gaming controversies" (or some better name, it was quick). Which would also cover the professional gamer Miranda Pakozdi, the game writer Jennifer Hepler, and so on (who all have no articles on Wikipedia, despite being widely reported, too, including in the mainstream press, and often in the very same articles as Sarkeesian - just google them and you'll see). --Niemti (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a fine example of the incoherent, attitude riddled rantings you tend to muddle discussions with. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, also not. --Niemti (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt to midirect attention away from your disruptive behavior and towards abstract content issues. That's not going to fly.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Niemti shows no sign of relenting either here or at Sarkeesian's talkpage. He's even calling WP:VG/RS "a joke".[18] And then there's the deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies. Topic ban now, please. Peter ^Isotalo 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion has been going on for just a few days. As an uninvolved admin, in my view it would be premature to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's time to move forward with this proposal yet, but Niemti's recent spate of commentary contains more of the same problematic behavior and suggests he has no intention of changing.Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because treating Kotaku (a source of such fine "journalism" as this or that) an unconditionally reliable source surely must be a joke. Anyway, I'm done hopelessly trying to initiate a proper (with arguments and counter-arguments, instead of abuse and bullying that I'm getting from you) discussion on the changes with the article (the article that I've previously edited more than anyone else). See you at AfD in time. --Niemti (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and (of course) I never made a "deeply offensive suggestion that women are by themselves video game controversies", and with this bizarrily absurd comment you've just got a taste of what's going on at this talk page. Now I'm unwatching it, like I just unwatched this article, after being central in building it up. --Niemti (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

An AfD right after a unanimously opposed RM. We can add WP:FORUMSHOPPING to the list of disruptive behaviors.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enough about Kotaku. If you don't like that there's a consensus that it's reliable, start a discussion at WP:VG to change it. The issue at hand here is the edits you're trying to make to this article, and how you handle yourself on the talk page. Neither of those things have anything to do with Kotaku's status of reliability, so it's irrelevant to discuss here. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support narrow topic ban -- it's way past the question of right/wrong or POV. Niemti is being moderately rude (which is hardly unusual) and has shown that he is unable to discuss politely and constructively about, at the very least, this specific topic. This isn't "improving Wikipedia" in the slightest, and that should be everyone's main goal. There's no reason to allow this to further devolve into something even worse and there's plenty of other articles that can be improved. Salvidrim! ✉ 00:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban The problem is evident, even on this page. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - My conclusion after having read the various points put forth by editors here and at the RM is that a topic ban is appropriate in this situation. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per DreamGuy. And frankly I find the comments by User:TheRedPenOfDoom ("get over it" and "get a on with your life!") and even those by Cúchullain (in the way he describes Niemti's comments - which appear to be civil and reasonable - as "he has choked the talk page with incoherent rants") to be way more uncivil and sanction worthy than anything Niemti has said or done.Volunteer Marek 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I highly suggest you take a look at the related RfC and see that RedPen and Cúchullain's comments, while not necessarily excusable, are small potatoes to the majority of Niemti's reported behavior. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't accept that any of my comments, or Red's for that matter, have been uncivil, though I'll gladly tone it down in the future if it takes some edge off the discussion. It also bears reiteration that no one else in the discussion has made unfounded or inappropriate comments about the subject, gone off on tangents irrelevant to actual article improvements, refused to hear it when consensus is against them, or engaged in forum shopping when they don't get their way. That's the issue here; it's not one problem, it's a pattern of behavior.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per DreamGuy. I reviewed the diffs as well, and I see a lot of hair pulling over Niemti's responses, some of it uncivil, but nothing worthy of Niemti being TB'ed. Perhaps some new eyes whose owners blood pressure is 120/80 might be helpful at the talk page.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I echo the sentiments of ThomasO1989 and suggest that you take a look at the related RfC about his reported behavioral patterns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Tagremover and Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner

User:Tagremover has been using Talk:Boeing 787 Dreamliner to push his/her POV on the Boeing 787. He/she even resorts to accusing us editors of being biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda. I personally think some action should be taken here, since he/she is abusing the talk page for a reason that is not allowed. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Its true i used some clear, bold language (bleedless > bleed, nightmare) but also newer sources like the established Time magazine use the same. Just to give a short scientific result. Seemed to be too "emotional", although it will get clear if it is read fully it wasn´t meant so.

biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters: I did not mention anyone personally, but this article is somewhat "pro-Boeing". But:

Other Aircraft articles (Airbus) are somewhat biased, too. Its IMHO a common problem in Wikipedia product articles. Losers are articles like TU-144, which have less (russian?) editors. I think this "fight" to mainly write positive about products is NOT good and is not what is meant by Wikipedia:Assume good faith (about the products, of course good faith for editors). I just think it should not even allowed, but it MUST be allowed in Wikipedia to call an article or statement biased. And i wanted to share info to improve this. Tagremover (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Wikipedia:Assume good faith: Did User:Andros 1337 respect that related to me? Tagremover (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to note I collapsed one forum-type discussion and left a note reminding users that continuing to add commentary, speculation and the like may be disruptive before I was aware of this discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My reasonable small inline tags: [19] were removed: [20], my critical comments and suggestions were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor of the article, and i was taken to ANI. Remarkable. Please could we stop at least this ? Tagremover (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I must say, Tagremover's edits are very WP: FILIBUSTER-ish, to say the least. Tagemover claims he is adding a "short scientific result", but is instead loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV. When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage, along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters". In my opinion, MilborneOne has every right to collapse that section. It was completely redundant and disruptive. Sadaam Insane (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Sadaam Insane makes wrong statements:

• "loading the article with his own personal anti-Boeing POV": Wrong: What, when? Diffs?
• "When his edits are reverted, he issues a lengthy rant on the talkpage" I feel insulted. What, when? Diffs?
• "along with WP: NPA violations, calling other editors "America the beautiful Dreamwriters": A user answered;

• "Give it up, you're "pissing in the wind" against "established editors" with WP:OWN issues who will "revert" you into oblivion... Not worth it." I answered:
• "Is the Dreamliner Becoming a Financial Nightmare for Boeing? sees probably months of grounding. Other analysts come and join my previous stated opinion. Too many biased "America the beautiful" Dreamwriters here. That was one reason i used strong words above; but if one see the consequences, one chose them - see established time magazine." [21] Clearly meaning no one personal.

Tagremover (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying our editorial effort on the article suffers from "Too many biased 'America the beautiful' Dreamwriters here." smears the editorial pool for the article in general. Your complaint would have more validity and perhaps be accepted if you were to provide diffs instead of simply making a nebulous, non-specific claim. Marteau (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

continuance. Regarding the instance you cited above, where you tagged "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines" as and objected to your "dubious" tag being reverted as evidence of a bias, the fact that Boeing indeed said that is indisputable and is cited. This clearly is an objective, non-biased revert. Marteau (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I apologize for that earlier outburst. It doesn't take much for me to go off like Joseph Goebbels. I will strike out that section as soon as I remember how to strike out comments (hopefully one of the kind admins will refresh my memory). Sadaam Insane (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike MilborneOne (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Sadaam Insane (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology accepted, thanks. This crazy anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and i think about solutions to decrease its effects. But changing the brain and believes of humans is not quickly possible. But again: Thanks for thinking clearly.

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to "change the brains and believes of humans". Is that what you are trying to do? Because that would fall under the WP:ADVOCACY rubric, which you might want to review. Marteau (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am currently writing a longer reply to the others, latest posted in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Takes a little bit longer, is a longer reply. Tagremover (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Now, ok, i´ve done some research in the history of Dreamliner. Most important first:

I apologize for writing: "Too many biased ......(not repeated)" Also i used the words like a joke and meant nobody personal, it was bad. Sorry.

Wrong accusation by User:Marteau is that i : "smears the editorial pool for the article in general": that was CLEARLY never said and of course never meant.

Correct is: Too many biased edits at Dreamliner. A lot of other aircraft articles are biased, too: Boeing and a lot of Americans and Airbus: Often too positive. Russian and especially former Soviet: Often too negative. Ukraine editors (Antonov): Fighting hard. Let me explain a few examples (mainly Dreamliner):

(moved text)

1. 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [22]

Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature.

1. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected
2. User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality.
3. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better.
4. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [23]
5. Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
6. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk.
7. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. (copied)Tagremover (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content mostly tangential to the discussion about Tagremover's conduct
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines...." Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! "says": See ref: Boeing believes...and expects... : Thats different! Are all systems included, for example de-icing? 35% compared to what EXACTLY? An equally modern system isn´t meant: Airbus disputes that. Stop that biased anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing thinking ! Technology has to be understood: But this statement is vague. Reference is OLD (6 years?), a clearly PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, a time diff in which the whole system was constructed in reality. A NEWER ref of EXISTING tech is needed. ...allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy. see above. "The total available on-board electrical power is 1.45 megawatts, which is five times the power available on conventional pneumatic airliners...": Sounds not very efficient: Has to be explained/detailed. Advertising primary source Result: "indisputable": Its too sad to LAUGH about. Has to be rewritten! "According to Boeing, the 787 consumes 20% less fuel than the similarly sized 767" This is a message of MAJOR importance, the KEY reason for the Dreamliner: FUEL-EFFICIENY ! Avoid ANY biasing, it bias the message of the WHOLE article! Facts: This is a reference of a manufacturer, a PRIMARY source: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and WP:PRIMARY. Also many editors will not accept those at all, i do under some circumstances. But here we have a manufacturer PRAISING THAT HIS AIRCRAFT IS BETTER than competitors: CLEARLY POV ! Outdated: [24]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. Clearly ADVERTISING: "super-efficient airplane", "top aerospace companies", "unmatched fuel efficiency", "exceptional environmental performance", "exceptional performance" ...I wouldn´t trust this text a thing. Minimum this section seems to be written by advertising department, sentence with 20% just copied from old text. "similarly sized 767": similarly see weight increase, and: What version, which age, what for engines? Vague ! 787 : What version? Vague ! How is that calculated? Per seat? Vague ! But: ANA said 21% fuel savings. [25] But: Tokyo-Frankfort is nearly out of range even for the 767-300ER, an extended midrange-model, must be measured in shorter distances, like North-American east-coast <> Western-Europe. Vague: Per seat, aircraft, or whole payload? And: A350 - direct competitor - not mentioned: Also its preliminary. Results (major message): Reference as unreliable, primary, old, vague and advertising: disputed ! 20% highly questionable (deleted), 21% (ANA) vague. Has to be rewritten! "...the world's first major airliner to use composite materials for most of its construction" IMPORTANT message. Facts: Detail: Meant is most of its weight, not most of its volume. Outdated: [26]. Design changes: See the history of Dreamliner. Example: Design change: Weight increase. Design change: Range reduction. 51%, 50% (other refs), or 49% ? Or: Much more Titanium? Boeing's 787 Dreamliner is no lightweight (Describes plane ready to flight) Result:: Has to be rewritten. Airbus A350 Now i´m not pro-Airbus or somewhat: But the competitor A350: Is not ready Not such a major change in design preliminary data of unready plane So: Easier to believe. But: "with up to 8% lower operating cost than the Boeing 787": 2006 reference: 787 changed: Outdated: Has to be REWRITTEN ! Tupolev Tu-144 Example for some pro-American or anti-Russian/Soviet bias: Especially the Tu-144D was a really good plane. Not copied from Concorde, but developed out of the Tu-135 variants, the Tu-125 and other not realized projects including Myasishchev variants/projects. Now, where does biasing come from? Its not exactly clear. Chronology: 17:15, 16 January 2013 : I posted my analysis: At this time the batteries were not seen as important by most analysts: Used some bold language, to sum up my results: That FAA have to ground the plane with many composites (oil and coal based), delivery stop later. Thought that this will push discussions: But seems as too hard - also newer analysts join my tone. Discussions should deepen knowledge and lead to increased article quality: Seems low. Wanted to discuss before that: [27] Proposed a section for bleedless technology: Important new feature. 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC) FAA grounded Dreamliner, sooner than i expected User:Fnlayson, Highly regarded by me, one of the most active editors in aircrafts, with good and very wide knowledge, always (often after a revert and following tags ;-) ) able to find a good text/wording: This is NO accusation and i support no forces against him, but: he had deleted some posts of the newest incidents, especially sections including words like: "Grounding", "Incidents" and other words. Tried to make the incidents look not so serious? No accusations, no diffs, just trying to improve neutrality. After short time with User:Fnlayson found: "Among 787 flight systems, a key change from traditional airliners is the electrical architecture. The architecture is bleedless and replaces bleed air...": Better. Posted tags: "Boeing says this system extracts 35% less power from the engines, allowing increased thrust and improved fuel economy." [28] Was taken to ANI by User:Andros 1337 with: "This user clearly has a pro-Airbus and anti-Boeing agenda". IMHO User:Andros 1337 is biased and violating Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Responded at ANI and at Dreamliner talk. My comments were collapsed and declared as a forum by an editor (and admin) of the article: This should be undone: Although the title and the first posts were pushing too hard and achieved the contrary of an discussion, its made for article improvement and discussion. But: Should probably continue in a new section. Low Article quality Especially Aircraft articles seem to consist of quite isolated, ordered sentences; a list of sentences. Also articles contain a lot of info, no real concept or coherent explanation. Talk pages sometimes similar: "Does this isolated sentence comply with the following reference?" This is no real discussion. Improvements Must mainly be done regarding a few editors. Difficult. But this anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war is disruptive and leads to biased, low Article quality. Talk? Discuss?

Remarks

"OK, we do the change: But later, in a few weeks/months, we revert everything and let the Dreamliner article be again the dream of all fans and Boeing." is not good. Tagremover (talk) 06:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of hatting that mass of text which as the comment says is content and not really germane to the issue at hand. Blackmane (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about assume good faith and suggest we didnt need this thread as Tagremover has raised his issues on the talk page, but he edited the article again to add back in the two dubious tags on referenced statements, so we are getting close to being disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed tags: [29] I just added them a second time (according WP:3RR, update: first revert), placed my reasons on the talk page: NO ANSWER. Removed them. But discuss on talk page. Tagremover (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this [30] together with a lot of edits also of User:MilborneOne on the talk page, but NO contrary statement, as an agreement. Again: Discuss. Give (contrary?) reasons. Tagremover (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: This is IMHO and according to other users (collapsed above) not the right place to discuss article content. First the article talk page should be used. But: My reasons were ignored, and with the result or even intention to take any editor, who tries to remove biased, pro-Boeing statements and is obviously able to discuss, to ANI and get him blocked: WP:GAME.

Again: I propose you or someone else give reasons on the article talk. Discuss.

And: This case should be closed, as it is annoying for me and everybody else taken to ANI without reason or the reason to suppress any removal of bias, see also WP:OWN. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Marteau:

1. It would be nice and easier, if you post your new comments, where they could easily be found: At the end.
2. "change the brains and believes of humans" was directly related to anti/pro <> Airbus/Boeing war: I am not and will be not the main editor of Dreamliner and even a lot more aircrafts: As i already said, i highly respect for example User:Fnlayson for his great work. So: This are only a few statements which are obviously positive for Boeing, and if the bias (my result) should be removed permanently, editors with a some participation have to agree.
3. I am absolutely open for a discussion. IMHO this could be done on the article talk page; no dispute resolution needed now: The problem is ignorance, not reasons. But if someone thinks dispute resolution is needed and he will participate, of course.

Please, could a nice administrator close this case of WP:GAME and WP:OWN quickly: Also i think it was wrong and aggressive to accuse me here, its wasting my (and others) time as it will not satisfy me if other users get punished for accusing me. And: IMHO everything is said. Thanks in advance. Tagremover (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is violating WP:GAME to impose your anti-Boeing POV. WP:AGF does not apply here since you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Administrators, have this user permanently blocked. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 22:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

@User:Andros 1337: I hoped we can close this in an friendly manner, but again i am feeling personally and inappropriately attacked. WP:AGF is somehow independent of WP:POINT, which doesn´t fit here. For example: Finally, recent talks about the 787 article content were mostly good and successful. But: some borderline comments.[31] Tagremover (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone else reading this seething pile of ... er, den of ... whatever and thinking "I see a couple of topic bans that could easily drop the drama level down a few notches"?? The level of dismissiveness by one side is startling, but the other side is just as aggressively annoying (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd certainly go with that. Blackmane (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"dismissiveness": You are right, i have done some edits like that, and i am sorry.

It began when i proudly posted my analysis giving exact results - approved by the current events - about the recent incidents of Dreamliner at the talk page, and used some direct, bold language. English is not my motherlanguage; this probably caused additional problems. The analysis was posted with best with best intentions and to start - and somehow enforce - a discussion about the incidents and related article sections. This was unsuccessful, received some aggressive comments, reduced my tone, but it didn't stop.

Posted detailed arguments: But i see there were some words in it which can be seen as dismissiveness. Sorry, i wouldn't justify me with too frankly talking over "bias", again. Sorry.

Again, recent edits are better from both sides. But: Its a lot easier for me, to carefully select words for an article - especially scientific or technology related - then just talking.

Probably this hadn't happened if i had more practice with common speech, and also understand the cultural background better: Couldn't find the right words. Also i tried to be calm, and simply bring in my scientific, engineering knowledge and opinions, it didn't worked. Tagremover (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with doing a technical analysis of what you think is the problem on the article subject, however the article talk page is not the place to do it. That section was correctly hatted, although I wouldn't have called it a forum style posting so much as it is original research. The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article. There is a very subtle difference between the two. The former is discussing the subject and its details while the latter is not. Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct. The whole point of the article is to describe the 787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus. That would belong in another article like Comparison of Airbus A380 with Boeing 787 Dreamliner so stop bringing that up on the 787 talk page. Blackmane (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please wait, i will give you an detailed answer in a few hours. Tagremover (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In general: Please, frankly, is there something in any point or subsection which could get me blocked or topic banned, yes (please give reason(s), best diffs) or no? As this is a complex case, and i see questionable valuations here (see below), i can start a Wikipedia:Editor review/Tagremover, some Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or even Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, or do you know anything better?

1. The only section which had only few direct calls for a directly related article content, but included more original research, is [32]. I have already stated a lot about this section, see above, so: Please, frankly,....
2. Now section: [33]: See above: Please, frankly,....
3. Now section: [34]. The only subsection which seemed to be noticed here, but with questionable valuations, is [35]. Your statements:
   1. "The problem that you are running into, repeatedly, is that you're doing a lot of discussion about the 787 but virtually no discussion about reliably sourced material that can go into the article.": Partly questionable valuation. See: [36], and [37].
   2. "Also, your claim of a lack of NPOV is not correct." See all my arguments. There are special Wikipedia:Dispute resolution about neutrality and reliability of sources.
   3. "...787 not a point by point comparison of that with the Airbus": I never said that.
   4. "And, before anybody gets any ideas, I'm pretty sure comparison articles like that are generally discouraged.": Please no speculation: My reputation and patience is grilled here enough.
4. My article edits: There were only 1 revert by me, other contributions were accepted. IMHO clearly nothing to get blocked, but: See above: Please, frankly,....

I have given a lot of reasons and answers, see all text above and my history, and i repeat: My reputation and patience is grilled here enough, and i see questionable valuations here, even from admins. If necessary, i start other projects to state that, as i already said, a few talk page edits weren't good, but also: Wikipedia:Verifiability clearly states that there is no need for additional or even more reliable sources to questionize one. NPOV, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:PRIMARY is here a basic dispute. Tagremover (talk) 10:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm more looking at a week-long block for Tagremover for a profound inability to stop editing tendentiously two weeks after his last block for the same. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. I was blocked without getting heard: Without discussion. My reason: WP:Ignore all rules
2. "..after his last block for the same" Wrong: Edit war/ tag removal.
3. "profound inability to stop editing tendentiously" Wrong. Diffs? Tagremover (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who needs diffs? Every single post you made to this thread proves it. You are obviously incapable of recognizing your own behaviour - and your draft RFARB will quite likely turn into the biggest WP:BOOMERANG on the face of the planet. Probably not a moment too soon (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to echo what BWilkins said. I'm not entirely sure what you were thinking when you included me, Thumperward and The Bushranger on the list. Thumperward and Bushranger are admins while I am not. I certainly am not in any content dispute with you and I certainly have nothing against you personally. However, I, along with a large number of other editors, have been trying to get you to see that what you are doing has not been gaining any traction on the article talk page, i.e. you haven't gained consensus, but you often go back over the same points, repeatedly. This is the very definition of being tendentious and prolonged tendentiousness is disruptive. I'm not here to get you blocked nor am I aiming to push any POV with regards to the article. I had hoped to throw in an outside opinion with the view that you might see what others are seeing you do. If you don't take that on board and get blocked, it's no skin off my back. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"you haven't gained consensus": Look again. But: IMHO you haven't fear anything: Calling someone "tendentious" is too low for wp:npa.

As it is known, i opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tagremover disputes, as i have doubts in getting an appropriate decision here. Hopefully we can wait with any decision here, or even close the case and block me afterwards? Tagremover (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This grievance re the conduct of Editor Alexbrn concerns the main tenet of WP, NPOV. NPOV is clear & unambiguous, yet Alexbrn; who is a Journeyman Editor with over 2,000 edits, has been on WP over 5 1/2 years, is a native speaker of English, & has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in English, advised me on the Talk page: "You misunderstand NPOV, and you're wasting everybody's time - not least your own. I suggest you carefully review the discussion on the Burzynski Clinic article to see how multiple editors - not just me - view your proposed additions, and how WP policy applies. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 1:04 am, Yesterday (UTC−6)". This grievance covers posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013 which are listed below. Please note that the links contain posts by others, unrelated to this grievance. I've worked in the legal industry for over 22 years & in my humble opinion, if you have a PhD in English like Alexbrn claims on their User page, & you don't understand WP:NPOV, maybe you shouldn't be a WP Editor. [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

• Uh...would you mind actually explaining what your grievance is? It's clear that you're upset with Alexbrn, but you haven't said why you're upset, or what the issue you're upset over is, or what administrator intervention you're asking for. By the way, the unresolved tag isn't necessary here, so I've removed it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Fluffernutter, Ummm...I'm not upset with Alexbrn; I'm too old to get upset, because Alexbrn is biased, so I know what I'm dealing with. My grievance is clearly explained in the links provided but I am happy to repeat it here as well. I requested that information be included in the referenced Article & Alexbrn proceeded to advise me that: "It seems clear from previous discussion on this page there is no WP:CONSENSUS to add the material you are requesting; quite the opposite in fact: a strong consensus not to add it, with plenty of reasoned argument in support. The article presents the well-sourced consensus view of the scientific/medical communities already. We shouldn't be undermining that with poorer-quality sources." (1/15/2013) AND "The article gives the consensus view of the professional community, as represented by the American Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK. In relation, other one-off articles are "poorer-sources", and we must not use them to undermine the clearly presented consensus." (1/16/2013). WP:NPOV clearly indicates: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content MUST be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is NONNEGEGOTIABLE and ALL editors and articles MUST follow it." "The principles upon which this policy is based CANNOT be superseded by OTHER POLICIES or GUIDELINES, or by editors' consensus." (Words CAPITALIZED for emphasis only.). In my humble opinion, Alexbrn & other volunteer editors are biased and are attempting to only present their biased viewpoint in the Article in question, instead of FAIRLY, PROPORTIONATELY, and as far as possible WITHOUT BIAS, ALL significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Therefor, I'm simply requesting that if Alexbrn & some of the other voluntary editors are going to be allowed to continue to be the gatekeepers of what information is published in this Article, that they be required to comply with WP:NPOV & WP:MEDRS policies & publish the information I requested be published unless they are able to cite a valid WP policy that supersedes WP:NPOV. Thank you very much. 166.205.68.49 (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/18/2013

(edit conflict) Didymus Judas Thomas is asked not to use all caps; (use two single quotes for italics e.g. ''italics''. NPOV is one of five pillars which is coequal with, not supreme to, the other four; specifically consensus, which is fairly clear on the talk page. If they wish to pursue the matter further I'd recommend rfc. NE Ent 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue; use dispute resolution as you yourself suggested (5th diff). No admin action needed here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seb az86556 archived this thread with the above archive message. I hate to unarchive it, but I believe this may be rather premature. There are behavioural issues to deal with here, and we shouldn't just dismiss them with telling people to shoot off through the DR process: recently, Didymus Judas Thomas and Alexbrn appeared at DRN, and nothing substantive happened. Delegating this stuff out won't solve it, we need to have a look at the behavioural issues here.

If you peruse the discussion on Talk:Burzynski Clinic, it's quite apparent to see that User:Didymus Judas Thomas has a real problem with communicating with other editors and there seem to be repeated problems of WP:IDHT, appeal to irrelevant policies and other behavioural issues. On the talk page, a topic ban has been suggested. If such a thing is to be done, we should probably discuss it here. I am not an expert on medical matters, nor on the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS, so I shall not offer any opinion other than "there seem to be some plausible complaints about DJT's behaviour, let's have a chat about them". (Of course, I shall now probably have everything from my birthday to my alma mater to my shoe size repeated back to me when addressed.)

Perhaps adding to the motivation for this discussion, if you Google for "Didymus Judas Thomas" burzynski you will find that someone with the same name spends quite a lot of time posting on a lot of blog comment sections defending Burzynski and his treatment. This might lead one to think that Didymus Judas Thomas is a paid advocate working for Burzynski. Or not. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points here; seems like an at least partial boomerang. I didn't see that. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a block is needed here. I suggest that it be an indef one. I see lots of POV pushing here --Guerillero | My Talk 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking over the article talk page and the section Didymus started on tommorris's talk, I'm not encouraged that Didymus understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work. This isn't a courtroom, nor is it a PR center, nor is it a shouting contest. NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from, all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him. Didymus's repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him. I would support, at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Instead of responding to all of these posts re "WP:NPOV," "Topic ban (Didymus)," & "A sidenote" in one post, I am going to respond to the posts one at a time for ease of reading/discussion.

1. fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to support the above stated opinion that I do not "understand in the slightest what Wikipedia does or how we work," That it "isn't a courtroom," "nor is it a PR center," "nor is it a shouting contest."

2. fluffernutter posits that: "NPOV and consensus are both important points in editing Wikipedia, but neither is trumped by "one guy thinks", which seems to be the POV Didymus is arguing from..."

3. fluffernutter does not respond to my above grievance.

4. WP:NPOV clearly supersedes WP:CONS because it states: "The principles upon which this 'policy' is based cannot be superseded by other 'policies' or ... 'by editors' consensus'." WP:CONS clearly is an "English Wikipedia 'policy'." There would be no reason for WP:NPOV to state "by editors' consensus" if this"policy" did "not" supersede WP:CONS. This does "not" mean that WP:CONS is "not important," & fluffernutter provides no citation(s) / reference(s ) to show that I do not believe this.

5. fluffernutter goes on to characterize my conduct as: "all the while complaining very loudly about how we're all failing to follow our own rules by not deferring to him." I, in return will not characterize fluffernutter's conduct as "complaining very loudly" as it serves no purpose.

6.. fluffernutter implies that I am "repeatedly accusing people of bias does not cover up the fact that the only one operating from a position of bias here appears to be him," yet provides no citation(s) / reference(s) to show I am "biased."

7. fluffernutter supports "at a minimum, a topic ban for Didymus from Burzynski-related content - and if he doesn't show some sign of understanding how our policies actually work (rather than trying to use them as clubs), I'm likely to support a block, as well." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was. Thank you very much. 166.205.55.23 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

Topic ban (Didymus)

User:Didymus Judas Thomas's editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic. The consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary. His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS. I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support sounds reasonable --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Unfortunately, given his apparent emotional/COI involvement in the issue, I don't see anything good coming out of Didymus's continued participation in this area. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• I almost forgot about this until... Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support At the very least. I did the Google search proposed by Tom Morris above, and it's obviously the same person. Seems obsessed by this topic and probably a COI. Dave Dial (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per all above. --John (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Additional comment. Judging by Didymus's continued behavior today, I think it might be a good idea to add a clause about not raising the above topics on user talk pages (and possibly noticeboards?), as well. Didymus seems determined to badger anyone who doesn't agree with his perception of NPOV and this dispute. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) A permanent topic ban seems more than a little harsh. Why not a temporary block and give him the opportunity to correct his ways? Also, give him a chance to respond to the COI accusations before just assuming they're true. The outside comments sound like evidence of POV rather than COI, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll also add that Didymus seems to be guilty of disruptive editing. WP:DDE says that such violations may result in "escalating blocks, typically starting with 24 hours," and that bans are appropriate in cases of "subtle or long-term" disruption where "informal discussions are ineffective." Is that really what we have here? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Didymus denies having any COI in relation to the Burzynski article(s). It doesn't matter a whole lot whether he has a COI in the paid editor sense, or just a really, really strong POV - the result (disruption) is the same. Didymus is aware of this thread and has chosen, rather than respond to it here, to continue badgering those they feel are opposing them. We're not getting any engagement from him at this point other than a whole lot of indirect "I didn't hear that" and "It's not me, it's them". Given that "informal discussions", like here, aren't effective if Didymus won't participate or only participates while assuming bad faith of others, a topic ban is the gentler choice - we can either block Didymus from editing entirely, or we can say, "Look, your participation in this topic isn't working out. How about you find something else to work on?" and let him retain his editing privileges. Is it possible, Nstrauss, that you're misunderstanding what a topic ban is? It's not a block or a technical limitation of Didymus's ability to contribute; it's just a way to redirect him to an area where he doesn't get into so much trouble. Most editors regard a block as significantly more harsh a punishment than a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong from a policy standpoint with a "really, really strong POV." In any case, I was thinking of a short (24-hour?) block to let the guy cool off and let him know that his behavior will not be tolerated. But what about a month-long topic ban? Based on his interest in the Burzynski Clinic that might be more effective to get his attention. But I still think a permanent topic ban is unduly harsh. Just two cents from a non-administrator. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) As the subject of the complaint here, and an editor of the Burzynski page, I think some kind of topic ban would be appropriate; seeing Didymus' latest contribution makes me also think WP:CIR is pertinent. His unloading of under-formatted content on the Burzynski Talk page made it hard to use for a while. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that really so bad? We see worse all the time without anyone being permanently topic banned. Can't this user be educated? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The evidence suggests not. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The evidence suggests that Didymus is a quite disruptive and slightly clueless POV pusher who has never had any administrative action taken against him ever. That's no different from the legions of editors who receive temporary blocks all the time. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I just noticed that Didymus has been editing for less than two months and has worked exclusively on that article. Don't WP:BITE the newbie. A permanent topic ban would probably cause him to leave the project. That may be an appealing prospect to some but it wouldn't serve the editor retention cause. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, as an involved editor. This editor has turned this area and the talk page into a near impossible place to edit collaboratively. Learning how to edit Wikipedia in an area outside would likely be a benefit, and also stop the disruption in this area. Yobol (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Tom Morris, I take it, implies in "good faith" that my "editing consists of POV pushing at Talk:Burzynski Clinic." My editing consists of WP:NPOV & Tom Morris provides no citation(s) / reference(s) in support of my alleged POV pushing.

2. Tom Morris, I take it, in "good faith" characterizes "[t]he consensus of editors on that talk page is that the edits he suggests fall foul of WP:MEDRS, specifically the requirement that we use secondary sources rather than primary." My grievance (Content # 26.) [46] clearly covers "posts from 1/13 - 1/16/2013" & a review show that only "one" editor (Alexbrn) was involved [47] & the 2 medical journal articles I requested be noted in the Article in question are from "reputable" & "reliable" secondary source Revirew Articles not published by SRB (PDF's [48] [49] and (PDF's) [50][51]

3. Tom Morris postulates: "His behaviour on the talk page and elsewhere shows that he is uninterested in the consensus or in adherence to MEDRS." However, no specific citation(s) / reference(s) are provided in support.

4. Tom Morris posts: "I propose topic banning him from articles related to the Burzynski Clinic, Stanislaw Burzynski and antineoplaston treatment, primarily but not limited to Burzynski Clinic and Talk:Burzynski Clinic." However, I have clearly not posted anything on the Article in question since i submitted my grievance, as I was expecting it to be civilly & professionally addressed instead of being blocked as it was.

5. After my grievance was blocked I gave Tom Morris the opportunity to respond to it [52] Thank you very much. 166.205.55.40 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Didymus Judas Thomas 1/22/2013

A sidenote

In light of this edit provided by Seb (IP 166.205.68.19 identifying themselves as your client Didymus), is anyone interested in teasing out what's going on in the history of User:Houseac, where a couple of SPAs and the aforementioned IP/Didymus have been active? I can't find a connection between the subject of that fake article and the clinic Didymus was so interested in. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what's going on there. I'd love to know though. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that the IP appears to belong to a wireless (mobile phone) company, it's entirely possible the two users have nothing to do with each other other than using the same cell network. It's not impossible that there's a connection, but the confluence of IPs doesn't necessarily show much of anything, since wireless IPs tend to be dynamic. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas at Talk:Burrito

In an ongoing discussion regarding bold changes to content restructuring, content removal, and re-reversions (1, 2), at the article Burrito, Viriditas has indirectly accused myself of sock-puppetry, with this edit. In the edit he/she claims that Biancles is an SPA. This is the latest reply, in what I have considered a series of uncivil replies made by Viriditas (please see the candidate page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1 (which still requires an additional certifier) for further information). This discussion, already had a third opinion (by Go Phightins!), and RfC to receive additional editors opinions in an attempt to build a consensus. Up until this (what I believe is) NPA, I had repeatedly asked for civility, and was attempting to start an RfC/UC; however, due to the NPA. I am beginning this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional accusations of puppetry and incivility While I have no beef (well I hope it's beef) in this burrito article (for the record I love S.F. burritos), I too have experienced recent unpleasantries with Viriditas being uncivil and accusing others of puppetry. In a unrelated burrito & Viriditas matter, I politely asked another user on their talkpage to be more careful about using "vandalism" in edit summaries when reverting edits. Viriditas joins the conversation and accuses me of editing on behalf of a "block sock puppet". Then further on in the conversation Viriditas makes a completely unfounded and grossly offensive statement that I have "been on an anti-LGBT crusade for Christ". I assume being called a homophobe is a violation of WP:NPA. I also personally find the statement claiming I'm doing something on behalf of any religion repugnant (my apologies to editors of faith in advance, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your beliefs). Despite Viriditas requesting me not to post on his talk page, I ignored his request in light of his gross accusations and warned him with a template. His response was to delete the warning (no big deal), however his edit summary once again made another accusation of puppetry stating "What part of "banned from my talk page" don't you understand sock?". I had some email conversations with another editor about this incident, and as a result of those discussions and some passing time I decided to take no action. However I see that this is not an isolated incident. I don't know what administrative action should be taken here, but at the very least Viriditas should be admonished for this behavior.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, looking back, is not the first statement made by Viriditas that could be considered an Ad hominem argument which falls under WP:WIAPA. The initial re-reversion came after this statement:

We don't edit Wikipedia based on your personal preferences for a region, we edit based on the sources which describe these regional variations in order as Mexico - San Francisco - San Diego. You don't get to subvert this order because YOUDONTLIKEIT.

This reversion of a reversion, did not abide by WP:BRD. I replied to this by asking for civility, as at that point I continued to assume good faith. Therefor this makes, IMHO, two events where Viriditas had posted something that falls within WIAPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• The aforementioned RfC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas1, is proposed for deletion, "Uncertified RFC/U after 48 hours". However, the RfC policy says "Any RFC/U not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours"; it does not say that it needs to be certified within 48 hours, and the RfC makes a claim that more than one user tried and failed to resolve the dispute, though there is as yet no second certified. As such, I am unwilling right now to delete it since I don't think the letter of the law says I should. A second opinion from an admin would be welcome; there do appear to be concerns about Viriditas's behavior, though I cannot judge the validity of such claims--I'll err on the side of caution since, as far as I know, RightCow and Rosetta are not trolls. For the record, I also like burritos, though for some reason they remind me of sepositories. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• That RfC is gone now. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of this discussion, is it possible to undue the deletion? Although all the content can be found through searching through the history of the article, its talk page, and the talk page of Viriditas, the work done to create it already alleviates the need to do much of that searching. This will assist non-involve editors in quickly looking at the history of the discussion, and the issues I believe have occured.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against restoring the RfC; I did read it before deleting it, and I couldn't see anything that is worthy of an RfC, which is probably why nobody would certify it within the time limit. Why not just continue to discuss the matter in article talk? Or not; it's hardly an earth-shaking issue you are in dispute over. --John (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the RfC and I agree with John on its content. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was my first try at formating an RfC/UC, I sincerely hope that the events in question were not lost due to my poor formatting. Moreover, I hope that I rarely (if ever) have to create another one. Ideally all editors whom I happen to discuss content with will not require an RfC/UC.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support WP:CIVIL  I added Viriditas' talk page to my watch list after an incident, and regularly see personal attacks used to remove edit comments.  I support the call for an admin warning.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have not accused RightCowLeftCoast of any sock puppetry. He has apparently misunderstood my comments as well as most of the discussion on the talk page, including: how we use appropriate sources (not poems that you find in a Google search!) what constitutes original research (we don't add source A and source B together to come up with content C), how verifiability helps us choose content (if we can't verify what a source says we usually can't use it if there is a dispute), and more importantly, how to resolve disputes on the talk page (it means actually discussing the topic not asking others to answer for you or relying on the answers of others). In response to all of these questions, he has made repeated accusations of incivility rather than engage in the discussion. This pattern tends to look like WP:IDHT after a while. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a board to discuss content dispute, but editor's actions. I believe that I have responded by attempting to refute the points brought up, by explaining the guidelines and policies as I understand it, and so far there is a plurality of editors who have stated that I have and for the most part agreed with me. I have gone through dispute resolution process by requesting a third opinion, and began an RfC which has lead to the plurality that I have stated above. When faced with comments that I believe were uncivil I kindly asked that incivility ceased, only for continued incivility. I had hoped that it would not come to this, however after two instances that IMHO fall under WP:WIAPA...

Regardless, if I am not accused of sockpuppetry, it is still bad form to address that statement by Biancles as a SPA.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that you've tried very, vey hard to turn into a conduct dispute by ignoring the questions and points raised in the discussion and accusing me of incivility over and over again. To me, this is a case of IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet I have not ignored questions, and points, and have answered them. Others have stated, not just Biancles, that I have done so. However, at the same time I have had several replies which IMHO are uncivil, and have been accused of IDHT and not answering the questions and points posted by Viriditas.

Based on what others have posted IDHT is not the case, therefore please stop making the false accusation. If Viriditas believes IDHT still occurs, may I say sorry in advance for any misunderstanding this may cause, as I have done in the past I will continue to reply and answer questions and points (even if others believe I am not).

As I said before, it is OK for us not to agree, as long as we remain civil. As I have said, since we did not disagree I followed the dispute resolution (3O & RfC) process and a consensus was formed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous thread and it's implausible that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please expand, I would like to know why any editor is above any action.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

But, that's not what he said or implied. This is another example of your continuing misreading of comments. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What is implied? This is why I am asking for an expansion of comment, for clarification. What about this thread is ridiculous? What is meant by "it's implausable that it will lead to any admin action -- certainly not against Viriditas"? What is implausible, that admin action will occur, or that admin action will occur that reflects upon Viriditas, something else?

I would have liked to avoid all this. This could have been done through civil discussion; yet here we are.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know why any editor is above any action No one is above any action, but your alleged question is a simple example of "Begging the question", where it assumes that there is some action that needs to be taken. And "we" are here because you chose (unnecessarily) to be here, so you really shouldn't be talking about how you wanted to avoid anything. --Calton | Talk 01:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me expand on what I meant. When I say I would have liked to avoid all this, I mean I would have liked it if Ad hominem arguments made against me did not happen, I mean I would have liked it if the conversation on the Burrito Talk Page was civil, I mean if those two things did not occur, the situation would have never arose that lead me to starting this discussion. I hope this is more clear.

I had tried to ask (multiple times) Viriditas to be civil. I had went through the dispute resolution process(es) that has established the present consensus.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The word "ridiculous" is defined at wiktionary as "Deserving of ridicule; foolish; absurd."  The use of such language does not befit a collegial atmosphere.  The use of such language should inure to the originator.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that this thread is "ridiculous" is not a personal attack by any stretch of the imagination.

So far, I'm not seeing anything sanctionable here. The only comment actually calling anyone a sock was in removing a generic warning template placed by User:Little_green_rosetta (whom Viriditas had previously asked not to post to his Talk page.) That was somewhat inappropriate but, given he wanted no contact from the editor, Viriditas was understandably upset at having a template slapped on his Talk by someone he wanted no contact with. And, given that this was from December 27, I don't think it qualifies as an "incident" needing immediate action. A troutslap is about all that would be warranted.

I haven't got time at the moment for a details combing through contributions to see if the accusations of meatpuppetry are valid or not, so I'll refrain from comment there. It does warrant some investigation to see if those comments are appropriate. If nothing else, there's a possible WP:BOOMERANG here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in WP:CIVIL are there allowances such that an editor who is "understandably upset" can call another editor a "sock"?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You stipulate that you have no evidence, yet by using the word "boomerang" suggest that RCLC is under suspicion of meatpuppetry.  Your point in doing so escapes me.  Here is a better question, in the circumstance, what was an appropriate response from Viriditas?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Viriditas could certainly consider not immediately jumping fown the throats of editors working on said article (when last I worked on that article, it was implied to me that there were geographic qualifications required to edit it), but there's now an RfC on the content in question and ideally that discussion can continue without all the bad faith. The accusations regarding LGR and proxy-editing are mostly separate from that, and should be addressed independently (preferably by Viriditas, Binksinternet et cetera actually taking the matter to SPA rather that casually referring to an editor as a sock and a POV pusher all over the place). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Help needed cleaning up archiving SNAFU at Talk:Medical uses of silver

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

---

Resolved

 – All done. Graham87 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A malformed archiving template caused the bot to create archives for every month, whereas the archives had just been arranged incrementally before, and the page is not nearly active enough to merit monthly archiving. Requesting deletion of all pages not of the form Talk:Medical uses of silver/Archive # (basically all the month pages) at Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Medical uses of silver under criterion G6. Intelligentsium 03:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hang on - discussing the best method of archiving on my talk page, don't delete just yet. Intelligentsium 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, resolved, refer to my original post for the pages needing deletion. Intelligentsium 04:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Clerk assistance required: we need an admin to perform speedy deletion on archives following the monthly scheme. We will be using incremental archiving instead. All the other stuff has been fixed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All done. Monthly archives can create an awful mess (slightly NSFW). Graham87 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Johnny Squeaky

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

---

User: Johnny Squeaky has been engaged in disruptive editing at Cornell University. He has been introducing non-neutral and unverifiable language into the article [53], failing to engage in discussion about his contributions, assuming bad faith of other editors [54], edit warring, labeling third-party editors' BRD reversions as vandalism [55][56], and accusing editors of sockpuppetry [57] and stalking [58] [59]. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) For what it's worth, I can support this claim of disruptive editing based on my own interactions with the editor. I usually do not include old edits, but their editing behavior and quality of interactions has not really changed at all over the past year. The editor has repeatedly engaged in edit warring on articles such as 40/40 Club ([60], [61], this revert after my urging a third opinion which was ignored, [62] and Whisper Systems ([63],[64], [65]) Attempts to discuss matters on the editor's talk page are usually removed with claims from Johnny Squeaky that we are "stalking" or "harassing" or wikilawyering where there is no evidence for such a claim ([66]). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and forum to speak. I make my edits based on common sense. My edits are by-and-large without much to-do. This is as I like it. If there is any controversy with my edits, I encureage you to look at them with conservatism as an idea. Thank you, Johnny. =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) .

I'm not sure what you mean with common sense, and the rest of this post here is pretty incomprehensible and not to the point. There is, however, some righteous to-do over your edits, your accusations of socking, your false claims of vandalism, your edit-warring, and your disruptive editing (failure to abide by consensus). I'm not a fan of civility blocks, but you're awfully close to reaching my limits. I have removed the puffy language from the article (puffy because it is deemed puffy by a consensus of editors on the talk page), and right here, right now you have the opportunity to apologize to ElKevbo about these ridiculous accusations of stalking and socking (and there was nothing objectionable about their choice of words--"now move on" is rude? suck it up), and to the other editors on the CU talk page for edit-warring with them over puffy language. Another admin might not look so kindly on those accusations of yours, which make editing articles and improving the project a drag rather than a joy. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, care to explain this, a revert of my revert of your revert of a valid edit? Drmies (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the content that I am reverting to is supported by valid references that are known to be acceptable to Wikipedia. Also, Drmies has a COI here, and should not be allowed, as an Admin, to use his Admin rights to level "punishment" at my account. Drmies seems quite "angry". His edit comments are very aggressive. He need to resist the urge to change Wikipedia articles based on personal feelings. One wonders if perhaps he is a Yale guy, or perhaps was rejected by Cornell, or maybe you he don’t like these “snooty” Ivy League schools? Whatever the case may be, the combination of his comments and his edits indicate a POV that may be inappropriate as the basis of edits on this article. As well, I’m thinking that eventually he will use your “Admin” rights to push your POV. This would be a clear COI, and not a particularly honest thing to do. =//= Johnny Squeaky 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "using" my admin rights. I would have blocked you already for your personal attacks and your accusation against ElKevbo of socking. Your conspiracy theory is ridiculous: you said you're from Oregon--well, maybe you're pissed at me because Auburn beat Oregon in the 2011 BCS National Championship Game? Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've had it with Johnny Squeaky. They reinstated the "boosterism" again, though there is a clear consensus on the article talk page (4 to 1, now 5 to 1) that it should be removed. Please see the talk page. I would like to ask another admin to look into this: I'm a bit involved with the article right now (on a side note, it sucks--it's twice as big as it ought to be (see Harvard University, for instance), and sections will need to be split off or, if there is a main article, seriously condensed). Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Note Johnny Squeaky has been blocked by BWilkins. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  After this, maybe talk page access should be removed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

  He's been warned that if he does it again, no talk page for you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Cantaloupe2, assuming bad faith, Wikistalking, misinterpreting policies

User:Cantaloupe2 has recently decided to Wikistalk me and remove a large amount of content that I have added based on misinterpretation of policies and fringe theories on policies that he conceived himself. After disagreeing with me on my talk page, the user decided to head off to iPad (4th generation) and remove a large amount of content that I have added and claim that it violates policies by cherry picking bits of information and rewording perfectly fine sentence to suit his "writing style". 1 User is currently misinterpreting the WP:CLAIM policy and removing every single instance of the word even though the policy clearly states that care should be taken, not remove upon first sight. Similarly, he cherrypicked information on the iPhone 5 article and claims that I'm misinterpreting the matter or that what I've written wasn't in the source when it undoubtedly is. Latest example of this is in this edit 1. This matter has been occurring for four months now and frankly I'm sick of this user altering or removing everything I insert into articles when there isn't a problem with it. More example of this user's disruptive behaviour includes not assuming good faith, an example of which includes the user claiming that I've vandalised an article when I clearly removed copyedited content by accident.

• Talk:iPhone 5#stock prices - User believes a claim isn't represented in the reference when it is.
• User claims I vandalised when I clearly made a good faith mistake
• Talk:IPhone 5/Archive 1#Bias in wording Claims I'm deliberately playing a cat and mouse game by replacing the word ass with arse, neither are offensive in my opinion but Cantaloupe begs to differ.
• User is now claiming that I'm deliberately adding bias information when I'm trying to portray the information as neutral as I can. See my talk page for more details on that.
• Uncountable number of times when he removed content based on his misinterpretation of policy
• Claims what I wrote is interpretative when it clearly isn't. 1
• I understand this verges on assuming bad faith but I'm almost certain that the Cantaloupe2 is attempting to sabotage my GA nominations. The user made extremely controversial edits right after a reviewer committed him/herself to assessing the article and after showing no signs of further contributing to the article for several weeks. Edits that this user made after a reviewer committed themselves include removing large amounts of information that was unsuccessfully discussed before the issue became stale as Cantaloupe decided not to respond to the latest comments/replies. Article was stable for weeks before Cantaloupe returnedAgain article was stable for about a week and a half before Cantaloupe returned to make more controversial edits that affected the stability of the article, many of the issues that were raised by him then, could have been put forth weeks or even months ago yet Cantaloupe brought it up at the last minute.

Honestly, I don't want to discuss matters with this user on talk pages as it will take weeks or even months to finalise as evident on the iPhone 5 article. User also seems to have a battleground mentality, once he is unable to support his claims any further, he will move on to using other tactics to get the content removed, clearly indicating he wants to win an argument for the sake of it. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#iFitit YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 05:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It had been voiced by another editor that he/she felt you were unwilling to allow your version to get changed. I think that YumaNuma has a territorial mentality on articles as if they're his articles, in particular iPad and iPhone products. Here is the concern.

Overlapping article contributio as "Wikistalking" is a poor accusation.

this edit is WP:UNCIVIL, because

“ take your deluded interpretations of the policies elsewhere ”

is personal attack.

Typically this user competes against my edit until a third editor comes along and specifically acknowledge agreement with my edit.

He continues to exhibit edit warring tendencies.

• Revert 1
• Revert 2
• Revert 3

my first revert

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• As I have said many times in the past, I have the right to defend content that I have added, and in most cases the most stable version should be retain as per the BRD; You boldly remove content, I revert and provide a reason, you're expected to discuss it before making further changes. Actually, to this date, no one has fully agreed with your changes on the iPhone 5 article, generally we were able to reach an agreement by coming to a compromise. Also it appears that I'm not the only one who has an issue with you removing content that's supported by valid sources, you have been to ANI five times in the past and brought to RSN a countless number of times for your interpretation of policies and controversial ideas of what constitutes a reliable source. It's interesting how you cited a sockpuppet as evidence for my alleged edit warring behaviour, using his old account, that user had a lengthy debate with me on the iPad (3rd generation) article, hence it's obvious that he has some remaining bias against me. A detail account of what happened can be found in his sockpuppetry investigation. 1 Despite this ongoing ANI case, the Cantaloupe is now attempting to use the 3RR to his advantage by once again reverting my edits without discussing it on the talk page. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (In regards to Cantaloupe's revision to his comment)It must be a huge coincidence that 15 minutes after you commented on my talk page, you made huge edits to an article that was listed on my user page - assuming that you spent time reading the article, the timing is perfect, hence my accusation is appropriate. Furthermore this user has been accused of WikiStalking other editors, an example of which includes User:M0rphzone who came to my talk looking for assistance after Cantaloupe2 Wikistalked him across several articles. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cut your snark with addressing me "the Cantaloupe". "fully agree" is also known as "unanimous" and it is not a requisite, because we work by consensus. WP:BRD you cite is only an ESSAY. Interesting you keep track of how many times I go to noticeboards. Perhaps you're the one following me around huh? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, address your snark with cutting the cantaloupe. The debate could turn into a melon-drama. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ONLYESSAY. (Whoops, WP:ATA is only an essay too...) Just because it's "only an ESSAY" (and please don't shout like that, it doesn't help your case) is irrelevant when it's well-established process. Also, "fully agree" =/= "unanimous". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They agreed to a compromise, not with your actual edit. (Sorry for the confusion but by fully agreed, I meant that no editor has agreed with the alterations in your first bold edit and a compromised had to be reach) BRD is a widely accepted essay nonetheless, pointlessly claiming that an article that I have cited is an essay is not going to help your case, as you're clearly WP:GAMINGTHESYSTEM with your most recent edits on the iPad 4 article. Furthermore your accusation is actually quite laughable, have you even read WP:HOUND? you should have because you've been accused of it a few time. To make things clear for you, knowing the past history of an editor does not constitute hounding, nor does monitoring the contributions of an editor without intervening. Sorry for referring to you as "The Cantaloupe", naturally I associate that word with a fruit not person - and no that was not a snarky comment, I seriously meant it. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 08:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Cantaloupe2 is becoming a problem across a number of unrelated articles, and all those other editors involved are finding much the same problems. Can those looking at this issue from outside please take a look broadly (the edit history is pretty narrow), not just at this one case. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy Dingley's observation above. I have been a victim of Cantaloupe2 for about a month now where he has been WP:Hounding me in the well defined sense. I will be supplying diffs to demonstrate this later, when I have the time. Complaints to him have not resulted in any change of his WP:WikiLawyering battleground behaviour. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A previous complaint is this where I attempted to point out that after having his edits disputed Cantaloupe2 apears to pursue temper tantrum behaviour and attempts to flood articles with flags and edits to provoke the disagreeing editor, making the articles look amateurish and unreadable. here is an example in his edit history after locking horns with two different Candadian editors disagreeing with his edits. He has been told repeatedly by many editors that he is not WP:COMPETENT in many of the subjects he edits and inserts nonsense. Here is another article where he hounds another editor each edit. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not leave out assumption of bad faith accusation of "genocide" in the ANI title which another editor had to edit. You also inappropriately accused me of canvassing and directed me to not inform another user that he was being discussed and you labeled him "hostile user", which is highly contentious and such disparaging reference constitutes personal attack. And at this point, you're leaving notes on others talk pages which contradicts your own contention. What about your public repository of various contentions against various editors on your wiki talk page? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Sheldon Brown, please explain why you're providing a 2006 diff. Following around interrelated articles by see alsos/external links is not even remotely relevant to WP:HOUND. It is correct that I do follow things around by topic. Your contention that I am following around by the editor is unsubstantiated. Topical following is perfectly legitimate.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the 2006 diff is just a mistake. Perhaps he meant this, this, or this. Just guessing. -AndrewDressel (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to sound melodramatic but as indicated above, Cantaloupe has intimidated many users through his irrelevant use and misinterpretation of policies. Also as above, he has hounded numerous editors and has been brought to ANI time and time again for it. As evident in his latest behaviour, he has clearly not learnt his lesson and continues to persist in conducting his poor behaviour. All he probably has learnt is how to get around the policies and how to intimidate other by citing policies that are not relevant to his case. I've lost count of how many times Cantaloupe used WP:NPA or {{WP:INCIVIL]] to get his point across instead of arguing the pertinent issue. Personally I resisted reporting him as I thought he would actually learn from his lessons and "act more moderate", however that clearly isn't the case. Cantaloupe wikistalking me was the last straw. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 23:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the interpretation that is used in reference to support your contention that I'm "misinterpreting policies" ? is it your interpretation or an establish community consensus? Please link the latter. If it's the former, its merely differences in opinion and the accusation of misinterpretation is a cheap jab. In the "ass" "arse" game, you striking out the English variant and replacing with British variant can be construed as disruptive inflammatory editing and you're encouraging combative editing with uncivil, hostile personally directed edit comment saying my edits are delusional.

Fact: You and I edited the article iPhone 5. I have also edited an article or two on iPads, which are all devices from Apple running iOS, topical relations. You contend that I'm following you. From the way you responded during GA process for iPhone 5, it comes across to me as these are YOUR articles that YOU own. Saying that I happen to edit in two similar topic articles is stalking is contentious presumption of hounding. Please demonstrate your accusation that I'm following you by your edits. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More recently you're removing every instance of the word "claim" even though the policy clearly says that the word should be used with care, not remove it upon first sight, this applies to other MoS guidelines as well. You removed content that isn't verify by scientific analysis and since that strategy has failed to assist you in removing content, you moved onto removing or tagging content that is anecdotal even though it's supported by reliable references and no policy states that anecdotal claims must be removed, it needs to be analysis on a case by case basis. According to RSN, and the iPhone 5 talk page, others disagreed with your opinions on what is considered a reliable source and stated that common sense is required when interpreting and analysing sources. To date, you have failed to explain or provide me with a reason why "cover their asses" is considered offensive to you, despite this I have apologised. I also requested an apology from you for devaluing my comment by saying I'm "spurting off", however I have yet to receive one. In regards to ownership of articles, I welcome contributions and copyedits as many have done before but when content is removed, I have the right to challenge it, I fail to see why you can't understand and distinguish that from ownership. You have had long track history of Wikistalking, so the benefit of the doubt cannot be applied here, you edited an article on my userpage that you have never edited before 15 minutes after posting a hostile comment on my talk page. If I didn't file an ANI complaint, you could have easily stalked me across several other articles. The only reason why you didn't wikistalk me earlier was because I solely focused on editing the iPhone 5 article and debating matters with you in Oct, Nov and the first half of Dec. What you were doing is clearly considered retribution and thus considered hounding. I have never seen you edit any iPad article apart from the iPad (4th generation) yesterday, I've also thoroughly checked the history of every iPad article and unless you were editing as a sock, you have never contributed to those article; lying is not looked upon favourably here. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been editing some iOS related articles, and I branched out to iPad. I am not lying. You're making a false statement of fact that I'm lying and that is libelous. I'm certain that no personal attack does not allow you to make libelous claim. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, stop Wikilawyering, it is not impressing anyone and certainly does not help your case. Secondly, I've again spent time checking all 5 iPad articles and your name did not appear once apart from the ipad 4 article, which you edited yesterday - as mentioned; I've also taken the liberty of checking the articles' talk pages and unsurprisingly, your name didn't appear once. If anyone wants to confirm or verify my claims, please feel free to analyse iPad, iPad (1st generation), iPad 2, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (4th generation). YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your allegation of "Wikistalking" is your opinion. Editing two articles and your perception of "15 minutes later is too soon" is all your interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs)

Cantaloupe2 has been editing articles related to iOS jailbreaking since early November, and those articles include discussion of iPads - perhaps that's part of what "editing some iOS related articles" was referring to? (The context is that Cantaloupe2 and I have had disagreements related to those articles and my COI on them, but my intent here is just to point out that editing as extra information.) Dreamyshade (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why he edited an article that happened to be on my userpage 15 minutes after posting a hostile reply to a message that was intended to inform him of my intentions. It was undoubtedly an act of retribution for what he believed I was trying to do. He acted in the exact same manner that he did on the iPhone 5 article and removed content, an act which he knew I would disagree with. Given his past history of Wikistalking, I intervened as quickly as possible before he moved onto other articles that I have contributed to. There are many articles related to iOS, 360 articles to be precise, along with dozens of concepts that have articles and have been discussed by you two on the iOS jailbreaking article, so why that article and why now? YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 06:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am saying it wasn't. Your word against mine. You contend that "It was undoubtedly an act of retribution", that in itself appears to be an act of assumption of bad faith and direct attack on me. You do not have exclusive rights to Apple mobile devices page and what I see as your unwillingness to deviate from your version was also demonstrated by another editor who offered their opinion that you're the cause of causing iPhone 5 page to get locked. Skimming through an article and changing wording to improve article to be more neutral is a good faith edit. You saying that I'm misinterpreting policy in protest is an assumption of bad faith, the very same thing you're accusing me of. I should also note that your exclamation that you will revert absent reply, then following through with it after six minutes appears to be jumping the gun and unreasonable expectation of promptness. This concern was addressed on your page.[67]. I'll take a topic ban on Apple iPad, iPod and iPhone hardware devices on condition that YuMaNuMa agree to the same ban for himself as well. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Has your mum every taught you that two wrongs don't make a right? Your latest replies are another indication of your battleground mentality, instead of defending yourself, you decide to attack me by once again Wikilawyering and repeatedly using WP:NPA and other nonsense to form the basis of your argument. "My word against yours" - given your history as a Wikistalker and tendency to assume bad faith, I can't see how anything that you've said can hold up as evidence. And yes, unfortunately I am assuming bad faith at the moment but when the evidence piles up in this manner and several users that I have never come in contact with adds their input on how your behaviour has affected them, it surely does raise a question or two. And yet again, I repeat myself, I like every other contributor on Wikipedia have the right to defend content that I've added, numerous editors have copyedited the iPhone 5 article and I have had no issues with their edits but when you decide to make controversial edits that I disagree with, it is obvious that I'd want to discuss it first and possibly reach a consensus or compromise before they're settled upon, much like how other editors frequently revert your edits and request that you discuss it on the talk page first, hence my reverts. Also, by another editor are you referring to the sock or the editors that were referring to our disagreement, in which you refused to further discuss the issue before making more controversial edits and where I intentionally reverted three of your edit separately instead of using twinkle to restore it, so I can provide you with a reason why I disagreed, in an attempt to compel you to continue discussing it instead of inciting an edit war. I don't see how anyone would agree to a topic ban proposed by you when you've become such a disruption to the entire community as evident by the seemingly endless number of people coming forward with their concerns regarding your edits. By the way, I disagree with your interpretation of what constitutes the assumption of bad faith, stating that you're misinterpreting policy isn't assuming bad faith, I'm not saying you're deliberately doing it, perhaps you lack WP:COMPETENCE as others have suggested but whatever the reason is, I have provided evidence for your misinterpretation of policy. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 12:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the first time another editor has complained about Cantaloupe. I personally recommended another editor seek an interaction ban based on Cantaloupe's abrasive editing style and such. Unfortunately, it seems he has not improved in his relationship skills here. (Take that with a grain of salt, though, as I'm obviously involved, at least in a historical sense.) --Nouniquenames 05:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to the public relations editor CorporateM, let's not forget that conflict revolved around his WP:COI andthe contents decision did not consistently result in consensus resolving in his favor. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It would seem that a few editors that disagreed with you all had WP:COI problems according to you. Others, such as myself get labelled anonymous IP editor in a provokative tone during content disputes. Here is one you couldn't better so you made a suggestion that accused him of having a sockpuppet. Strange that three of the editors (User:Wtshymanski, User:Puhlaa, User:174.118.142.187) you clash with are all Canadian and you attempt to post insults like "Canaduh", and to rid articles of anything relating to American or Canadian content. This is well documented in several articles where you have removed "America-centric" (your phraseology) examples with your "bias" claims. Edit histories do not go away and your attitude begins to show via a pattern of edits in a very obvious manner. You were advised several times not to do this, in the past, by various editors. Those are clear examples of an abusive POV application of WP policies applied only to win content disputes. Now you have enough editors repeating the same complaint and yet your response is Oh yeah! Look what you have done!. You assume no blame or responsibity for any of these, or past, complaints and observations. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 Proposal

Okay, it appears that we have several editors in a variety of subject areas that have similar complaints about User:Cantaloupe2. What do we propose be done? This is my first time participating in a discussion here, the guidelines above don't seem to explain how to keep things moving forward, it appears that no administrator is going to magically appear to make everything better, and in other discussions on this page, a concrete proposal with consensus behind it, appears to be a way to make progress. What would we like to see done? Block, ban, topic ban, article ban, interaction ban? I'm not sure myself. Since so many editors, pages, and topics are involved, I don't see how any of the limited bans will help. Blocks are specifically not supposed to be punitive, but some sign that current behavior is not acceptable seems to be necessary. Perhaps these two ideas are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps we can request that a block be imposed in order to "encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms." With that in mind, and subject to the caveats that I don't know what I'm doing, let me propose that User:Cantaloupe2 be blocked for 24 hours. -AndrewDressel (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A different option could be for involved parties and admins to come up with a concise list of relevant policies and well-accepted essays such as Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Systemic bias, compare Cantaloupe2's interpretations to the interpretations of editors who have been frustrated by Cantaloupe2's edits, and try to figure out which of our interpretations are outside consensus and should be consciously amended in order to maintain peace. (As noted above, I'm an involved party.) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome to try, but half the reason we are here at all is that we've all gone round and round with User:Cantaloupe2 recently with no resolution in site. What you are proposing sounds like a lot more of the same with very slim prospects for results. -AndrewDressel (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a list of specific statements supported by admins could be stronger than what individual editors have said (especially individual editors already involved in disputes). Also, is there such a thing as a temporary block from mainspace editing? If people think that the problem here is bold editing without consensus, temporarily limiting Cantaloupe2 to talk page discussions might be a way to encourage more of a focus on consensus-building. This is advice from my own experience: I have to stick to the talk pages on articles where I have a COI, which really encourages proposing well-supported changes and prevents edit warring. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Cantaloupe2 is a big policy and rule guy. How about a self-imposed edit ban for a period of 7 days and make him observe his own beliefs? Let's see if he gets the message or sloughs it off as us just being a bunch of pricks, like every other complaint result. The stress break may be just the thing he needs...not like WP can get anybody wound up (sarc) but after repeated arguments with other editors everywhere he goes, lately, it may clear his head a bit or with his newly found distractions he may not come back for a while. It seems the admins have had their claws trimmed recently and are all trying to retain every editor they can without the new rules being real clear and established, shyness seems to be prevalent. If he was an IP he would have been indeffed on the first complaint at his hint of a request. The guy can be good at what he does but he seems to think the whole thing is a joke when people attempt to help him, maybe a little obscurely, but still complaining to him about his obsessive edit attitude. He should be encouraged, but not completely gone. A shot across the bow? This one time. The record will stand as a future warning to collaborate on a little more personal level. Maybe this kicking will result in a much better editor? 174.118.142.187 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that explains that. No wonder this place seems like just an empty echo chamber. So now it appears that there will be no resolution, we might as well all just home, and the most tenacious editors get to do whatever they want. What a total friggin' waste of time. -AndrewDressel (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:V

Resolved

Please protect Wikipedia:Verifiability. See [68]. Core policy pages should not have eight reverts in one day. --Surturz (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Had just done this before seeing this post. Black Kite (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Faster2010 potential serial subtle vandalism and sock puppetry

I have noticed many questionable, unexplained minor changes to information in articles such as:

• Changing the BloodRayne release date from the correct date of May 2003 for the Mac to September 18, 2007
  • I found this source confirming the correct date to be May 2003
• Changing the number of songs on this DDR game page from 122 to 124
  • I had to use Google to translate this page and confirm the correct number of songs to be 122.
• Changing the runtime of CyberWorld from 47 minutes to 50 minutes
  • Later reverted
• Changing the runtime for Armitage III

Looking at his talkpage many users have warning him for this behavior, and looking through some of his history I have seen many reversions telling him to stop adding unsourced material and original research. I see random edits such as this that are just sloppy.

Additionally I believe he may be a sock of User talk:Hugosworld92. Both users have an inordinate amount of speedy deletion and deleted articles notices on their talkpages, neither use edit summaries, both were inserting, back-to-back, unsourced material on Armitage III. Also she has been on for 3 years, but almost 99% of her edits are to articles almost nothing has been posted to chat or any other namespace. Both of them have multiple user warnings on their talkpages for removing material and adding unsourced material.

Additionally I believe he frequently vandalizes with different IP addresses:

IP 66.31.4.213

• Random prediction of future, something I have noticed as a pattern
  • This was an article created by Faster2010
• unexplained deletion of text
  • Also on an article Faster2010 was editing.

IP 71.37.18.96

• His only edit, deleted content right after Faster2010's edit got reverted

IP 76.170.226.19

• Deletion of cast members for Atlast Shrugged
• Deleted various releases for Romar Entertainment after an edit by Faster2010

I haven't bothered to link everything I'm seeing. I just continue to frequently find low quality, grammatically incorrect edits, sometimes randoms predictions, subtle changes to info about release dates, etc. Many have been reverted by other users. I would continue to post more examples but I must get to sleep, I will be back tomorrow.OakRunner (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to make some things clear, I am not affiliated with this user User talk:Faster2010. I did not create that account. Furthermore, I am a male. Around the time I began editing on Wikipedia, I was not aware of any of the rules for editing, since then I have many times to always cite my sources and claims and I have a tendency to make small corrections, but hey that's what you get for not double checking. I have no idea this happened, but I just want to make sure that I am not doing any sock puppet activity. As I have said, I only have this account and I am not responsible for these actions. Hugosworld92 (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be throwing around spurious accusations, and apologize if that is what I have done here. I've become a little paranoid so please forgive me for the hasty conclusion. I'm just trying to bring User:Faster2010 into some sort of discussion so we can decide what to do here.OakRunner (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I've noted some strange behavior from this user as well, over the months and years. Here's a non-thorough picking through of some contributions.

• Addition of uncited speculation:
  • Kratos in "KoFXIV"
• Weird redirects:
  • Creating and repeatedly redirecting "Winx Club Hybrid" to "Mortal Kombat"
  • "Street Fight" redirect to "Digimon"
  • Joke redirect "Call of Duty: Modern Flame War 3"
  • "Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin" another joke rd
• Insertions of links to Faster (2010 film) in inappropriate places:
  • Template:.hack
  • Can't seem to find any more but I distinctly remember at least a few more occurrences in my interactions with this user (which is what initially set the flag off for me as a potential stealth vandal/SPA advertiser).

That's all I have time for, for now. Troublesome. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been involved with Faster2010 before at some point and have been involved in removing unsourced and dubious content as well. Looks like this has become a major problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I found you reverting him on a few occasions. He has become a problem due to the particular difficulty of noticing some of his factual mistakes and correcting them. In the DDR example above, his edit stood for several months until I reverted it, and I had to go to a Japanese source to find the correct amount. I find it had to accept honest mistakes being the motivation behind his edits since he appears to be changing release dates, and other random bits of information just randomly, and these mistakes are ultimately very difficult to pick out.OakRunner (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Liefting's imposition on WikiProject Philosophy

Resolved

 – Template hidden from talk page. (Resolved, at least to my satisfaction.) Greg Bard (talk)

User:Alan Liefting has proposed to delete a template that is used for WikiProject Philosophy's talk page. This template was constructed and amended with the input of the members of WP:PHILO, of which Alan is not one. He did not see fit to bring the issue up on the talk page itself, but rather is attempting to involve the wider community first. Alan has been making these types of proposals that affect the area of philosophy, and has had mixed results depending on the political climate for each. This is a formal written request that Alan, and any other person who wishes to make such proposals make them originally at WT:PHILO. His current proposal interferes with the discussion itself, and I am posting this notice here at ANI publicly and conspicuously that I will be removing it myself for cause. I realize that this is strictly speaking not how it is done, and thatis why I am making this post to ANI. If Alan, or anyone else would like to make the same proposal again please do so in a manner that is respectful of the groups which it affects by bring it up at the talk page of the group first. Greg Bard (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement to consult with a project before tagging a template for discussion; the reason a tag is used is so that it will pop up on the watchlists of concerned editors. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, so let me get this right. You are saying you're going to close a deletion discussion for a page that you self-admittedly strongly want to keep because you don't like that it was been nominated for deletion? KTC (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, no. "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." NE Ent 12:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For further application of this broad-consensus rule, see Edelweiss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the template states that "this page is being considered for deletion" and it shows up on the talk page. This is direct interference with the discussion. If you were a new editor wanting to bring up an issue, would you post it given such a notice. This is a serious and compelling reason to handle this proposal some other way, which I have invited his to do. Greg Bard (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregbard's sense of ownership over pages he considers philosophy-related is high-handed and excessive. I haven't had the time yet to deal with his persistent and from what I can see erroneous tagging of certain articles as relating to fundamentalism, but his behavior in this Cfd was objectionable enough to draw comment from the closer. It's ironic that Liefting's proposal so far is having no takers but the notion that GB should dare to close that discussion is so plainly wrong as to make we wonder what they are teaching in philosophy departments these days. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that the very reason he is so insistent that the notice be removed from the template is evidence for the merger of the template back into the page. Mangoe (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea ... but that's a limitation of the template, not a reason to prematurely close a Mfd. NE Ent 13:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Gregbard, you're not going to close that discussion, but let it go. ... Maybe this should be merged into the one page it is transcluded on, as is suggested by Alan. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's only used on one page, and is considered useful by those who use it, why does Liefting demand its deletion? Wouldn't it make more sense to bring up the matter on the talk page on which it appears? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The template is interfering with the discussion. That is a serious and compelling reason. My claim is that I absolutely have every right to address the issue somehow. Perhaps I will replace it with a temporary template until the discussion is over. I am open to other ideas. However it is unacceptable as it currently is. Greg Bard (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That addendum to the template makes it look like the talk page itself is up for deletion. The problem should go away on its own, as Leifting has no valid reason to delete the template, and there isn't any support for deleting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as a pragmatic matter, you may be right. It just so happens that the support is to keep it overwhelmingly. But what if it wasn't that way, and the discussion dragged on forever? Are you telling me, I would have no recourse to do anything about it?! If I went to the to the top of this page and proposed to delete {{Noticeboard links}} just because I didn't like how it looks, that discussion would be closed down immediately. I brought this issue to ANI before taking any action in good faith, and , and all I got was a lot of attitude (not from you BB). Greg Bard (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Beetstra fixed it with <noinclude> tags. NE Ent 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all I really was wanting to address.Greg Bard (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do we discuss Categories, Articles, Templates, but delete Files and Miscellaneous. For me, this MfD is more up for discussion (as a candidate for subst-ing). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tradition! -- or, for the video version Tradition!NE Ent 15:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I just have a question on using noinclude tags to hide the deletion discussion information. While it doesn't matter too much now because keep votes are unanimous, aren't people from WikiProject Philosophy the ones who would be most interested in knowing the template was up for deletion? I'm not sure that using noinclude tags in the future would be a great idea. Ryan Vesey 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a no-win situation. If you hide the tag, people get hysterical about having things "hidden" from them. If you don't hide the tag, people get hysterical about how the tag is ruining the page layout. The correct solution is to stop having editors get hysterical. Gregbard is not exactly new to TfDs over his header templates, so should really be learning not to crank it to 11 every time a new one turns up. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Would it be feasible to amend policy/guidelines regarding talkpages/templates so that local-project talkpages cannot be designed to a stage where wikipedia-wide processes interfere with them? Or just not worth the time given the minor issues it occasionally crops up? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • In practice, proposals which don't have a very good rationale behind them (such as this one) fall flat pretty quickly and can be snow closed. That already happens. We don't need a special rule to prevent people from making dumb TfDs, because it will affect good ones. For instance, last year I TfDed a massive number of WikiProject-specific duplicates of {{page tabs}}; the result was a massive cleanup of redundant code, and an improved appearance for a lot of crufty-looking Wikiproject pages. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Chris, you copy pretty well my thoughts in your last two comments (though I think it is a lose-lose situation ... unfortunately). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 12:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • not worth time, NE Ent 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Another TungstenCarbide sock

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

---

User:టంగ్స్టన్ కార్బైడ్ (translate the name). Please block. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Erm, quack much? Blocked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What language is that? GiantSnowman 11:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Telugu. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Backlog of protected edit requests

Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests has a backlog, modest in number, but in some cases over a week old. Could one or more admins take a look, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They're all requested edits to templates or MediaWiki pages, and I understand the reluctance of admins to dive into generally complex code. I myself am not intimately familiar with it all (yet!) and am still learning, but I'll still try to help out with the requests. There's no better way to learn! :) Salvidrim! ✉ 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend discussing an interaction Ban for Fram and Rich Farmbrough

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

---

Explanation of the problem - User:Fram is a well respected Admin with years of experience on Wiki however his conduct in interacting with User:Rich Farmbrough has escalated way beyond that of his role as an admin.

Fram does not like Rich or his edits and has continued to follow and harass Rich and has been trying to get Rich banned from Wikipedia for the last 2 years. This crusade to get his pound of flesh has been going on since way before Rich had a restriction and needs to stop. Multiple editors in multiple discussions on multiple venues have asked Fram to back away but he has vehemently refused. These have occurred on his talk page, on Rich's talk page, at ANI and on Rich's Arbcom discussion. Fram routinely picks through Rich's edits looking for something to submit, there is no other explaination for how he could find some of these obscure topics Rich has worked on.

Additionally, when editors disagree with Fram he bullies them to the point where they stop commenting on discussions because otherwise he follows them too. One example is here where he commented to a user about their comments in this discussion but he has bullied many others who have sided with Rich including me, Magioladitis and others. This needs to stop.

Recommended action - I would like to ask for an interaction ban to be placed on User:Fram regarding his conduct with User:Rich Farmbrough. If Rich is such a problem then other admins and users can and will bring it up. Wikipedia has no shortage of editors who are willing to notify the proper authorities of problems. Fram doesn't need to be the hall monitor.Kumioko (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose all i-bans in principle anyways, but in this case this oppose is quite firm. What we have here is an admin doing their due diligence regarding a long-term disruptive user, and one cannot expect 100% sainthood when having to deal with such a user or their cheerleading section. Tarc (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• With respect Tarc, Rich is not a disruptive editor, I am not a cheerleader (I'm much to old and fat but maybe for the Redskins :-)), I am not the only one who has asked Fram to back away and Fram is not, by far, the only editor/admin who can submit if Rich does something wrong. But yes to be honest this last submission claiming the use of Excel as automation was really pushing it for me. This has been going on for years and needs to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note that Rich claims to only have used Excel to sort a table, I don't believe him and all the evidence points to him using a script or macro instead. This belongs at the AE discussion basically, but it is not true that I started an AE case because he used Excel, I started an AE case because he clearly used automation and screwed up big time. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rich Farmbrough is the (now closed) case concerning this. Fram (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• (ec)I think the lengthy block log (with a precious few unblocks) and numerous Arb appearances belie the "not a disruptive editor" assertion. This will stop when Farmbrough is indef'ed for good. It's coming sooner or later, his wiki-personality is more "Betacommand malcontent" than "Malleus roguishness. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)You have not provided one piece of evidence to support your claims of a vendetta. An admin., knowledgeable in a specific problematic area, aware of the case history and willing to provoke personal criticism by bringing stuff to attention through the proper channels, I would expect no less from any Admin. That Fram is willing to do it when others are not might say more about their unwillingness to get involved that it says about Fram. This is a horse that will not run and you should get off Fram's case with your personal attacks such as this [69]. Leaky Caldron 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• No problem I'll go dig through the hundreds of discussions for some links. Kumioko (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The essential point that you appears to wish to avoid is that RF would have ended up in precisely the same place though his own actions, not through the actions of particular Admin. Leaky Caldron 12:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would urge all editors to look at the single diff presented as evidence of me bullying editors "to the point where they stop commenting on discussions". I then would ask the same editors to take a look at the following: Kumioko claims: "That is an intimidation tactic plain and simple. That is telling the user I'm an admin so watch your back. Intended or otherwise that is the effect of that sort of notice." Does my post really have that effect? Fram (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line here Fram is that you have hounded Rich incesently for years. You have then found a reason to go after other sho supported Rich. Whenever Rich edits you always seem to be there. Enough is enough. Maybe I am not the right one to start this discussion and maybe I need to find some more evidence. The bottom line here is, as Leaky put it above, I am knowledgable about this matters at hand and I am bringing it up. The difference is that you are an admin so somehow your actions are justified but since I am just a regular editor I am "involved". These are just clever wordings to trick readers. The bottom line is you are bullying and harassing editors you don't like or feel threatened by and it needs to stop. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"You have then found a reason to go after other sho supported Rich." ? I'ld like some diffs for this (I suppose you are referring to something else than the post at Zero's talk page here?). Fram (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose 1. Explaining to another editor where they are factually wrong is not 'bullying'. There is no aggressive posture in that diff you linked to on Zero0000's talk page. 2. Pretty much every interaction by Fram & Rich is about the latter's use of automation. Given he is currently banned for two months and will still have that restriction when he returns, if he finally gets it, obeys it, and stops pushing the envelope - any interaction ban would be redundant. 3. Why dont you take it to ARBCOM like you threatened to at the Arbitration Enforcement discussion? Then you can make your case there for an amendment to the wording of the restrictions or placing an IB between the two. Bear in mind at the previous arbcom case no interaction ban was placed despite the same issues you claim are a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Because Arbcom is a waste of time. The process is crap. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Of course there's no evidence, there can't be any evidence, considering that AE just banned Rich on the basis of Fram's evidence. What this is about is that Kumioko is (for reasons I don't understand) pissed about the ban on RF and wants to get back at Fram for bringing to AE the evidence that Rich had broken his editing restrictions, which got him banned. But if Rich had followed his restrictions, there would have been no problem, so I don't know why Kumioko considers him to be be a cause celebre to get behind. I am pretty sure of this -- if Kumioko doesn't go about his business editing Wikipedia to improve the project, he's well on his way to being blocked himself fro being disruptive. (That's a prediction, not a threat - I'm not an admin and I can't block anyone, even thoose who are deserving of being blocked.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• AE banned Rich because Fram provided assumptions and Rich was honest enough to say he used Excel. Excel is not automation any more than Cut and pasting a URL is. Listen Ken, I am not disrupting anything. I am just trying to have a discussion about Fram's interactions with Rich. That's it. If you don't agree, fine. It has nothing to do about getting back at Fram. What I am a little pissed about is that Fram is allowed to follow every edit of an editor looking and searching for a way to get them banned completely who is trying their best to participate in the project. It also pisses me off that I am being made to look like the bad guy for bringing it up. Kumioko (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If a user stays within his editing restrictions, there will be no cause for banning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose (edit conflict × x2) Reviewing RF talk page discussion it's clear Fram was aware of prior violations of the ArbCom restriction but let them slide under the what's best for Wikipedia gestalt. RF broke his restriction and admitted it; that's on him, not on Fram. NE Ent 12:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - A look at Farmbrough's repeated violation of editing restrictions is very telling.[70] Following him around, if that's what Fram is doing, is probably necessary to protect wikipedia from a frequent restrictions-violating editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Anonymous IP is reverting my sources edits and personally attacking me

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

---

An anonymous IP is reverting my sources edits and personally attacking me calling me a "Turkish nationalist" and accusing me of making sockpuppets.

[71] [72] [73] [74]

It seems that he somehow managed to delete some of the evidence above.

"his IP which "forgot" to sign its comment is probably a sock puppet of E4024 or DragonTiger to support their nationalistic POV."--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He is also constantly changing his IP

I am a serious contributor to wikipedia. I am not a (Turkish) nationalist or biased. It seems to me that they are the ones with nationalistic and biased edits.

Also this

He is accusing me of "pushing islamic and neo ottoman pov" you came and push your islamic and neo-ottoman POV. And E4024 is helping you with his sock puppet IPs.]--2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are some of the IPs he is using:

[75]2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268

[76]2001:4CA0:2201:1:F8CF:C308:7177:B941

[77]2001:4CA0:2201:1:D9A:9802:5B67:94A3

- above comments added by DragonTiger23

Hey, I have no sock puppet IPs. (Nor IP sock puppets :-) You have begun editing WP only today (21.01.2013) and only around one specific issue, if a "historical personality considered a national hero in Turkey" has had interest in same-sex relations! First of all I recommend you to stop being homophobic; it's the 21st Century! Secondly, do not accuse me of anything you are not capable of knowing. Thirdly, as you already know everything about WP (well, almost everything :-) you should know that if you suspect I abuse sock puppets you should ask an SPI about me. (Interested admins: You can realise a checkuser on me, openly or not; no problem. Should the result be negative I believe this IP newcomer should be given a good warning so that they would come back with a better attitude.) --E4024 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He also accuses me of making non-neutral edits, while in fact the only thing I did was adding the criticism of WELL-KNOWN TURKISH HISTORIANS on Babiners assertions from an article of one of Turkey's most known newspapers Zaman (newspaper). In his version he presents as if Babingers assertion was a fact, while the only thing I did was changing the sentence to : Babinger asserted....DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also see this [78] - comment probably added by DragonTiger (not going to even look)

It is not forbidden to be anonymous. And it is you who reverts Edits and edit-wars against several users. Stop that, thanks. I nver said that you are a turkish nationalist but your edit is not neutral. Use reliable sources and stop trolling by inverting your personal point of view in other's articles. DragonTiger i also noticed that your English isn't quite good. Please stop ignoring answers of other users and just ANSWER correst.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And my friend, it is not forbidden to use IPs.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You did personally attack me. See links above It seems to me that you are constantly changing your IP to bypass potential block/IP banDragonTiger23 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, i didn't. See my explanations. Are the changes made by you the "spectrum of mainstream" then? We reached consensus above and now you are coming and changing it without any real explanation. Please read the Discussions and look at your edits.--2001:4CA0:2201:1:4DBC:A6EA:1B56:E268 (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

WHERE ARE THE ADMINS??? PROBLEM ABOVE IS STILL NOT DEALT WITH!DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• This thread is a mess, and DragonTiger, it's largely your fault for not signing your posts and scattershot adding of comments. Also, don't shout at anyone here (use of all caps). There's enough drama on this board without that kind of nonsense. As far as I can tell, DragonTiger and the IP are both hurling insults at each other and edit-warring as well. And I see no basis for the accusation of sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't insult anyone. The only reason I wrote it in capitals was because after some hours still not one single admin responded. I understand that admins are busy. I didn't do sockpuppetry, in fact the IP who is constantly using different IPs is sockpuppetry, in my opinion. Go to the history of the article to see what the dispute is about.DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't sockpuppetry because 1 - he/she isn't using it for vote-stacking or evasion of sanctions, and 2 - IPv6 addresses like these are often determined by stateless autoconfiguration, which means they are subject to change even more quickly than most IPv4 addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, we're not going to respond nicely to YELLING IN ALL CAPITALS, are we? You say he's calling you a "Turkish nationalist" - wow, is that considered to be an insult? The edit summary "the only ones who agreed were you and two other turkish nationalists" may or may not be calling you one - depending how you parse it. Nevertheless, it's not overly blockable - uncivil maybe, but not blockable. Accusing you of being a sockpuppet without having the guts to file an WP:SPI report is uncivil, but again, not blockable. Realistically, although you claim to be editing with a neutral point of view, I do see some tinges of non-NPOV overall, so his comments may appear to be valid in-face, based on what I read. That does not excuse incivility, but again, the level of incivility is not blockable yet (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• The article was recently locked by User:Favonian for a week. Because the dispute continued after expiration of the lock, I've locked it again, this time for 10 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

IP harassment

This IP is harassing me for days now. Knows all about my user account. It could be the guy that got his user account blocked because of me.

[79], [80], [81].

I doubt he will stop even if this IP is blocked. But it's annoying considering he is doing this every month for few days in a row, writing on other users' talk pages about me etc. --Wüstenfuchs 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like an admin to read my talk page where IP want's my account blocked at any cost and represents himself as a "legion" that "doesn't forgive or forget." --Wüstenfuchs 16:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggest page protection. Blackmane (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the most recent IP for 31 hours for this edit: it is unacceptable. I've also reverted them on Flag of Syria where they falsely claimed a talk page consensus. On that note, a talk page consensus is necessary for that issue: there is some talk in the archive of that talk page but it is old and didn't really lead anywhere. An RfC might be an option though, of course, the situation is in flux--however, that shouldn't mean that a temporary agreement cannot be reached. If I remember correctly there was a suggestion in the archive that a second flag could be mentioned but not in the infobox, a suggestion that sounded reasonable and had some support. I am not prepared to protect Wustenfuchs's talk page yet, and I note (WP:BOOMERANG invites research) that Wustenfuchs has a habit of edit-warring, a habit they would do well to get rid of once and for all. Let's see what the future brings re:IP hopping. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Blackmane: This isn't vandalism, and it doesn't meet the recommended criteria for protection on WP:SEMI. Additionally, Wüstenfuchs, you're talking about two different IPs. They're close enough that there's a good chance they're the same person, but they are nevertheless different. 92.40.254.14 has been blocked by Drmies for harassment already. That's the "We are legion" kid. 92.40.254.201 has not been blocked, and he was the one in the second and third diffs you linked. Just seemed worth mentioning. —Rutebega (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Both 92.40.254.201 and 92.40.254.14 are from the same range: 92.40.252.0/22 (geolocates to London). Some ISPs assign a new IP every time the subscriber logs on. Another possibility is the person is editing from a mobile device and is assigned a new IP every time they enter the range of a new cell phone tower. This tool can be used to calculate ranges. -- Dianna (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Wüstenfuchs, I will add your userpage to my watch-list for a while. -- Dianna (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Rutebaga, I blocked the most recent one. It makes little sense to block the earlier ones, as Dianna's comment suggests it's outdated. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, I didn't know that (IP addresses and how they work mystify me frequently) but I guess now I know. The WHOIS says it's a "mobile broadband service," so I bet it's somebody on a smartphone. Cheers. —Rutebega (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Sigh, they're back at Flag of Syria; I've reverted and semi-protected for a month. Who knows what flag flies over Damascus then. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe a cases were made in the past(correct me if I'm wrong) for a user's page to be protected, if requested, but that user would normally then provide a page for IP's to post messages. Again, I may entirely be mistaken. Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • You're not mistaken, but semi-protecting a user talk page is something that is not done quickly. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Protection_of_user_pages, last sentence. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Aspartame controversy

The long-running problems at our article on the Aspartame controversy have arisen again, with two anti-Aspartame editors apparently tag-teaming on the talk page in an effort to force changes to the article against policy and consensus. After a thread was started by User:Arydberg which (falsely) claimed that an article in the Mail On Sunday stated that Aspartame caused birth defects, User: Immortale stepped in to repeat the claims - multiple times, in spite of it being repeatedly pointed out that (a) the Mail on Sunday wasn't a reliable source per WP:MEDRS, (b) the paper referred to was a single (and very equivocal) primary source, and therefore not admissible per WP:MEDRS, and (c) that the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming. As the thread shows [82], Immortale in particular has persisted with the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:Tendentious editing tactics ad nauseam, including an attempt (after WP:MEDRS had repeatedly been referred to) to cite Fox News as a "fair and balanced source" for material to support the claims: [83] On this basis alone, I think that there might be grounds for calling for a topic ban on Immortale, if not a block per WP:COMPETENCE, given an evident inability to comprehend policy (or sources), or possibly an inability to comprehend that it applies to everyone. However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors, alleging that "a small but dedicated group of hostile editors refuse to report the controversy because of their original belief that it was a hoax", and alleging that editors are involved in spreading 'propaganda' on behalf of Aspartame manufacturers. This comment seems clear evidence to me that Immortale is incapable of complying with talk page guidelines, and is using the talk page as a soapbox. On this basis, I suggest that User:Immortale should be topic banned from any any subject matter (including talk pages) relating to artificial sweeteners, since they are clearly incapable of complying with the Wikipedia policies they have repeatedly been made aware of, and are instead intent on abusing Wikipedia as a platform for their own ends. I note that this is not the first time that Immortale's behaviour relating to this matter has been drawn to the attention of this noticeboard, and that Immortale has been both blocked [84] and topic banned under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (for four months, in February 2011) regarding the matter, and frankly, I can see no reason whatsoever why a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am quite tired of having to prove I am not some kind of paid operative of the international aspartame conspiracy. [85]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Challenge them to prove they aren't a member of said conspiracy running a deep false flag operation. Ravensfire (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not know this person but it is impossible to prove we are not connected. My opinion he is just one of dozens that have tried to change this article perhaps because they (like me) know people who's health has been destroyed by aspartame. All we ask is a chance to be heard. I will try not to repeat myself but it is hard when outright lies are accepted as truth. An example of this is the statement that "I'd like to point out that "artificially sweetened carbonated soft drinks"is not the same thing as aspartame" when aspartame is used in 90 percent of canned soda. , Arydberg (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't make any personal attacks. I didn't say Grumpy Andy is this and that. I said it was a real controversy and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame. We are to report the mainstream media, so why would Fox News not be a valid source when it's clearly a large news channel. I dislike Fox News, but it's not about me, but about the neutrality of the whole article. The controversy is taken serious in the mainstream media and the scientific community. Otherwise, why keep pumping millions and millions of dollars and Euros in ongoing research if it was such a clear-cut case as it is stated in the current article. Shouldn't be an article called Controversy, be about the controversy? Why is it so hard to reach consensus about this? Immortale (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"and very possible that in the past, one or more editors had much to gain to avoid any bad publicity around aspartame" is a personal attack. You are accusing editors of being corporate shills, as you have many other times. Please stop it. Shall I say this again? I have no connection to anyone who makes aspartame. I am tired of having to defend myself against such crap. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, but it's your free choice to feel attacked. No one asked you to defend yourself because no one attacked you, Dbrodneck. If I have to list of what the editors are called who try to present a negative fact about Aspartame, then we are here for a while. I've had to deal with real accusations and personal attacks of tag-teaming, of having multiple accounts, and so on. I was cleared every time but it's not the right way of editing an article together. So I have been away for some time because no matter what rights I had given, a persistent group of pro-editors, hide behind their consensus and doesn't let anything "anti" in their way. By the way, some of the statements about me above are plain false. Immortale (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Which statements are "plain false"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

These are two editors who have been topic banned and blocked in the past and I would suggest an indefinite topic ban. It is disruptive to accuse other editors of conflict of interest on talk pages and to argue against Wikipedia policies and guidelines there. TFD (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False statements about me (and I won't mention the false allegations of tag teaming and me not following wikipedia guidelines): "the paper referred to premature births, not birth defects as Arydberg and Immortale were claiming." Where did I claim this? "However, Immortale has now resorted to making personal attacks on contributors" I never made personal attacks. You did and do. "a contributor who utterly refuses to comply with policy should be allowed to continue to edit any material relating to this issue" (ignoring your Freudian typo here)I always followed policy and always took my edits to Talk Page. You seem to project your frustration of Arydberg onto me, since your complaint is mostly about me, even though I only made 6 edits on the article and Talk page in the last 4 months. Not exactly "repeatedly", is it? And once again, the hostility I point out to you, is completely valid when you write in large bold letters AndyTheGrump "How many fucking times" in the Talk Page. There are many more examples of your hostility. So my suggestion is, to topic ban you for a couple of months, until you've cooled down. Immortale (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

People are quite capable of reading the talk page discussion for themselves, and forming their own opinion - and when two 'contributors' are seemingly intent on adding the same material based on an entirely false section heading ('birth defects') nitpicking about which one used which exact words is entirely beside the point. And no, calling for editors who refuse to comply with policy to be blocked isn't a 'personal attack' - it would be impossible to block anyone if it was. As for topic bans for me, since mine isn't a single-purpose account, unlike yours [86] , it wouldn't be of any great significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If I am not one of the members of the corporate shill group, who are these members who have a COI, and why has this not been pursued? You know, it is possible that you Immortale are simply wrong. It may be because you have a disruptive case of WP:IDHT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited and therefore I cannot spend my time to fight for every edit or to bring people to boards. I did this in the beginning, several years ago, and I ALWAYS got my right from neutral editors, until someone reverted everything bluntly again. That's why I stopped editing but this is about the current case, and you have no case. Unfortunately the article is so biased now, that people who want to know more about the controversy, go to other sites. You can see this in various forums and the mainstream media. I've edited other articles, so stop with that accusation. This is about me making 6 edits in 4 months and getting this ridiculous hostile reception. Immortale (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Outsider view

I don't edit this article, so I evaluated the difference in citation shown in this diff. Having read the cited work, I do not see that the synthesis implied by Immortale is significant. The report does list three specific flaws, and it is reasonable for us to simply state that they were found rather than spell them out. We are not constrained to simply relating slight rewordings of the conclusion section of the report. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

One disturbing comment is "All we ask is a chance to be heard." That betrays a lack of understanding of what wikipedia is supposed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Propose topic ban

• Propose indefinite topic bans on both Immortale and Arydberg from all material related to aspartame and artificial sweeteners, as both are WP:SPAs that have been previously topic banned due to disruptive behavior, with return to said behavior. It is time for that disruption to stop. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Good idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses 116.202.144.148, 116.202.125.149 indulges in vandalism

An unregistered user from IP address 116.202.144.148 indulges in vandalising wikipedia Kochi page which contains information about Kochi city, urban agglomeration, wider metropolitan area and suburbs. The user was warned that what he is doing is contrary to the content and purpose of the page. On being warned, the user threatens to change the whole page in order to suit his designs. To quote the reported user

"(Article is not about Kochi UA. but Kochi city There is another article on Kochi UA. If there are other irrelevant information, they should be deleted as well.)"

In order to avoid the three revert rule the reported user used another IP 116.202.125.149 and continued vandalism. Prathambhu (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC) Request Urgent Admin intervention to block the IPs and restore information on Kochi pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prathambhu (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody violated WP:3RR. You have both reverted the page one time. This just looks like assuming bad faith. Prathambhu created the first IP's talk page with a level 2 vandalism warning, which was inappropriate, then followed with vandalism level 3 8 minutes later, even though no further edits had taken place on Kochi. When the other user reverted the reversion under another IP (I think it's safe to assume they're the same person), Prathambhu gave both IPs level 4 warnings, then less than 30 minutes later, decided that wasn't enough, and took it straight to AN/I. No talk page discussion was ever opened, and this isn't even the first time Prathambhu has been involved in this exact content dispute; another editor wanted to make the same changes to the article back in 2009.

Content issues aside, the IP user tried to make several edits in good faith. Prathambhu, meanwhile, seems to have no concept of what vandalism actually means and how vandalism templates should be used. I would suggest he educate himself further, and perhaps consider expanding his scope a little more beyond Kochi and related articles. I don't think this warrants a block for anybody, as even Prathambhu didn't seem to be editing in bad faith, and doesn't appear to have been admonished for this behavior in the past. —Rutebega (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

False charge by Prathambhu. To quote the first paragraph of the Kochi page,

" The city of Kochi (pop. 601,574) is the most densely populated city in the state and is part of an extended metropolitan region (pop. 2.1 million), which is the largest urban agglomeration in Kerala. Kochi city is also a part of Greater Cochin region[6][7] and is classified as a B-1 grade city[8] by the Government of India, making it the highest graded city in the state".

I had also checked the discussions Talk:Kochi, India and found that the consensus was that the article is about the city not the UA. From this it is pretty clear that the article is about the Kochi and not about the Kochi UA or the metropolitan area. Some of the information added in the page are for the UA of Kochi, and should be entered in the Kochi metropolitan area. Quoting from the page Kochi metropolitan area,

"This article is about the urban agglomeration of Kochi. For the city of Kochi, see Kochi ". And again,

"The Urban Agglomeration (UA) of Kochi (Malayalam: കൊച്ചി [Kocci]; formerly known as Cochin) is a part of the Greater Cochin region and the largest urban agglomeration in the Indian state of Kerala."

So I hope it might be clear to you by now, which is the page on the Urban Agglomeration and which is the page on the city. I merely removed these irrelevant information's from the page. Aluva is a separate municipality from Kochi and a part of the metropolitan area but it is not part of the Kochi city which has a population of 601,574. So please allow me to remove these irrelevant information from the page. Kolenchery is a small town within a Panchayat which is outside the purview of both Kochi city, GCDA and Kochi metropolitan area. I didn't change the IP. I'm using a shared IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.91.114 (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive new user(s)

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

---

This afternoon, users Jude caird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Filippo campione (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have vandalized the following pages as their only edits since the accounts were created:

• Soup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Harris's antelope squirrel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wild boar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Rifle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Grenade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP address 208.123.157.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has vandalized Harris's antelope squirrel in a similar way. From the similarity of these edits and the short timeframe in which they occurred, all of these users may be the same person.

As I write this, all of the edits have been reverted. Jude caird has made 4 edits, Filippo campione 9 and the IP address 2. The users have not made any edits for a few hours but the accounts have been used for nothing other than disruption. Is a block appropriate? Dricherby (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In the future, you may report vandalism-only user accounts at WP:AIV. As for the IP, they have not been warned yet; I've issued a warning and will watch them for the next little while. Thanks for the report! m.o.p 22:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Gun Powder Ma and the article Germans

Not sure were to turn - thus I am here. User:Gun Powder Ma has recently reverted a few times a consensus text at the article Germans. The overwhelming consensus at Talk:Germans#Article scope clearly indicates a broad consensus for the articles scope - that is an article that is all encompassing of the demographics of Germans citizens and world wide diaspora and not a semi socio-racial/ethnic group classification system article. As a group on the page we have moved on from this point of contention to helping with the articles structure and content based on the new consensus. Looking for how to processed when one editor does not see what the rest see.Moxy (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a contents dispute which Moxy is, unfortunately, now trying to solve via admin action instead of engaging in discussion on talk page. Since 18 January I have been on talk page trying to discuss it to little avail.

The contents dispute evolved in three steps:

• First, I reverted the lead definition (This connection may be ethnic, historical or cultural, legal or residential) after I found it unsourced per WP:reliable.
• Then Moxy added a source, Lowell Barrington. This source, however, does not back up the claim, as anybody with access to the source can quickly see, so I reverted it per WP:reliable.
• Now Moxy added another source, Joyce Marie Mushaben, which does back up the claim but does not provides the definition of German ethnicity, but rather of the German nationality law. This topic, however, is covered in a different article as the disambiguation says (For an analysis on the nationality or German citizenship, see German nationality law). What Moxy does is simply equating German ethnicity with German nationality law - again without proper sources.

While I am trying to discuss the issue on talk (still do), Moxy has been more busy to threaten me with ANI. This is a contents issue and I would like to see it addressed on talk page by Moxy. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting confused you seem here to imply its referenced. As for talking actually it was I trying to talk to you about it first as see here even directing you to the conversation that you missed after your first revert - You then (without taking about it reverted again) - Then as seen here you seem to have implied again your not aware of the conversation that led to the changes (so you reverted again) and again I indicated were the conversation took place to no avail. What would you like us to do - your edit waring on a point that has been resolved by the group and is referenced? We have had along talk on the matter that you seem to refuse to recognize or even admit has happened. Have you taken the time to read over Talk:Germans#Article scope yet? Moxy (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Can't you please stop talking in terms of pluralis majestatis and start giving answers to straightforward questions related to contents? There is no WP policy which holds that consensus, even if it exists, overrules WP:reliable or WP:OR. You are currently defining German ethnicity exclusively on German citizenship. But ethnicity and citizenship, also certainly overlapping, are not congruent. For German citizenship we have a separate article, German nationality law. Your definition belongs there, at least in its claim to absoluteness. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what to say - we had ref that covered Germans - be they diaspora (historical or cultural) - be they Germanic peoples (ethnic) - be they immigrant by naturalization or adoption (residential, legal) but your removing them with the agreed text - Lowell Barrington (6 January 2012). Comparative Politics: Structures and Choices. Cengage Learning. p. 112. ISBN 978-1-111-34193-0. and Joyce Marie Mushaben (1 August 2008). The Changing Faces of Citizenship: Integration and Mobilization Among Ethnic Minorities in Germany. Berghahn Books. pp. 32–35. ISBN 978-1-84545-453-1.. I can get more if you like.Moxy (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is a clear consensus on the page that the definition should include both ethnicity and nationality - this means that we do not need any single source for the definition, but that we can write a broad decision combining several definitions. Reverting a clear RfC consensus as Gun Powder MA is doing is disruptive. It needs to stop.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is the second time in a week that a content dispute has spilled over from Germans, which has, in my opinion, been irresponsibly turned into an amalgam of two different things — Germans as an ethnicity and Germans as members of a nation-state. There are tendentious ideological reasons for pretending that these two very different things are inseparable. This is an Arb Com case waiting to happen unless the owners of that page back the hell off and stop suppressing minority perspectives of their so-called "consensus." We've recently had an editor from Israel thrown off WP like he was some kind of crazy Nazi because his perspective didn't synch up with the PC "consensus" at Germans. The lynch mob obliged. Sickening. Fix it or this will go on and on. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your familiarity with that process and what has been going on at Talk:Germans seems fairly limited. The "owners" you refer to is a consensus of some 20 editors. Guitar hero ended up being on amiable terms with people with the opposing viewpoint in that discussion and he agreed with the redefinition of the scope as a broad article including both ethnicity and nationality which are two different things, but which cannot be meaningfully separated into two separate articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrite, while I agree with you that this is an ArbCom case waiting to happen, I don't altogether agree with your characterisation of other events. I'm still awaiting a good explanation of what 'PC' means in this context, and why it's a bad thing. 'Lynch mob' is a singularly inapt choice of metaphor in this context. And with the best will in the world, Guitar hero on the roof's battleground mentality was the main factor in his banning. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This is not an arbcom case waiting to happen. The original debate was fuelled by a disruptive sockpuppet (Guitar hero on the roof (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)) amongst others. It was reignited by the belated appearance of an editor who has not accepted the overwhelming consensus for the article to be as broad as possible. Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Guitar Hero was run off — meaning indefinitely banned plus topic banned — because he had a content dispute. No content dispute, no SPI. To wit: he argued that ethnic Germans as an ethnic group and the universal set of Germans as citizens of a nation state are not one and the same thing. The so-called "battleground mentality" was him standing up for what is a MAJORITY perspective in the literature, but quite obviously a MINORITY perspective among the handful of active (activist?) editors at that page. For not shutting up, he was crushed. Hurray for majority rule!!! The fact that the so-called "consensus" there is PC in intent is made quite obvious by your allusion to "... in this context, and why it's a bad thing." The context, of course, is that we are talking about GERMANY and not France, Albania, Sweden, or some other such place, for which there would be no doubt, no debate that those ethnicities and the superset of citizens of those nation-states are entirely different things. The so-called "consensus" is being enforced by bannings of dissident Wikipedians, it seems to me. Ergo, this is an ArbCom case in the making unless things change... Carrite (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Carrite you're talking nonsense. He was indeffed because he socked, he was not communtiy banned, but topic banned because of his disruptive behavior. It was not his POV as that was supported by plenty of other people who nonetheless also agreed with the consensus to broaden the scope. Yuor assertions about the literature are unfounded. You are misrepresenting a process and arguments that you apparently didn't understand. Please stop doing that.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Guitar hero on the roof was checkuser-blocked by an arbitrator (AGK) independently of any SPI report. Guitar hero was clearly disruptive. If there are no incidents that require administrative attention, please don't use this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ABBA vandal

The following was posted at the "Village Pump" –proposals. I transfer it here without comment as to its merits. ThanX. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My issue is concerning user 89.98.37.96, who has edited a clfew abba related articles so far, falsifying information, and heaviky poving it towards Agnethac(the blonde one). Layer editors to tone of the pages havent reverted the edits creatibg a bi of a mess. As i am not in a position to go through all the mess and fix up the damae, i request that someone here gives it a peak. I KNOW IS PROB NOT THE RIGHT FORUM BUT I COULDNT THINK OF WHERE ELSE TO GO AT THIS TIME. IN ADDITION TO THIS, I THINK TGE USER MUST BE EXPLAINED THE RUKES AND IF THIS PURSISTS HE MAY NEED TO BE BLOCKED. Thankyou for reading this :). (btw i only realised now that a lot of my comment was in capslock. Sorry abiut that. Its so hard to edit wikioedia when on ones phone.....)--Coin945 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• The contributions by 89.98.37.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are a bit onesided and they're unreferenced. You could call it WP:UNDUE but I don't see how this is vandalism. Nor has there been any attempt to contact the IP about these edits. I have now notified both the IP and Coin945 about this discussion. Coin945, can you please provide diffs of what you think has been "falsifying information"? De728631 (talk) 12:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

An apparent attempt to smear minorities by systematic abuse of 'See also' sections.

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

---

For some time now, a small number of contributors have repeatedly added links to our articles on the Sydney gang rapes and Ashfield gang rapes (both incidents occurring in Australia in 2002 or earlier) to the 'see also' sections of our articles on the Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Derby sex gang (refering to much more recent events in the UK). After I deleted the Australian ones from the Rochdale article, with an edit summary of "no connection", User:Darkness Shines started a talk page discussion, with a partial quote from WP:SEEALSO, which omited the salient point: that 'The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number.' I have asked Darkness Shines to provide a proper expolanation as to why these particular articles should be linked, but no answer has been provided. Given Darkness Shines' previous editing habits, and given the only evident link between these particular articles - that the offenders were from Muslim backgrounds - I can see no reason to assume these links were added unless with an intent to smear an ethnoreligious minority - a gross violation of WP:NPOV. Such behaviour is surely grounds for at minimum a topic ban - unless Darkness Shines can provide us with an explanation as to why, of all the Wikipedia articles concerning rape (see e.g. Category:Rape) these are deemed to be of so much significance.

I would also like an uninvolved third party to look into the issue of possible sockpuppetry as far as these edits are concerned - at least one editor involved (User:Micro Filter 750) appears to be an account used solely for edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain how its not a content dispute?Did you tried to resolve the matter on talk page?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)(I am not talking about User:Micro Filter 750 that should probably be check-usered)--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A gross violation of WP:NPOV is not a 'content dispute' - and yes, as I state above, I tried to address the issue on the article talk page, though DS refused to provide any explanation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ATG reached 3RR on this article today, I posted on the talk page before reverting him explaining why I felt these belong in the see also section. ATG responded but did not address my reasons for inclusion[87] He then moves onto ignoring my first post and makes a personal attack in accusing me of trying to smear a minority. I tell him I do not care what he assumes and to address the substance of my first post His response, rather than discussing the content issue was Ok, see you at WP:ANI What we have here is an editor refusing to discuss, making personal attacks, edit warring and then coming to ANI to try and get his own way. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

OK then, give us a clear explanation as to why two articles relating to incidents in Australia in 2002 are of such particular relevance to articles concerning incidents in the UK some 6 or so years later. I asked for this, you refused to give any. So where is it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem that is not the first time that ATG use this board for content dispute [88]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• ATG is correct. The gang rapes in Australia have no connection with the ones in England, and the See also links appear to be only due to the Muslim background of both. Unless DS can explain how they are relevant (other than race), they should be deleted. GregJackP Boomer! 20:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not but this not place for discuss it.There are pretty clear WP:DR process that should be followed.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Even so, I would echo GregJackP's question. Resolute 20:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shrike, this is the correct place to discuss gross violations of WP:NPOV policy in regard to efforts to smear enthoreligious minorities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Andy appears to be pointing to a behaviour problem: an editor trying to make a point about Muslims and rape. Does Darkness Shines have form for this sort of thing? --Anthonyhcole (talk)

Obviously not, [89][90][91][92][93] I have written many articles about rape, and I always adhere to NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact why would I have insisted on this[94] edit remaining in an article if what ATG is trying to imply is even remotely true? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So where is your explanation for your adding the contested 'see also' links? If you have a legitimate reason, tell us what it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I already did, on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Since that is demonstrably false [95] - you have provided no explanation whatsoever as to why you insisted that those particular articles were of such significance, I think people can draw their own conclusions regarding your intent - and on your apparent contempt for appropriate standards of behaviour when asked here to explain your actions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

[96] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Child grooming by people of Pakistani origin is a racially charged debate in the UK; there are often several fascist "protests" that claim to be against child grooming in concept (yet they're nowhere to be seen outside Television Centre...). It often enters the mainstream political sphere through people such as Jack Straw. Obviously, caution is advised. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I checked the discussed articles and the talk pages quickly, and apparently Darkness Shines (talk · contribs) did nothing wrong in my opinion. He is just linking analogous cases, which is the right thing to do per see also links. If someone disagrees with them being germane to the article, the dispute resolution process is that-a-way, starting from WP:3O. If Andy feels that there are different articles that should be included in addition or in alternative, he's better pointing them out. Viceversa, the insinuations by AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) that Darkness Shines is trying to make a smear campaign look like serious personal attacks and gross violations of WP:AGF, instead, at least if this is the amount of proof he's giving of this "campaign", and this kind of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated.--Cyclopia^talk 21:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How are gang rapes in Australia more 'analagous' to the events in Rochdale or Derby than any of the multiple other articles on such incidents that could have been linked? Given that DS seems to have written much on the subject, one would assume that he would be at least aware of Category:Rape, and of the multiple other articles - including many relating to the UK (see Category:Rape in the United Kingdom) Instead, he links articles relating to Australia for no reason given - and refuses to explain why they are of such significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I'm sorry, I'm not seeing a reason for including the links in the See also section. I'm also not sure about the diffs that you posted, for example, this diff [97] indicates that the raped Muslim women may have been "complicit" in the attacks. Does that mean that they asked to be raped or were to blame for being raped? And why were just the Muslim women "complicit"? The other articles all predominately feature rapes by Muslims or Muslim groups, none of which go towards explaining the behavior issue being raised. Finally, the explanation on the article talk page is not satisfactory to answer the question on why the links are relevant. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you not know how to read? "The rape of Muslim women by Hindu males during this period is well documented, with women also being complicit in these attacks." where do you get "they asked to be raped or were to blame for being raped" from? And I should like you to post a diff from any of the other articles were I wrote Muslims are responsible for rapes. And how you get "predominately feature rapes by Muslims or Muslim groups" from Rape in India and Rape in Jammu and Kashmir is beyond me. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusing Greg of not knowing how to read seems pretty harsh. If you mean that there were women among the attackers or their accomplices, then say so. As it is, the only women you've otherwise specified are the victims, and that is unclear. I have no view on this dispute, except to observe that it is mostly a content dispute, and that the relatedness of items is not so self-evident that no source is ever required. But writing about rape and sexual abuse is hard; both draining on the writer, and difficult to get right with the appropriate balance of accuracy and sensitivity. It seems from the way you are engaging with one another on this topic that that is getting badly lost. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your correct, I have struck the offending comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: once again, Darkness Shines has refused to provide a specific explanation as to why the particular articles linked were of such significance, and is instead resorting to bluster in the hope that the issue will go away. [98]. At this point, it seem only reasonable to assume that my initial supposition was correct, and this edit was made in an attempt to smear an ethnoreligious minority. Can I suggest that the discussion moves on to what particular sanctions are appropriate here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can suggest it, but no-one has to take you seriously. I see no sign of anything like consensus here. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the third time ATG has violated AGF & NPA with his vile suggestions that I made this edit for reasons of race. I must insist these attacks be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have at no time suggested that your edits were motivated by race (religion seems to be the issue with you). Anyway, why did you make the edits? . AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm troubled by Darkness Shines's behaviour in this See also case. Contrary to Cyclopia's view, I can't see any reason to include those links other than to make a point about Muslims and rape. Can someone (Cyclopia, Darkness Shines?) explain to me what it is saying other than, "See, Muslims do this in Australia too" or perhaps, "Typical Muslim behaviour"? If that's not what's going on, if the purpose is to make some as yet unspecified point about the existence of gang rape elsewhere, can I suggest Darkness Shines uses gang rape articles that involve other ethnicities, so as not to inadvertently smear an ethnic group? There are probably a few gang rapes every day somewhere in the world. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Please point me to the articles on gang rapes carried out by gangs over an extended period of time which got such massive attention? I will add them to the see also sections quite happily. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you think you're in danger of implying that there is something about Islam that makes them more likely to engage in gang rape? If so, does that concern you at all? Do you think it is in fact the case that Muslims are more likely to engage in this kind of behaviour than other religious groups? Is that what's going on here? And no, I'm not interested in editing that article. I'm interested in your behaviour. And could you please answer Andy's reasonable question? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not implying anything. And I do not think any group is more likely to commit rape than any other group, that is a fucking hideous question to ask. And I have responded to andy's question. My response is on the article talk page and is linked to twice in this thread. Another response is directly above your post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have responded to Andy's question. You haven't explained what the point of the links is. I can't see any point other than those I mentioned. I see you do a bit of writing about Muslims. [99] Do you have a particular view on Isalm? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What troubles me about you is, it's been pointed out that putting those see also links at the bottom of those articles can be seen as, is in fact, making a case for "Typical Muslim behaviour". Far from rearing back in horror at that possibility and quickly removing the links, you're arguing to keep them there. Again, you're making the case for "See, this is what Muslims do." I was willing to believe it was inadvertant, but the longer this goes on, and the more you dig in your heels, the more I begin to believe that this is your intention all along. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks accusations of bigotry are going a bit far considering what's actually happened here? While Darkness Shines has not yet specified specifically why he believes the see also links are appropriate, I don't think it's reasonable to assume it's because he hates muslims. Is it possible that the events are related (if tangentially) because they had a similar effect on their respective communities, perhaps even in part due to the religion of the offenders? I imagine that in both circumstances, people were desperately trying disclose that the attackers were muslim without sounding racist. Perhaps the attacks heightened prejudice or discrimination in both areas. There are countless possible links between the articles that don't prove Darkness Shines hates islamic peoples, so why would you assume that just because Andy suggested it? I can't tell you exactly why Darkness wants the links there, only he can, and when he finally gets around to it, it had better be good. But in the meantime, let's keep this as civil as possible why don't we? —Rutebega (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Not the only one Rutebega. Firstly - given that ATG and anthonycole seem to want Darkness to answer 'content' questions, take those back to the article talkpage. Secondly - if ATG is going to seriously allege that DS is smearing a religion/minority by the use of see-also links, I dont know where to begin with that. Short of any actual diff to that effect, he should retract his comments as personal attacks. ATG seems to be the one making it about religion and minorities. All I see is DS linking other notable gang-rape articles. If you think that its (anti)religiously motivated, you need to put up evidence to that effect rather than dragging someone here and demanding they defend themselves. You asked a question, DS has answered. That you dont like the answer is not his fault, its reasonable under the circumstances and you can now choose to address it with good faith and work towards consensus on the talk page. The act of linking two articles that have similarities is not evidence in itself of non-npov editing. By its nature 'see also' sections are going to have common themes! 'Smearing minorities' is a serious accusation. It needs to be backed up with serious evidence. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. Darkness Shines has already explained his reasoning, that these were both high profile gang-rape cases that occurred over a lengthy period of time, and as he argues, that makes them tangentially related enough for the See Also section. The main issues brought up against him so far have been that both examples are of Muslims, and that neither example is geographically related, although Britain and Australia share many obvious socio-cultural similarities. Are there even any other examples that could be put into this See Also section that would be more relevant? Without any evidence that he is explicitly ignoring other notable gang-rape instances that occurred over long periods of time, or that his is singling out Muslims it is dubious to make a case of him trying to smear minorities.OakRunner (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• ATG's worry was entirely legitimate considering the larger editing patterns of the editors in question. But unless we are talking about the larger edit patterns then this is a content issue. I would note that editors have been topic banned in the past for focusing on providing negative information about specific ethnic or religious groups.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
• Folks, this is an edit war over a "see also" section. I'd suggest that given BRD the addition should be reverted and then discussed on the talk page with the default to be to exclude the link. Given how obvious that step is for experienced Wikipedians, I'm a bit worried that there are some other issues here (personal, religious or whatever). Given this discussion I imagine there will be enough participation to get consensus. Hobit (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely correct. I note the additions are no longer in the articles; they should stay removed unless/until there is talkpage consensus (amd, frankly, a damn good reason) to include them. The addition of the Rochdale link is IMO seriously problematic; there's no real link between these gang rape articles and that article where the main issue was grooming for prostitution, apart from the religion of the perpetrators. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'content disputes. Can anyone explain how one is supposed to engage in a discussion regarding content with someone who refuses to state why they want particular content included? This is elementary stuff - disputes regarding Wikipedia content can only be resolved by consensus, after discussion. A user who refuses to state why material merits inclusion, but insists it should be included, is clearly not participating in any discussion in a meaningful way - and to let this continue without sanctions is to invite further obstructionism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor says they are similar crimes, and therefore would belong in the see also section for tangential info. Oddly, you both seem to see similarities, just not focus on the same ones, so either you both agree there are enough similarities or that there are not, but that is a content dispute, and you get others involved for a consensus to break the impasse. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This cannot be a 'content dispute' if an involved party refuses to state why particular content should be included, while insisting that it should. And no - I see no reason whatsoever why the Australian articles should be linked in the UK ones, or vice versa. Or at least, no reason compliant with WP:NPOV policy. Remember, this is not an isolated incident - multiple editors have attempted to link the two sets of articles, and at no time has any justification whatsoever been provided. If this was a 'content dispute', one would expect those who were in favour of the links to explain their actions, rather than engaging in a slow-motion edit war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

They do state why: "similar crimes." Similar crimes are often linked in the media, or in peoples minds, or in criminological study, so the question becomes is there enough there per rough consensus to put in See also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has refused to say why these crimes in particular are more 'similar' than all the other possibilities. And no - no source has been offered suggesting that there are any links. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Discuss the other possibilities you mention there, in doing so, it is hoped you will reach a consensus on that. If the editor does not make his case, he does not make his case. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has refused to discuss anything. Nobody else has proposed anything. The links have been deleted. What am I supposed to be 'discussing'? And what has this got to do with the issue I raised here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the one who raised a question about how to deal with a content dispute, which pretty much everyone on this board sees this as. Because the diff you have provided shows a content dispute, that is the consensus on this board. If no one is now editing the article, than yes there is nothing you need to discuss there, and nothing more to discuss here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS has already said why. Alan gets it, Oakrunner gets it, Rutebega gets it, I get it. We might not necessarily agree with his reasoning but we understand it is a reason. You asked, he answered. Repeatedly. You have admitted there are similarities which you seem to think fall foul of NPOV. Given that they are not his stated reason for including them, you are attempting to exclude content based on a reason for which he hasnt given. Content dispute. Go discuss that on the talk page or the NPOV noticeboard. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are suggesting that if someone violates WP:NPOV, but won't say why, it should be treated as a content dispute? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What? You are suggesting that someone is violating WP:NPOV but not providing any evidence? Ridiculous... But should you come up with an argument, its a good thing we have a noticeboard for that where some experts can help you determine if there is an NPOV violation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Er, no. WP:NPOVN can only function where both sides of a dispute are prepared to account for their actions. And yes - I've provided the evidence that DS has refused to explain why these links in particular are merited, and suggested why DS refuses to provide such an explanation. If I'm wrong, let DS explain why I'm wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOVN can only function when both people are engaging in discussion, so please stop side-stepping discussion with allegations of DS not participating and instead start engaging DS's argument. It's not a hard case to make, just argue that these articles aren't likely similar enough to be of interest to readers visiting them. Argue that the Sydney gang rape article is likely only of interest to people geographically related to the incident and that no particularly significant criminological similarities exist between the different gang rapes.OakRunner (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be a behaviour problem here. Has anyone looked at the edit-war only account that Andy pointed to? (I haven't.) Regardless of the fate of this thread, I'm going to take a look at this editor's history. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have, very few contributions. Articles appear to be related to Islam. Looks like it encountered DS at the Rochdale article and then either followed/was followed. (DS has subsequently reverted a couple of its additions elsewhere. Make of that what you will) Doesnt ring any bells, but I am unfamiliar with sockmasters in the I/P/Islam area, so if anyone has an idea, better take it to SPI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean I'm looking at Darkness Shines. That red-linked edit-warrier doesn't seem very significant. I'm worried DS may be editing tendentiously. I've just looked at his history on one article though, and see no problems. This'll take some time and I wouldn't keep this thread open waiting for me.

I see we're now exchanging See also links between Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Derby sex gang. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be some rhyme or reason while the articles are linked. Sadly (horribly), repeated gang rape is not a rarity [100], [101], [102].NE Ent 03:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So, discuss those on the article talk page, if as you seem to argue they suggest something with respect to the relevance of the edit, or the validity of the inclusion argument. (As an illustration with respect to "See also" and crime I happened to be reading, yesterday François Ravaillac where See also mentions another defendant from a later century and despite multiple similar crimes by others, so perhaps these issues are only hashed out in editing discussion under current policy) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Like at least some others, I see no explanation at all in this oft-cited edit. "Gangs of men were attacking women" is hardly unique to the articles Darkness Shines is linking to, methinks. "Content dispute"--sure, but some content disputes are about content that maybe should be discussed here. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If the editor has drawn a poorly reasoned connection, than so much the better for refuting it. But no, administrative action and intervention is not the way to address poorly reasoned content arguments. Refute it on the article talk page with better reasoning like any other content editor. This particular "incident" is not something that is amenable to administrative intervention, so why discuss it here? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If further evidence of Darkness Shines' POV-pushing regarding this issue is required, I'd recommend looking at the history of our British Pakistanis article, where DS was one of several editors attempting to insert [103] a large (3,427 character) section on the Rochdale gang into the article, with blatant disregard for weight, relevance, or neutrality. In fact, it appears that DS was amongst the first to raise allegations of 'Child sex abuse' in the article e.g. in this edit: [104] Note that it was citing the U.S. Christian Broadcasting Network's 'terrorism' expert, and a notably anti-Pakistani India-based-source (somewhat confusingly named the Sunday Guardian - a confusion that DS did nothing to clear up) as sources for what was supposedly going on in Britain - hardly the best of sources, unless one is looking for hyperbole. This is the sort of editing that first made me question DS's neutrality - and I have seen nothing since to suggest that my initial suspicions of a clear bias against the British Pakistani community was incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your a liar, Henrik.karlstrom was blocked or accused of sockpuppetry when I did that revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's right - someone made a false accusation of sockpuppetry, resulting in a block shortly followed by an unblock and an apology [105]. I'm not sure what this has to do with the fact that you were amongst those responsible for inserting POV-pushing badly-sourced material into the British Pakistanis article though. Anyway, are you still claiming not to have a bias against the British Pakistani community? or is this another question you'd rather not answer? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have fuck all against any community, and should you imply it one more time in your fucking smear campaign against me and I will delete every fucking post you have made those bullshit allegations in. This is not the first time you have attacked me in this manner, it most certainly will be the last. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And with that threat, I think I'll call it a night. The evidence can stand for itself... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

DS, one more outburst like that and it won't matter what, if anything, anyone else is doing, as you will be blocked for making personal attacks. Even if somebody is attacking you (which I am not judging one way or the other), that does not give you grounds for "an eye for an eye". In addition, you are threatening to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point - consider yourself fortunate you're not blocked right now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not made a personal attack. Per TPG I have the right to remove any personal attacks, that is not trying to prove a point, it is policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, then, and I've struck the second part of my statement. This, however is very much a personal attack, not to mention a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hereby wash my hands of this business, as I can tell it's only going to get messier from here. Good luck to the closing admin. —Rutebega (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This should be closed as content dispute as clearly there will be no administrate action --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Please note that as Shrike is a significant contributor to more than one of the articles discussed here, his repeated attempts to close discussion need to be seen as those of an involved person. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Not much is going to come out of this--ANI is probably not the best venue since it is not quickly, easily, or clearly established that an underlying pattern of problematic behavior is the root cause of the "See also" dispute. (By the same token, pace Shrike, this is not simply a content discussion, at least not in the eyes of a number of editors in this discussion.) Wikipedia:Request for comment/Darkness Shines is still a red link, and that's probably the way to go. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm an un-involved party, but for anyone who wishes to question the motives of Darkness and the editor above AndyTheGrump, please take a look at this page where Darkness bullied an IP over a period of time (notice the extremity of Darkness's actions and then the IP's responses which are quite unusually, civilized.). Darkness seems to believe the evolution-denying, climate-change-denying network, otherwise known as Fox News, is considered a reliable source when it's clearly questionable as has been stated before by Wikipedians (See Archive 27 which the IP linked). Asked by other editors on WP:RS why he's gone to such extremities re-adding Fox content without discussion, harassing the IP - when the IP begged for a discussion - and why he avoids any type of dialogue Darkness has produced nothing, again hoping the issue would go away. Darkness has claimed he knows nothing about Fox News or Bill O'Reilly yet he's avoided all discussion and re added content and has even tried to get the IP blocked. He's clearly got a hidden agenda. I recommend a total topic ban if Wikipedia still has those things around. I've nothing more to say but this: it's editors like these that made me quit Wikipedia. It's turned into a fucking talking shop where right wing fights left wing. I'm glad I retired years ago. Looks like the same old shit again with a new face. I knew one day this was going to happen. And it looks like the declining number of editors over the years is really taking it's toll. Wikipedia used to be so welcoming, and then came this political nonsense. Goodbye people. 92.22.66.240 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source as much as any other news organization as far as Wikipedia sourcing is concerned, period dot. Anti-conservative rhetoric is not needed in this discussion. Goodbye.--v/r - TP 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec)That would not be an inaccurate position on how people feel about FOXnews. Would be best to say if reliable published sources do not include the information that someone has found only at FOXnews, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include or may be an editorial and thus should be indicated were the info comes from. We need to build in reliability to our articles and lets face it FOXnews does not have a good reputation and other sources would be best -but are not a must.Moxy (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News meets Wikipedia's WP:RS. If we are going to start censoring what a reliable source is based on our political affiliation, then I no longer want to be involved in this project. If, instead, we intend to adhere to WP:NPOV, then we are not going to ignore a conservative news source because it disagrees with our opinion that it is an "evolution-denying, climate-change-denying network."--v/r - TP 20:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Pls reply in a manner that express the concerns raise and not just threaten to leave or label our editors that raise legitimate concerns. I would be concerned if any news sources was used feverishly and without concerns for content. Dont care If you like or dislike something or think others are wrong for there POV on a certain source. We are not children - we do not not live in a land of fantasy and thus we all should represent situations accurately and not just point to policy as if its not a source of contention. I am sure you agree that FOXnews is a source of contention not just here on Wikipedia but in the general public overall?Moxy (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course I'd agree with that. I've boycotted Fox News twice in the last 3 years.--v/r - TP 21:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes IP, you are so uninvolved. What with having the

Yes IP, you are so uninvolved. What with having the same ISP, both static and both in Glasgow, also I did not try to get your mate blocked, if I wanted him blocked I would not have withdrawn the ANEW report. I see several editors agreeing that my reason for reverting you pal was reasonable. I obviously have heard of Fox News, I never said i had not. I said I had never heard of O'Reilly. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't hear about him unless you watch Fox News on TV. He doesn't write on FoxNews.com, only on his own blog.--v/r - TP 20:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow DS, he and I must obviously be the same person then, I mean out of population of 3,000,000 people the majority of whom use Opal Telecom Services in the area, which has a very large dynamic IP range anyway, we MUST be the same person then. You have much to learn.I won't be editing this website any time soon, and I don't care if I get blocked. I just want to get the facts straight, and they're pretty clear to me I can assure you, you can't insult my intelligence (it's laughable you "haven't heard" of Bill O'Reilly but know about Fox News). 92.22.66.240 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said you were the same editor, I said he was your mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
please note - the attacking IP user 92.22.66.240 (talk (a probable involved socking disruptive user avoiding attribution to their opinions and comments, imo , meh) has been blocked for his comments in this thread for one week for multiple egregious personal attacks by User:Jayron32 , as such his comments should be struck or as a minimum - ignored. - as a maximum, checkusered to associate possible wikipedia user account to the IP address - Youreallycan 21:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) By the same token you yourself should be ignored.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Sadly, for you ... you appear to be unable to get over our little discussion where you attacked me yesterday. Youreallycan 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC) And of course you never in your life attacked anyone, you just found it to be natural to suggest that my opinion was just based in my religion and ethnicity (about which you know less than nothing). Well, your armlength blocklog tells a different story.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You are embarrassing yourself - Youreallycan 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC) As for this thread its unseemly as ever on the dramah board - its a couple of see also links - they have been removed - the user that added them is unlikely to make similar see also additions now they are aware of the objections - so - back off - move along - have a nice evening - try to all get along better and close this thread as resolved - discussed , removed , nothing to action - regards - Youreallycan 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC) 'Closure reverted - please note - I closed this report , diff edit summary of, "resolved - discussed , removed , nothing immediate to action - as per Drmies - if there are issues worthy of community discussion - Wikipedia:Request for comment/Darkness Shines is still a red link. " - in an attempted to reduce disruption - but was reverted by User:Maunus, an administrator, who accused me of being involved diff - such a drive by reopening by User:Maunus won't make any difference at all and this administrators reopening of the thread sadly serves to only continue the disruption - .Youreallycan 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You should be blocked for your involved, nonadmin and disruptive drive-by closure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You are embarrassing yerself and your WP:Admin status - Youreallycan 22:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

User talk:BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang

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

---

Could somebody block User talk:BangBangBangBangBangBangBangBang without the ability to edit their Talk page? RNealK (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You neglected to notify the user of this discussion, so I have done so in your stead. Not that it makes much difference with him being, you know, indeffed. —Rutebega (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Brocach ignoring discussions and blocks for POV-pushing: time for topic ban

and counter-proposal: topic ban for Laurel Lodged

User:Brocach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is making war around Gaelic Athletic Association-related articles. He is ignoring discussion, just to push his own POV. There is no effective support for his moves but he just invents excuses. By now he seems so frustrated, that he started vandalising articles. On the 19th, he was blocked from editing to stop him from edit warring over several article. In that same war User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was involved and blocked. They were involved in one of the most silly edits wars I have ever seen: Talk:Paudie Butler#What on earth are you fighting over?. Especially because Laurel Lodged was clearly right and Brocach clearly wrong. Both appealed the ban, both saw their appeal denied. Unfortunately, Brocach did not learn anything from his block and quickly resumed his disruptive edits and went on with, among others, a clear declaration of war.

An overview from the relevant edits after the block:

Insults

• [106], [107]

Move without agreement or consensus

• [108], [109], [110],

Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories

• [111],

Other disruptive edits

• [112], [113], [114] (later used to claim that people did not live in North Tipperary, while it was de facto there from 1838), [115], [116],

This drama is already going on for a year now. With pages moved back and forth, edit wars and a very nasty atmosphere.

I certainly acknowledge that a block is counter-productive but to restore peace, I request a long term topic ban for Brocach for all articles related to the Gaelic Athletic Association. The Banner talk 02:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And now, as a kind of sidekick, User:Finnegas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has started changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories (like [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126]and [127]. That I named it work as a sidekick is due to the fact that Finnegas has the explicit support of Brocach... The Banner talk 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to Brocachs habit to remove everything from his talkpage that he doesn't like, I present here the proof that I have informed him. The Banner talk 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a lot of accusations there so it will take some time to respond.

I have never vandalised any article on Wikipedia. Anyone who looks at my edit history will find a long record of reverting vandalism. Some examples: [128], [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=533547170], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133] and on and on.

I am not ignoring discussion. In relation to the GAA articles, most of the edits that User:The Banner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) objects to are actually reverts of previous controversial edits, generally made by User:Laurel Lodged (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) without discussion, and generally moving articles about the GAA away from the common name of the topic - typically, renaming football competitions by inserting "GAA" within the competition name. Generally when I have moved things back to their common name, I have opened a thread on the talk page.

The POV I am "pushing" is Wikipedia policy: WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing particularly controversial about that.

It is absolutely not the case that there is no support for my reverts of controversial moves. In the most recent discussion of this, here, you will see clear majority support for the reverts. That in itself should be enough to establish that the topic ban belongs with the editor who made the original controversial moves without discussion, and then busted a gut trying to undo all the reverts, namely Laurel Lodged.

Turning to the Tipperary question: for those unfamiliar with the sports, Gaelic football, hurling etc. are organised in Ireland on a traditional 32-county basis, not in line with newer administrative counties such as North Tipperary. Top-level inter-county players play for Tipperary, and the category for them has long been "Tipperary hurlers", just as it is for "Dublin hurlers", "Galway hurlers" and so on. Because only the GAA organises hurling, no-one had ever thought it necessary to change a category name until - guess who - Laurel Lodged, without any discussion, renamed that one category "Tipperary GAA hurlers" and moved many articles to that page. This now sits as a completely anomalous category: every other county lists hurlers in the long-established form, "Carlow hurlers" and so on.

Next, Laurel Lodged, as ever without any discussion, started moving individual Tipperary sportspeople from the long-established and well-populated category Sportspeople from County Tipperary into two new categories of his own creation, namely Sportspeople from North Tipperary and Sportspeople from South Tipperary. Again, of course, without discussion; and again creating an anomaly, in that none of the other Irish sportspeople by county categories use the new local government counties; they all use the traditional 32 counties.

The behaviour of Laurel Lodged in changing literally hundreds of GAA articles and refusing to engage in discussion frustrated me greatly; as my history shows, I have made a significant contribution to GAA coverage here. I regret that on one occasion I re-reverted a Laurel Lodged move repeatedly, following which we were both briefly banned.

I have not "resumed disruptive edits" nor "declared war" - follow the link provided by The Banner and you will find me quite properly taking the issue of Tipperary changes to the relevant talk page, and as it happens, securing support while Laurel Lodged did not.

Next, as for "insults": the first link provided is to me stating the incontrovertible fact that Laurel Lodged keeps changing pages without discussion, and it will be seen that I did not use any abusive language; the second link provided is to me rebuking what I refer to as the "disgusting behaviour" of another editor who, on the talk page of an unrelated (non-GAA) topic, referred to me as "arsehole" and, in another edit, "a stupid cunt". Now there's an insult; but I was not the person who made it, nor would any reasonable person think that referring to that as "disgusting behaviour" was an insult.

My accuser then links to supposed "Moves without agreement or consensus". But all three links were on the basis of consensus that anyone can check at the reference already given.

My next offence is "Changing correct links to redirects/changing correct categories into wrong categories", a plural accusation with but a single link, and this turns out to be, yet again, a matter of reverting changes made without discussion of consensus by, need I say, Laurel Lodged. The usual pattern applies in that I am the first one to take the issue to the talk page, and Laurel Lodged refuses to engage there.

As for the "Other disruptive edits", the first two again were reverts that were discussed and supported here, unlike the original moves which had not been discussed. The next is, far from being a "disruptive edit", a perfectly normal edit to an article dealing with local government history in County Tipperary. Looking at it now I see a little typo, which I have fixed; perhaps that what was thought "disruptive" but anyone checking the history will see that it was a simple mistake with no harm intended or done, and heaven help us if every case of clumsy typing is construed as vandalism. The next is, again, a normal and innocent edit to the template for Derry GAA clubs, ensuring that text appeared in black rather than red as per WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR. Any problem with that? My last "disruption" was to add a factually accurate, and sourced, improvement to wording around the ISO code for "Ulster" - an obscure enough topic, but interesting for some, and worth getting right, which it now is. In short: these accusations of disruption are completely spurious.

I therefore insist that no case has been made for topic-banning me, least of all on a theme, the GAA, where I have made a substantial and worthwhile contribution. However, because of Laurel Lodged's long history of moving GAA articles without seeking consensus, reverting moves back, and refusing to engage on the relevant talk pages, I would be hugely relieved if he were topic-banned from the GAA, at least for a few months. I'm proposing that here, and notifying him on his talk page. Heading above amended accordingly. Brocach (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no connection whatever with Finnegas and if The Banner has some problem with him/her, this is not the place to discuss it. Brocach (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the usual modus operandi of mr. Brocach: I am the good guy, I am the victim, WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT and you guys are all wrong, had been wrong all the times and will be wrong forever more. The Banner talk 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You've said your piece; I would prefer that your proposal, and mine, be decided on the facts. Anyone who wants to know my "usual modus operandi" can look at my thousands of contributions to Wikipedia. Please keep the revised heading above as this section contains a counter-proposal. Brocach (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Brocach, please don't change the title as it breaks links to this discussion. File your own request when you want to bring Laurel Lodged to AN/I, don't hijack my filing. The Banner talk 14:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want to break links to this discussion, but it is perfectly legitimate for me to respond to a ban proposal by showing that another user is the real problem and should be topic-banned. For me to repeat all of that in a separate posting would be a waste of everyone's time, particularly when Laurel Lodged is aware of this discussion (since you notified him of it within four minutes of proposing that I be banned). I have therefore placed a subheading for my counter-proposal immediately below your heading, and have verified that links still work. Brocach (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now you only made a mess of my filing, making it appear that I filed the request. Do you mind the sub-header to below this edits and file your counter-request there? Although they are related, it would be confusing to have two requests in one thread as people will have difficulties responding to the right request. The Banner talk 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I really didn't mean to cause any confusion and don't think I've done so. I think that the difference in heading level will make that clear. But for the benefit of anyone who has been interested enough to read down this far, can I make it 100% clear that The Banner wants to ban me, and I want to topic-ban Laurel Lodged? Brocach (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did file a request for a topic ban, but that will not say that I will pursue it for the full 100%. I believe in Good Faith, so I still hope that you are willing to change your behaviour regarding the GAA voluntarily. The Banner talk 23:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls, great fighter's souls, but made their bodies carrion feats for the dogs and birds and the will of Zeus was moving towards its end."

What is the cause of all the warring? Rage. The final straw for Brocach was when a decision at WP:CFD went against him here. This touched on the area of (GAA) and involved a decision to change the name from "Tipperary hurlers" to Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers.

I took the rather unusal step of saying in my block appeal that "Perhaps the purpose would be best achieved by simply imposing a topic ban on all GAA related articles on both of us until a decision one way or the other had been reached at a neutral forum like WikiProject:Gaelic games or WikiProject:Ireland". Only a few hours of the unblock had expired that my hopes that the block would have a sobering effect on Brocach were in vain. Reluctantly, I must now request that my suggestion be actioned. I am prepared to go into voluntary exile if the same temporary sentance will be passed on Brocach (and his inept sidekick Finnegas) so that a holy peace may descend upon the GAA articles and categories.

He has gone around numerous article writing the same whiney thing on the talk page. This essentially bemoans the injustice of the decision that went against him at WP:CFD. By the time that I saw this entry Colm Bonnar whining, I was getting a mite tetchy in my responses. And so to Noel Lane where Brocach's rationale was "a player for GAA county of Tipperary". This is not in dispute, but it's beside the point. What is most definitely in dispute is that he is not "from County Tipperary", which no longer exists as a unit of local government, but from North Tipperary. The two entities are different. Brocach likes to pretend that the two are essentially identical. He refuses to listen to all arguments to the contrary. This explains why I peppered a lot of my reversions with the epitheth WP:ICANTHEARYOU. In Patrick Maher, the difference between the two entities was again explained in my reversion rationale: "As a county hurer he is listed with Tipp GAA. Geographically, he is from NT. A horse of a different colour". Further examples are Aidan Butler and Sportspeople from County Tipperary.

I will copy the text from my appeal for the second major point of contention. I realised that the cat "Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers" should not even be in the cat "Sportspeopple from North Tipperary". This moment of clarity came to me when I reviewed the article on Tony Reddin who was born in County Galway (i.e. he is from Galway) but who played hurling for his club Lorrha-Dorrha GAA which is governed by Tipperary GAA. So while it is right and proper that he be a member of Category:Tipperary GAA hurlers, it is not right that he be a member of "Sportspeopple from County Tipperary"; instead he is correctly listed as a member of "Sportspeopple from County Galway". Moving from the particular to the general, I deduced that one may not assume that just because a person is a member of a GAA club that happens to be in Tipperary that all members of of that club must necessarily be from Tipperary. I wrote this in the edit commentary as "a club is not a person". Again Brocach refused to acknowedge this logic and continued to revert. See Category:Lorrha-Dorrha hurlers, where the rationale provided was "Tony Reddin is from Galway. So not all members of Tipp GAA are automatically from County Tipp. A club is not a person". See also Category:Loughmore-Castleiney Gaelic footballers, where the rationale provided was "a CLUB IS NOT A PERSON". Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Request For Assistance WRXP and WRXP (FM) articles

It looks like User:RobDe68 has completely blanked out the entire article for WRXP and directs WRXP (FM) back to the blanked out WRXP page, then they put a request for a Speedy deletion of both pages. WRXP is a legitimate radio station licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to 94.7FM in Newark, New Jersey and it was from 1964 until a few days ago known as WFME a religious broadcaster. It was recently acquired by Cumulus Media and flipped to a country format. I don't know what the heck is going on here but either User:RobDe68 is a vandal or if that is not the case they clearly don't know how to properly edit on Wikipedia. I would like to request that the previous WRXP/WFME page be restored and a repremand of caution be issued to User:RobDe68 for blanking out a legitimate and properly referenced Wikipedia article. Thank you. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Once the proper maintenance is done, both WRXP and WFME (FM) articles will be as they were. The only difference is that the edit history will remain with the original station per WP:WPRS#Modifying_article_titles_for_stations_that_change_their_call_signs. Once a station changes its call sign the station's article is supposed to be moved to the new calls instead of starting a new page or moving station info to another page, which is what was done when the calls changed. I'd move them myself but you need an administrator once there is an edit made. Hope that clears it up. RobDe68 (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The explanations seem a bit confused -- what exactly need to be moved where? Salvidrim! ✉ 03:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It does appear there has been some unfortunate attempts at cut and paste moves. E.g. [134]. TheGoofyGolfer, please note that cut and paste moves is rarely the way to sort anything out in wikipedia due to our desire to preserve attribution history. If you need something moved and can't do so, ask an admin's help.

Having said that, while I understand RobDe68's desire to prevent cut and paste moves, I remain confused by some of their actions. I may be missing some stuff since the history is now rather confused, but what is the plan to do with WRXP itself? If it's supposed to be either a redirect to WRXP (FM) or if it's going to be a disambig page then I don't see any need to delete the current page at WRXP. (Unless there's an existing disambig page with sufficient history that you feel should be moved there.) If WRXP (FM) is going to go back to WRXP, I don't see why you moved WRXP to WRXP (FM) in the first place.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep the edit history with the stations that changed call signs per the radio project link I provided. As to what moves where, I have the db-move template on WFME (FM) and WRXP pages saying what needs to be moved and why. I swear I've done this with a ton of call sign changes/swaps that weren't done properly before. RobDe68 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To further clear things up WDVY gets moved to WFME (FM) and WRXP-FM gets moved to WRXP, this will keep the edit history for each station somewhat intact. WRXP (FM) remains a redirect as that was the new page created when the call sign changed. Sorry this got so confusing. RobDe68 (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's okay, although as note below if you don't think there's any useful history at WRXP (FM) I wonder if just leaving it at WRXP and asking for it to deleted would have been simpler. And if there is useful history at WRXP (FM), perhaps a history merge would be. Either way as I said this isn't a big deal, simple a suggestion on a possible way to reduce further confusion in future. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC with both RobDe68 and TheGoodyGolfer) You're right I partially missed the templates and then got confused by the similarity in names, sorry. However I'm still somewhat confused. As I said, I understand the desire to preserve the attribution history at the right place and I think I understand your desire on what to do with the main pages (those with the important history). In particular, I believe your plan is to move what's currently at WRXP-FM to WRXP and I understand that.

But I'm still a bit confused in particularly by your move of WRXP to WRXP (FM). What exactly is going to happen with what's currently/now at WRXP (FM)? This page was basically created recently (was a redirect prior) and I'm lazy to work out where the content came from but I'm guessing it's somewhere else. If you plan to have what's currently at WRXP (FM) deleted because there's no useful history there, that's okay if you're correct but it seems it would have reduced confusion to keep the page at WRXP and ask for deletion in situ then have what's currently WRXP-FM moved to WRXP. If you think there's some useful history at WRXP (FM) and want to preserve it for that reason, I wonder if a history merge might be more suitable. If you're just going to keep WRXP (FM) around as a redirect to WRXP not because you think it needs to be preserved I guess that's okay although again it seems it would have reduced confusion to just keep WRXP (FM) as WRXP, ask for it to be deleted and for WRXP-FM to be moved to WRXP and then create a new redirect at WRXP (FM) if needed.

To be clear, this isn't a major issue but if the move was unnecessary it would have been better not to do it, to reduce confusion in what's an already confused situation, even considering you weren't at fault.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think a history merge was possible because of concurrent edits and such. In the past the administrator moved the newly created page to the "XXXX (FM)" name to make way for the page move and kept it as a redirect to preserve the history. We made note of it on the main article's talk page. It seemed like there were too many edits on the new page to just delete it but I wasn't sure. Again sorry for the confusion. RobDe68 (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes and in the process you made a complete mess of an active article. IMHO before doing anything you should have opened up a discussion on the proper talkpage to gauge whether or not other Wikipedians feel that such action would be considered controversal or not. When a move or change of an article could be construde as controversal there are proceedures set in place. While I believe your actions were done in good faith you've caused IMHO a lot of headaches trying to straighten this out. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, reversing cut and paste moves is inherently non-controversial and does not need to be discussed first. As you say there are procedures in place for moves. But simply put, cut and paste moves is not one of them and needs to be reversed ASAP to avoid nasty article history problems, regardless of the good faith of the people carrying them out. It's possible RobDe68 has made things slightly more confusing, but the main confusion comes from those who attempted cut and paste moves in the first place, which even though were done in good faith, should never have been done and appears to include you. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There is this thing called a "copied" template that is used for cut and paste moves to attribute the artcile history. It is also non-controversial and used all the time. Merging and splits are cut and paste so.....--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging and splitting may use cut and pasting, but they are not a cut and paste move. Notice I was clear to specify cut and paste move rather then simply cut and paste. The copied template should never be used for cut and paste moves, but only for cases when cut and pasting was done appropriately like merging and splitting, baring perhaps the odd occasion when the cut and paste move was done so long ago as to make fixing the problem impossible without causing excessive confusion (this actually isn't likely to arise except in cases where a split, perhaps an inappropriate one where we basically had two articles covering the same thing occured) and a few other IAR cases. You will note no where does the template suggest it should be used for cases when a cut and paste move was done, only for cases when text was copied or moved which may seem a subtle, but is an important distinction. When at all possible, the correct thing to do when you come across a cut and paste move is to reverse the move ASAP and ask people (or carry out yourself) the move properly if it's otherwise a good move. If the cut and paste move has been too long to be simply reverse, a history merge may be required. If you really feel it's not possible or not ideal to reverse the move, that may be okay, however this doesn't mean reversing a cut and paste move is controversial or needs discussion. (Although using the copied template rather then reversing a cut and paste move which can be simply reversed, e.g. if there have been no edits at all beyond the move and even the move did not change anything is likely to be controversial, since as I've said that is not the intended usage of the template.) Note that none of this is intended to prejudice against a move, as I've said the move may very well be a good idea, simply that cut and pasting is not the proper way to carry out a move. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are over complicating this. Many times cut and pastes are done as moves when the editor does not realise we can move the page using the "move" function. I see that there is no accusation that this was done in bad faith. I suggest fixing this and moving on unless there is evidence of something more happening here.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks by anon after warnings

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

---

I will not include the earlier comments from the anon or efforts made to warn the anon not to engage in personal attacks, but the anon's current IP talk page contain part of that record as does Talk:Contemporary Christian music and a few other articles I watch.

• [135] This is my first request to stop making personal attacks and discussion the editor and not the content.
• [136] Anon refers to me as "the only 'trouble maker' over the years" and having a double standard among other comments in a long diatribe against me.
• [137] Anon refers to me as a fraud, and possibly everyone else as well.
• "[138] Content in which the anon elevates themselves over me and presubably the other editor who objected to the material the anon added.
• "archive & avoid fake "christians"" a direct assault against my faith.
• [139] another attempt that I made to show the editor that personal attacks are not acceptable.
• "[140] Content in which the editor basically states that I will be condemned to hell by my actions [against him] on Wikipedia
• "re: cry baby enemy"
• "guy group; i "met" a couple of recent cry babies"
• "contradictions and lies by heretics! yeah, i "said" it..."
• [141] A direct warning to stop the personal attacks
• [142] The content here is a personal attack
• talk about a "poor editor" who doesn't know the rules! take your own medicine..." The content added here is also a personal attack
• Another request to stop personal attacks
• "fallacy, manipulation, inept, sabotage and narcissism... and a "stalker"!"
• "more lies by wiki editors"

The sad thing is anon has stated on several occasions that he (assuming male, but I'm sorry if I am reading too much into the behaviour) is done editing and will not be engaging any further only to resurface a few hours later. For the record, this is the edit that I made to revert the content added by anon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Realistically, there's not much anyone can do; IPs are free to insult others and behave like that. They'll simply switch IPs over and over again. You're gonna have to put up with it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, Seb, and assume that your comment was meant in jest - if not, I strongly suggest you review this before you say "IPs are free to insult others".

Walter: I see that EdJohnston has warned the editor in question for edit warring, but there haven't been any clear-cut warnings against personal attacks. I left one here; it is up to the editor to decide what they do next. m.o.p 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant it. It's true for all practical purposes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

With WMF having lolno'd Sign In To Edit, that's not going to change any time soon, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, blocked for 72 hours. Don't really see a need for an official warning first; it was made abundantly clear to the editor that his conduct was objectionable and he made it abundantly clear that he didn't care about behavioural norms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good call; thank you; if I didn't have this personal thing against betting, I'd bet you he'll be back in 72 hours... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From the content of the edits, it seems that the anon has either had an account before or was at a different IP. I have not seen the editor for a while and don't recognize the behaviour. I'm not a betting man either, but suspect that he will be back as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

petition

Expressing heartfelt opinions about de-WP on en-WP is no more productive than expressing heartfelt opinions about de-WP to the ducks at one's local park. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm a bit tired of the German baboons camerillas (Robert Sapolsky). You canceled my accounts yesterday but I would prefer to have a complete filter set. As I told you, the German administrator and Multi-Burokrat Seewolf is the indicated person to get the best data to implement this filter. I'm still not on his list of the Villains within the Wikipedia-Universe. Those people prefer to spend the raised money for projects like "Limits of paid editing" as if the community is able to solve this by a project undertaken by the "In-Group" and the wikimedia e.V. Germany. This is a serious problem, one of many, an indicator for corruption. This project envolves from a "free" project into a project dominated by people which do not expose their own interests clearly. Apart from this I'm tired of demanding respectfull treatment. And yes, I used en.wiki for rather emotional replies. But I'm tired and a bit addicted. :-) It's a soap opera, too.--95.23.230.189 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) You may be able to add insightful comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#What the user of de:WP think about en:WP Regarding this noticeboard, what action from English Wikipedia administrators are you requesting or suggesting? (See also WP:GRA). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC) I indicated that this is even personally for me a problem. As I used en.wiki as a platform of indirect communication, I want to stop this, that's better for everybody. As you are thinking about international filter rules, here is the perfect candidate... (I would argue, bad idea, as a humanist, but as a person I feel in my right to ask for a ban and you should not ask you should act. To some degree this is also an adiction problem... I stated this.)--95.23.230.189 (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

User:IronKnuckle maliciously creating plainly invalid AFDs for disruptive purposes

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

---

User:IronKnuckle created an account this morning and has since done nothing but create grossly inappropriate AFDs about organizations and individuals whose politics he objects to. Anyone who claims the New Yorker is not a reliable source (actually calling it a primary poor source in the Tom Diaz AFD) or claiming that Americans for Democratic Action is not notable is obviously not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Clearly a sockpuppet as well, given the expertise shown is WP processes. Indef ban called for, and all the AFDs should be summarily closed as keep to avoid further waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a false, bad faith accusation. I am not taking a side on any issue, I just saw the articles as non notable. There is no disruption, it's an AfD debate. This was also taken to ANI with no warnings, and this was also taken to AfD without going to the dispute resolution process. Also calling me a sockpuppet is a personal attack. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I also never said Tom Diaz's page had primary sources. check the AfD yourself if you dont believe me... IronKnuckle (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You called it a poor source. which is barely less idiotic. Keeping track of all the misstatements you're spewing out is both distasteful and time-consuming. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC) And I didn't keep two similarly titled AFDs straight, which really hasn't helped here. IronKnuckle called The New Yorker a primary source in the Thomas C. Wales AFD. He called The Atlantic a poor source in the Diaz AFD. Both of these claims are patently absurd and go to the issue of his competence, motivation, and good faith, but I really didn't help by mixing them up in my haste to try and keep this mess from metastasizing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If Americans for Democratic Action is so notable, then why is the article so poorly sourced? IronKnuckle (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to leave more than a minute between your insistent demands. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've glanced at this and it would appear Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is correct. IronKnuckle looks like an SPA sock out to delete articles on gun control advocates and groups. Suggest an immediate block. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am seeing alot of personal attacks directed at me. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Where? I see a highly plausible suggestion that you may have another account. That's not a personal attack, it's a matter for investigation. If you can't tell the difference, that is entirely your problem. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Awwwwwwww..... I sorry man. I don't mean to make you feel bad. It just looks very odd when someone makes a new account and launches a bunch of AfDs rapidly. I'm not saying you're a bad person. Socks are people too.... NickCT (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusing me of being a sockpuppet and calling me idiotic is an obvious personal attack. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, possibly it's because disinterested reviewers of your nominations see a relentless pattern of trying to get gun control advocates and their organizations deleted. If you don't understand why Americans for Democratic Action is notable, it's because either (a) you are too ill-read or haven't bothered to do the basic research on one of the chief progressive organizations in the USA, or because (b) your nominations show ill-intent. Of course, both of these could be true. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Expressing concerns of sockpuppetry may be in bad faith but it's not a personal attack.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speculating on some being or not being a sock is not in any way a personal attack. Saying that someone is "idiotic" may very well be, depending on the interpretation of the analyzing admin. I would strongly suggest that people in this discussion refrain from speculating or commenting on the intelligence of other users, lest you find yourself crossing a line that is better not crossed. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't ever think of a genuine new editor whose first edit was a {{subst:afd2}}. Therefore, per WP:DUCK, a sock investigation sounds reasonable. If you're not a sock, chill out and relax - you've got nothing to worry about! Kick up a fuss and it'll only make things worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Again they are good faith nominations. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." for AlexTiefling. Your argument is invalid. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Declaring 'your argument is invalid' is a purely rhetorical device. But I see you quoting, or paraphrasing, WP:SPI. You do know an awful lot about the bureaucracy of this site for someone who just joined this morning. Would you like to account for this? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The problem is that it's not very often a new user starts off right off the bat as a nominator of articles for AFD. It usually takes a while for someone to learn how Wikipedia works, how AFD works, and how nominations work. So when someone starts right there, it typically suggests that a person has previous knowledge, commonly leading to being a sockpuppet. Then there's the problem that there's a pretty clear agenda to your nominations. Put that together and there's plenty of reason for doubt, which is where the good-faith accusations come from. (Not personal attacks.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What efforts did you make to improve these articles before nominating them for deletion (which is, after all, a last resort)? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz called me a sock puppet, and idiotic. Also I did have an account til this morning because I was too lazy to make one in the past, but I have read wikipedia's policies throughly. I assume you those weren't bad faith nominations, those articles were not up to snuff. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not up to snuff" is not really a convincing argument. Try "I did a news search for 'x', 'y' and 'z' and found no hits, couldn't find anything in Google Books, nothing in my local library, everything on a web search is self published or unreliable". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no way I saw to improve them, deletion appeared to be the only option. They should have an AfD debate. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are arguing very strongly against your competence, IronKnuckle, in trying to get the ADA article deleted. GBooks shows 150K hits on it, even GNews gets a few. If you can't do that most basic research, you have no business proposing deletions. But the fact that gun control is mentioned in every article you've gone after, and indeed is the only area of notability for a number of them, tells everyone that you're on a mission. Badly argued AFDs on a single side of a controversy from a brand-new user: it's hardly a positive sign. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

There's also Maydewsl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only contribution was to support one of IronKnuckle's obscure AfDs. I'll file at SPI, but it seems to me that a CU shouldn't be necessary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If a sockpuppet investigation is opened, could someone look at User:Maydewsl, a newly-created account whose only edit was a keep delete !vote at one of these AfDs? ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Again calling someone a sock is not a personal attack. Wiki has been around a while so it is possible that this user did edit as an IP, I will agree that it is odd for a new editor to hit AFD immediately but it's not out of the realm of possibility. I would instead focus on the issues with the nominations of AFD until you have a conclusive theory on who the user might be a puppet of if indeed they are. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Good catch ★ Bald Zebra ★. That's likely a sock. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The false accusation is a personal attack, and are you saying calling me idiotic isnt a personal attack? So you think anyone who agreed that terrible article should be deleted is a sock puppet? That seems quite biased. IronKnuckle (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What I actually said was that describing The New Yorker as a poor source or an unreliable source was idiotic, and I think that's a fair comment. Reasonable people occasionally say idiotic things (as do unreasonable ones) as well as dishonest things, malicious things, etc. I think that IK's repeated invocations of various WP standards and principles to divert attention from his deliberately disruptive behavior and his less than sincere, accurate, or good faith comments demonstrates that he's at least a moderately experienced editor. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Posted at SPI already: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/IronKnuckle. Not sure of the sockmaster, but Maydews seems obvious. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't delete articles because they're "terrible". I don't like Anne Widdecombe - can I delete her article, please? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"I did have an account til this morning" - paging Dr Freud... - And your conduct was described as idiotic in one specific case, IronKnuckle. If you think that conduct characterises you entirely, please feel free to believe that you, personally, have been called an idiot. If you don't, well, calm down. But I'd strongly reiterate that you appear to have ignored WP:BEFORE, that your choices for deletion show a clear political bias, and that 'I couldn't see how to improve them' is an absolutely lousy reason to argue for something to be deleted. Your own incompetence and ignorance about the subject-matter of these articles should be a good reason not to touch them, rather than to start calling for their deletion. And bluntly, I don't believe that this is your first account. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

By terrible I meant terribly inconsistant with wikipedia's policies. Also AlexTiefling I consider you calling me incompetent and ignorant a personal attack as well.

Personal attack By Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IronKnuckle (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Given your extensive amateur knowledge of WP policies and procedures, I'd have thought you might be familiar with 'Competence is required'. You are not displaying that competence. Again, if you feel attacked, that is your problem. As long as you undertake a plainly political campaign of arguing for the deletion of selected articles, that is our problem. You have still done absolutely nothing to convince me that your choice of articles to delete is anything other than political, contrary to your unconvincing claim to support NPOV, and your constant bluster about personal attacks looks like an attempt to distract us from that. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The AfDs aren't on articles in my area of expertise. I've only commented on one, and having found 20 possibly reliable sources in 10 seconds, I don't fancy your chances at getting that one deleted. But what I will say is that having arrived on ANI, there will be many more eyes looking at your nominations, and people will be strongly motivated to research sources and improve the articles. And of course, woe betide you if the Article Rescue Squadron get hold of this.... ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Done in this edit --Senra (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

All of these should be snowball kept. Not liking a topic is not a valid reason for deletion, and your "non-notable" arguments are clearly without merit. I'd support banning the user from AfD topics (though that won't be necessary if we get positive results from the SPI). The "personal attack" arguments are without merit as well, as the AfD nominations are patently ridiculous and pointy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I never gave a partisan political reason why they should be deleted. I gave a reason based on wikipedia's policies. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I would advise you to give this noticeboard a break (where, after all, kittens get drowned on a regular basis by everyone), and start contesting the AfDs you've created. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course. You're plainly not stupid enough to state a political reason, and I wouldn't insult your intelligence by claiming otherwise. But there is a clear political pattern to the range of articles you've selected, and you haven't really been able to account for that adequately yet. And the reasons you've given refer to Wikipedia's policies, but the few users who've responded so far seem to think that they do not do so in a relevant or convincing manner. Your response to this has generally been loud and forceful rejection rather than improving your case. While this kind of behaviour comes up quite a lot at AfD, it does tend to support the 'political' hypothesis in your case. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that people are trying to give you the chance to back off your campaign yourself without a block, but you may find their patience runs out quickly if you try to treat them like idiots. Nobody is being fooled about this being anything but a dedicated attempt to remove pro-gun control topics from Wikipedia. Resolute 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If they feel like idiots, then I am deeply sorry they feel that way. And wouldnt I be going after the Brady Campaign if that was truly my mission? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So it is a complete coincidence then that your nominations are all centred around articles associated with pro-gun control advocacy? I don't think so. Resolute 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is. I looked at some and they had 45 sources, and I was like, ok that looks good. Then there were some with primary sources and no sources and few sources. I nominated those. If I had nominated the articles with 45 sources THEN you could possibly say I was biased. But I am neutral on this issue. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this remark enforces any notions of your neutrality. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to take time out for a second here. To be fair, a couple of the articles I looked at didn't have particularly great sourcing, so I would be very hesitant to leap in and say all the articles should be kept. I would advise everyone to simply improve the articles if they can and !vote accordingly one way or the other. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly Richie, thats why I nominated them, I'm glad you agree. I am not perfect, but a broken clock is right twice a day as they say. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I agreed with you, I merely suggested a calmer form of resolution for everyone. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You implied it. But whatever makes you feel better. I think the people who were using personal attacks should be held responible. I did warn them not to do it. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You warned us? How imposing! You've gone on and on accusing me of personal attacks, and ignoring my replies. You opened a talk page discussion with me (note to others: the first post of this was on my talk page, and I've now deleted it, but it's there in the history), insisted that I prove a negative, and then tried to shut me down when I suggested that you could demonstrate your own good faith with a single diff if you chose. Then you accused me of harassment for participating in the discussion you'd started. Let's try this again: (1) Can you tell the difference between a criticism of your work or posting patterns, and an attack on you as an individual? (2) What rationale do you provide for having chosen the range of articles you have attempted to delete? (3) Can you provide even a single diff showing that you have added new content to the main article space, other than AfD templates? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No I said you were harassing me because I asked you to stop contacting me on my page and you persisted on still doing it! IronKnuckle (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to decide unilaterally when to start and stop a conversation. I already pointed out that you were free to delete the whole thread if you felt like it. Now please oblige us, and do something to restablish belief in your good faith, by answering the questions. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, now quit trying to give me orders, I answer to God, not to you. IronKnuckle (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) Let's keep religion out of this. God doesn't have an account here. I'm not giving you orders, although you've given me several, as well as a warning. I'm making a request, because I genuinely think it is in your interest to give full and honest answers to the questions I've posed. At the moment, your situation here looks quite bad. An explanation of your actions would go some way to improving that. I've been enough of an arrogant asshole myself, in enough places, to know how it goes otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am concerned that a 30 day restriction on AfD's will not resolve the POV pushing noted above. It's clear there is a gun related agenda to the serial AfD nominations and an unlikely position to change. Furthermore this editor has not expressed any attitude in that they have made a mistake in interpreting the notability guidelines. Mkdw^talk 18:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose that IronKnuckle be topic banned from starting Afds for one month and all current Afds be speedy declined.

• Rather than consume Wikipedia time for one or two decent articles. A broken clock is wrong the vast majority of the day. NE Ent 16:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  You think ALL those articles should be kept? You're kidding me... Btw you gotta admit, me AfDing those poorly sourced articles put some fire in the ass of people to improve them, so I think I helped improve some. But some are not notable enough for wikipedia yet. This is why there are AfDs, so people can debate and figure it out. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  You need to take the time to learn more about the WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE, and be more selective with your nominations. One has already been closed as Keep, and several others are looking like WP:SNOW Keeps anytime now... Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It's time to stop with the silliness. Ishdarian 16:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Comments like this do not inspire confidence that they are here to collaborate with others or to improve Wikipedia, and AfDs like this one suggest that the editor needs to become more familiar with Wikipedia's criteria on reliable sources and deleting articles before nominating articles for deletion. AfDs are not here to "inspire people to improve articles". - SudoGhost 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support for a 30 day period. , I'd say until he understands AFD is not a suitable way to make someone improve an article. Deletion is truly for subjects that are not notable not as "A way to light a fire" under anyone. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• No idea why we're numbering this cos WP:NOTAVOTE, and shouldn't we wait for the SPI to come back before considering any/all sanctions? GiantSnowman 16:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Just because you disagree with someone doesnt mean you ban them from a topic. There are people on one side of the issue, people on the other. And people in the middle. I'm in the middle here. I'm neutral on the issue. I just nominated the articles that I felt violated policy and gave my reasons. And for that I get personally attacked and brought here? Ridiculous. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The nominations are exactly why this proposal was brought forwards. It's got nothing to do with your position on anything, but the fact that you feel articles "violated policy" when they came nowhere close to doing that. An editor that comes to Wikipedia and on the first day makes a nomination like this doesn't need to be nominating articles until they get a grasp on what they're doing. It's got nothing to do with your personal opinion on some political matter. That you got called an idiot by another editor was inappropriate, but (1) that doesn't make the nominations suddenly okay, and (2) when you said "If they feel like idiots, then I am deeply sorry they feel that way" you lost the ability to pull the "I got personally attacked" card, because now it's a pot calling a kettle black. - SudoGhost 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No it's not, because thats not a personal attack. I said I was sorry if they felt like idiots, however I didnt call them idiots. That one guy called me an idiot, and that is a personal attack, and it's astounding that after I warned him about it he still did it and nobody wants to hold him accountable, they are all concerned about my neutral nominations... IronKnuckle (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What you said is as much a personal attack as "you're an idiot", the only difference is that you beat around the bush with yours and that doesn't somehow make it better. There's also this ad hominem comment you made on your talk page. Your nominations may or may not be neutral, but that's ultimately irrelevant because even if they are neutral there still are critical issues with the nominations and "but I got called an idiot" doesn't fix those issues. - SudoGhost 17:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - So far he has made no indication that he understands the problem, which means he'll repeat this behavior unless precluded from doing so. Until he's able to demonstrate an understanding of why this is not ok, he shouldn't be disrupting the AfD process. We can close the AfDs for now, with no prejudice to restarting any that have merit.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Changed numbered list to bullets per GiantSnowman.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. It is obvious that these AFDs are agenda driven. A topic ban will prevent a continuation. And speedy close does not preclude a neutral editor creating a new AfD if the stopped clock happened to be right. Resolute 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Though, I believe the current AfDs should run their course (some of the articles to have some issues, though not as severe as warranting deletion) and the scope be narrowed to IronKnuckle being prohibited from starting/participating in an AfD relating to gun control articles. This will allow him space to work on other aspects of the project. 192.76.82.89 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support- this is all very suspect and an abundance of caution should be applied. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - If User refuses to cooperate or even acknowledge these complaints, then it seems such a sanction is necessary. Beyond the obvious agenda, it seems like if the user were truly acting in good faith, they'd be a little more cooperative. Sergecross73 msg me 17:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Dream Focus 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comment. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support – User:Sergecross73 puts it well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I want to assume these AfDs and the apparent lack of understanding of our notability guidelines were made in good faith, but the fact that all of these (coupled with the comment attacking gun-control supporters) relate to one side of an obviously heated debate indicates that this user is not maintaining a neutral point of view. Also, his earlier comment stating that the AfDs were good because they "put some fire in the ass of people to improve them" is also troubling - if he sincerely wants these articles improved, he should either attempt to do it himself, or add the relevant template message so that it gets flagged up for others. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 18:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support it's pretty much impossible not to see these nominations as agenda-driven. Extend to indef if it continues after 30 days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: (read-only mode conflict) if I wanted to create a list of supporters for a given POV, the creation of a raft of AfD's in the manner that IronKnuckle has done here would be one way of doing it. If I was able to vote on this board I would recommend a speedy close of all affected AfD's to prevent such nonsense --Senra (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Partial Close In my opinion, there is more then enough support here for closing the AfDs, and their continuing to be open is an ongoing problem, so I'm going to go close any that are still open on the basis of the above. I'm not closing the whole section, while it has strong support for a topic ban, it has only been open 2 hours, half of which was read only, and as the editor is blocked for 36 hours, I see no reason not to leave the topic ban discussion open a bit longer. Monty₈₄₅ 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse closed many obvious ones such as the BLP's of Attorney General of the United States' etc. under my below support statement below. Mkdw^talk 18:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support After reviewing his nominations, it is clear he is intentionally targeting articles with a pro-gun agenda. I have closed many of his AfD's under WP:SK #2, WP:SNOW, and clear lack of understanding or thoroughness in reading policies. Mkdw^talk 18:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support except that I would make the bar higher. Perhaps 6 months and at least 500 constructive edits. IronKnuckle needs to earn back the trust of the community. - MrX 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support and echo MrX, otherwise we return here in 30 days. Insomesia (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

LOOK

At least someone agrees this should at least be redirected: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Americans_for_Gun_Safety_Foundation I guess my nominations did have some merit huh? IronKnuckle (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Stop shouting, and stop with the attitude, you need to keep calm rather than jumping on every-bloody-body. WP:AGF only stretches so far, even for the saints amongst us. GiantSnowman 17:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now blocked IronKnuckle for a period of 3 days for disruptive editing and a lack of competence. The behaviour shown in this discussion alone has become disruptive, and to prevent further creations of possibly baseless Afds I have acted before a topic ban is confirmed. On this note, the SPI has shown that at least per checkuser there are no technically related accounts. De728631 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooops--De, I thought you had indeffed them, and I marked a few of their AfDs as such (I speedy closed a couple of them, and I'm about to check if there are any left). FWIW, I have no problem with an indef block since they're not here to build an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And let's note the contributions by IPs 118.6.164.91 and 122.17.60.88. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I was also thinking an indefblock; judging by a quick survey of their edits, all of them are nominating for deletion articles which in some way mention support for gun control, on fairly generic grounds. However, we can afford to pull our punches a bit here; a topic ban on AfDs will force them to find something else to do in a hurry, so it should solve the problem one way or another. No need to be hasty, as they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but there's more than one way to push a POV...I'm not necessarily advocating an indef block at this point, though. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think IronKnuckle's AfD stats are not looking too great. (Well, certainly not compared to mine, and presumably, most people's here). Who wants to speedy close the remainder? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks like all his Afds have now been closed. As to the topic ban, there seems to be unanimous support for a ban on afds as such but let's keep the discussion for another day or two to sort out the details like duration or minimum number of edits. However, if anyone feels inclined to indef IronKnuckle for obvious reasons, please go ahead. I won't mind it. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Abuse in multiple pages / 3RR / Sock-puppetry

Ricojellyfro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and IP's 93.33.243.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.66.209.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 93.33.250.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 93.34.1.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seem to be same person.

This person is deleting sourced material and replacing it with OR. Examples: [143] [144]. Explanation of how he is inserting OR and deleting sourced material: [145] [146]. He was warned by me and and an admin yesterday [147], but still continues same behaviour [148]. He has also exceeded 3RR in Genetic history of the Turkish people Cavann (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yobot's edits causing concern again

I just spent 20 minutes (again) correcting errors injected by User:Yobot which is run by User:Magioladitis. The bot, in making edits to remove invisible unicode control characters (of minor value, in any event), also screws up the views of pages and moves around templates contrary to their documentation. Specifically {{longcomment}} which is to be placed at the bottom of the page is moved up the page so that there appears a huge blank space where none was before. See, for example, [[149]] (before) vs. [[150]] (after). There are hundreds of other examples. I first brought to Magioladitis' attention on November 2, 2012 (see User_talk:Magioladitis#Query). Other editors also complained on November 8 (User_talk:Magioladitis#removing_control_characters) and November 9 (User_talk:Magioladitis#Why_are_you_making_edits_like_this.3F_.28removing_invisible_characters.29 and User_talk:Magioladitis#LRM_and_RLM, in which Magioladitis appeared to agree to clean up his bot's mess after I and others had the first go). We were still correcting Yobot's errors in December (see User_talk:Magioladitis#). Now, it's done another whole slew of these edits with little to no purpose but creating work for other editors. Despite Magioladitis' assurances to clean up his bot's mess, we see more mess and no cleanup. Until Magioladitis can change his bot to not create work for real people, it should be shut down (voluntarily, or otherwise). Bots are supposed to make life simpler and easier for real editors not to create more work for us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I won't rerun this task for 30 days. I'll try to fix the AWB bug (or short of a bug) till then. Please try not to add invisible characters in the pages till then. The discussion should move to Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard in fact. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Problem solved. I added a skip condition in case {{Short pages monitor}} is detected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

rev 8860 Updated the AWB logic to handle the convention for the placement of the template & comment. I have also posted to request that WP:ORDER be updated to include the placement convention. Rjwilmsi 20:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, folks. Looks like it's resolved, but I'll let an independent so decide and mark it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Promo, POV pushing and sketchy sources at National Radical Camp (1993)

I'd appreciate it if someone took a look at the article National Radical Camp (1993), a Polish far-right group (essentially Neo-Nazi skinheads). User:Kaskusia, a single purpose account, has been adding to the article some pretty POV text, and sourcing it to the organization's website, as well as apparently their facebook page. For example [151], [152]. S/he also has been messing up a disambig link but that's small potatoes. I've reverted a few times (I figured neo-nazi facebook pages were not a reliable source) and left a message both on the user's page [153] and the talk page [154] but ... no response, just the same ol' same ol'.Volunteer Marek 19:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello,I am reporting from my other account as my first account is User talk:Zeeyanketu,my user talk page is vandalised by an ip here and his contributions are here too.He tried to troubled me from long and i believe these all are from same user may be from some sock with whom i have some previous encounters.He has been used different but similar range of ip's,might be from some company or organisations.Some examples are [155] and [156].Is there any way for range block.I report with this user because he might track my contributions.Thanx Truetracker (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like some pretty broad IP hopping. 115.240.22.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 115.241.178.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 115.242.123.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are static IPs from the same provider, but there are also occasional edit by IPs from the 101.63.x range. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who deleted the "Translations of Frere Jacques" article?

I checked today to look at one of my favorite collection of articles, those associated with the song Frère Jacques. I was stunned to realize that the "Frere Jacques translations" article (which has had a number of titles over the years) that dozens of people had worked on for several years capturing and documenting many variants and lyrics for this tune, in many different languages, has now been deleted.

The "translations" article had been removed before December 7, 2012, because a red link to it was removed in this edit.

I realize that deletionists are frantic to "clean up" this project by getting rid of as much content as possible, but sometimes they step over the line. Is everyone required to spend endless hours here per week policing articles to make sure nonsense does not happen?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Translations of Frère Jacques was closed on 7 December 2012. There was some suggestion that the content might be moved to Wikisource, but that apparently hasn't happened. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• How could he delete it while on 1st base?  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  21:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• I've restored the article's last version to my userspace where I will keep it for the next week or so. You may look at it at User:Maunus/Frerejacques and/or copy it somewhere else.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• So Filll - if you're put out about this enough that you've come to ANI without even waiting for a response at the Frère Jacques Talk page, may I ask why you haven't gone through deletion review? I imagine that would be a more helpful forum, unless your concern is regarding editors who were involved in the deletion...if so, I'd like more information regarding your specific concerns. Doniago (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review typically only looks at procedural violations in the AFD process. Was there one at that AFD? It looks like consensus to me! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there was, but given Filll's apparent agitation over the matter, I suppose they might be interested in trying to make a case for it. Maybe WP:UNDELETE instead, if they're so inclined. Either way, coming to ANI without even waiting for a response at the Talk page I noted above seems rather hasty IMO. I think Filll might want to consider a more reasoned and less emotional approach to trying to resolve their concerns. Doniago (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my violation of whatever norms have developed over the last few years. But my past experience has been that there is almost never any response to a comment on an article talk page. By the way, this sort of response is why you are losing contributors. --Filll (talk | wpc) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious as to what talk pages you've contributed to where that's the case. In any event, if my suggesting options for how you could better handle the situation is going to cause you to stop contributing altogether, I don't think I have anything else to say on the matter. Do you really think that the tone you came in here with was one that would most incline editors toward assisting you? Doniago (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Placeholder images and User:Ahnoneemoos

In April, 2008 an RfC was held which at WP:IPH 2:1 favored "Placeholder images should not be used at all on the main page of articles". While elevation of this conclusion as 'consensus' was equivocal, the practical outcome of this decision was that more than 50,000 (*) articles had uses of placeholder images removed. The final stages of these removals were noted in this discussion. Best estimates now are there are less than 300 articles using placeholder images now. I.e., more than 99% of the uses have been removed from the project mainspace.

In December 2012, User:Ahnoneemoos modified the target of WP:IPH, concluding apparently without related discussion and four years after the last edit to the page that the proposal had failed [157]. Subsequently, he has added placeholder images (example 1, example 2).

I reverted the change and notified User:Ahnoneemoos of doing so and why I had done so. In so doing, I pointed to Wikipedia:Image placeholders which, at the time [158] said "Use of these placeholders is deprecated". This wording had been extant for more than a year. User:Ahnoneemoos then reverted my removal of his failed tag on WP:IPH, and then immediately changed the wording at Wikipedia:Image_placeholders to remove the stance that their use had been deprecated [159]. Discussion continued at User_talk:Ahnoneemoos#WP:IPH.

The defacto standard for the last four years has been to not use these images. As I noted, more than 50,000 of their uses have been eliminated from the project. Changing these indicators confuses the situation and leaves readers potentially believing that placeholder images are in fact acceptable when in practice they are not. In looking about the project, I see things like Category:Wikipedia image placeholders which say "The use of these placeholders is deprecated". Either they are or they are not. Ahnoneemoos making unilateral changes I believe is unacceptable, muddies the situation, and leaves the project in a status where the use of placeholder images is now acceptable, despite 50,000+ of them being removed.

I am not looking for any admin action against Ahnoneemoos. Rather, I'm looking for some other sets of eyes on this. I've stopped removing placeholder images. I would notify Ahnoneemoos of this discussion, but he has banned me from his talk page. If someone else would do so, I would be appreciative. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) * - I expect the 50,000+ number to be challenged. See File_talk:Replace_this_image_female.svg#Query_results. From there, you can check uses of the biggest two of those files yourself if you like; here and here.

User notified - Happysailor ^(Talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Much appreciated! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Conduct and comments unbecoming of an admin - User:Maunus

Admin reverted my closure, my closure diff was to reduce disruption but since User:Maunus's revert of my closure he has done nothing but raise disruption - it has been reclosed quite rapidly with a similar rationale - diff, edit summary, undo closing by involved editor YRC - this when clearly his following comments show he is overly involved in regards to me - then he contained the discussion which was not about me, and focused on me, diff he then left this post on my userpage, Your double standards are extreme. You style yourself as the BLP knight in shining armor, defending BLP articles with editwarring and personal attacks... except when the living persons are Muslims. You speculate that other people are just defending the Pakistani's right not to be painted as a nation of rapists because they are themselves pakistanis. And when you're called out you complain that people are attacking you. That is despicable behavior that frankly you should be punished for. I am sorry that I ended up not recommending a community ban in your rfc/u. I hope a new one is coming up soon so we can finally get wikipedia rid of your bigoted disruption.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)diff, which I regarded as a personal attack, I warned him as such on his userpage, he immediately deleted it - and has continued with the personal attacking with the latest comment, "I know thats how you work. You attack others and when they give you back you whimper like a baby and say please dont post to my page. If you ever make a bigoted attack on me again I will have you community banned" - these are not the actions of a user of WP:Admin standards - Can he be told to back off and leave me alone and stop with the personal attacks please. - Youreallycan 22:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Youreallycan was involved because he closed a thread about possible racism against Pakistani muslims in which I was participating after an exchange we had yesterday in which he made a personal attack against me arguing that my opinion could be discounted because I was probably a Pakistani muslim. He should not have closed a thread about Pakistani muslims in which I was participating on that background. [160][161]
• WP:NPA Defines a personal attack: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack."

What I posted at YRC's talkpage was not a personal attack under the definition of WP:NPA it was a commentary about his editing based on publicly available evidence from his editing history. I did call him a bigot and a hypocrite and I stand by that characterization of his editing, but admit I should probably refrain from that in general, I do believe that his conduct which is clear baiting justifies it and that he has no right to demand civilty from anyone untill he begins acting civilly himself. I don't need to back off and leave you alone. You initiated the engagement, and the two last comments were in response to your illegitimate posts to my talkpage. If you stay off my talkpage and don't driveby close discussions in which I participate I am fully prepared never to talk to you again. It would indeed be a pleasure.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• • you missed to mention your comment - [And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?User:Maunus - And your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child. Now having exchanged personal attacks can we move on?·ʍaunus - diff you missed to mention this one - Youreallycan 23:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I selfreverted that personal attack immediately - whereas yuo not only repeated but actively defended yours while being under a strict civilty probation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Maunus - you've been here for a while, you know the rules. Edits like this, and comments like this, are unnaceptable. I mean, you purposely edited that first page an additional time just to insert your jab. I understand that things can get heated in a dispute, but things like this do nothing to improve the situation. Please make sure you don't let your judgement lapse next time, and keep a cool head.

YouReallyCan - I can't say you've done much better. Hounding users over their ethnicity is nothing short of rude. You can hold whatever worldly notions you have - there are no rules about having bias - but do not let your bias influence how you interact with the project.

I think the safest option here is to have you both avoid interaction with each other. Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself.

I hope this is a fair resolution for both of you. If not, let me know and we'll work on something else. m.o.p 23:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would also like to direct the community's attention to the fact that Youreallycan is currently under sanctions including aone revert restriction and a strict civility parole. I do believe that his personal attacks against me in which he speculates about my ethnicity and argues that I am ethnically motivated for my opinion and therefore can be discounted are in violation of those sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• This kind of disruption is becoming a little too frequent with Youreallycan. He already disrupted WP:AE a while back and received a warning that his rollback privileges could be revoked if he played any more WP:GAMES like that in future.[162] Now here, having been WP:TROUTED by Kim Dent-Brown above, he proceeds to misuse this noticeboard by continuing his bickering in a new section. If he persists in disrupting wikipedia in this attention-seeking manner, he might well experience the WP:BOOMERANG. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC

• Happy to agree to and abide by Master of Puppets resolution, Stay off each others' talk pages and be civil if you happen to come across one another somewhere else. If one of you has a qualm with something the other has done, take it to an uninvolved administrator; please don't deal with it yourself. - Youreallycan 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• This is not enough. Youreallycan has not a single time suggested that he understands that speculating about other editors ethnicity or suggesting that it motivated their opinions is a personal attack. He is under a strict civilty probation and needs to be able to show that he understands this basic policy. I request that either he make an explicit apology showing that he realizes that his behavior was unacceptable or he is permanently blocked as per his standing sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• - the thread is here - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derby_sex_gang I don't see anything worthy of an apology, nothing at all compared to User:Maunus's comments today - and nothing worthy of a permanent block under my self agreed civility conditions - Youreallycan 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your restruictions were selfagreed because the alternative was an instantaneous community ban. Since you refuse to apologize or even to recognize that your comments werre against WP:NPA the csommunity will have to decide whether this constitutes a breach of your sanctions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I am really not sure about you Admin status, the alternative was not an instantaneous community ban at all - nonsense statement from you Youreallycan 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Youreally can is subject to a civility parole until April 16, 2013 as detailed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan. The comment, "your bigotry probably is a result of your having been abused by a pakistani muslim as a child," is incompatible with the promise Youreallycan made there. Mathsci (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC) Comment: (ec) How can reasonable administrators sit back and allow their fellows to display such arrogance, outright incivility and a {diff|Administrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents|534399609|534399609|blatantly sycophantic}} defence, irrespective of the provocation? All this and similar kinds of administrative behaviour must stop --Senra (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Does this comment amount to a legal threat against WP? --Nigelj (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely it is. The IP must either retract it or face a lengthy block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Indisputably. Reyk _YO! 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)