Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

MezzoMezzo's continuous disruptive editing and highly biased editing behavior with a certain agenda

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

---

The case is related to User:MezzoMezzo.He is continuously using Wikipedia:Agenda_account just to promote his views and to prove his POV.He continuously fills the Barelvi Article with Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight criticism. He is just trying to prove his personal Point Wikipedia:POINT any how. He has edited Articles with Wikipedia:Tendentious editing,Wikipedia:Coatrack and Wikipedia:Fait accompli.

He is editing a numbers of Articles with Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing.His non constructive edits and his behavior have confirmed that he is good at arguing but is working for some agenda.He is using his account to promote his POV in many Articles of Islam. All this has led to edit warring and dispute on the Barelvi Article which was totally neutral and far from any dispute since a long time. His behavior and editing motives confirmed that He is working regularly to reduce the Importance of Sufi oriented Articles and Subjects while promoting blatant POV through his pages of likeness associated with Salafi or Wahabi.He is trying to control Wahabi and Ahle Hadees Pages.

• He uses Wiki:Policies and discussions just to change the character of various Articles.On the one hand he seems to be engaged in discussion in a very civil and objective manner but this all is done just to prove his Point.He can use wordingsit does NOT MATTER how many sources are provided to insert his POV.
• See here [1] he will always remove the content to which he does not like.
• See here[2] and
• here [3]
• here [4]
• Inserted a biased source here [5] and
• veiled criticism in the name of history section here [6] again
• here [7].

• This POV pushing based on single source [8] continued until a edit warring started with more than one users.
• Again Biased editing full of Non Neutral POV with a motive [9], *[10],[11]
• Blatant accusations [12],
• Trying to Prove Barelvi practice Un-Islamic see here [13]
• Again accusations [14]
• Blatant POV and lies [15]
• Editing to prove a Point [16]
• Removing the name of a movement on the basis of his personal likeness and dislikeness.[17]
• Inserting his POV [18]
• Big accusation supported by Non Neutral source [19]
• Again tampering [20]
• Again pushing Un verified and non neutral POV [21]

• Salafi-Removing a very Genuine template from the Article see here[22] and Protecting *blatant lies and POV here [23].
• Unsourced POV here [[24]]
• Nazim Al-Haqqani -He removed a lot of content here[[25]]

• Tawassul-Removing total neutral valid content according to his personal views here [26]inserting his POV here [27]
• Ibn Arabi He removed half of content in bad faith here
• Ya Muhammad here[28]

• He Suggested a Number of Article of Scholars of other movements Sufism
• for speedy deletion [29],
• [30],
• [31],
• [32],
• [33]
• Mohra shareef here
• Mohammad Qasim Sadiq here [34]

• This is continue since long:-In the Past he has
• He Proposed several Articles belonging to Sufism for Speedy Deletion See here [35]

• Now He has opened a Pandora Box by opening at least 10 headings on talk page in a single day[36].
• He is rushing to add his POV and disputed points in Barelvi Article.It is an attempt to rewrite the complete Barelvi Article from his point of view.

• He is doing this since long-[37]
• See a small example here [38] and here
• reverted by other editors [39].
• Continuously engaged in heated debates with various editors [40]

• Many editors in Past have noticed this fact that Salafis and Wahabi editors have tried to vandalize this Article Barelvi [41]

• This editing pattern has harassed many editors in the past and has forced them to leave editing specially from Barelvi Page.For Ex-User:Hassanfarooqi,User:MatthewVanitas with his efforts to improve the Article [42],User:Nkv and User:Coercorash. Many fears to edit a single line or wording on these Pages due to this monopoly.

• One can't remove blatant POV from Salafi Article due to Page control but you can find other pages are used as Soap Box by these editors.
• If this situation is not changed ,I will be forced to think to leave Wikipedia as an editor.This situation and behavior should be discontinued to make Wikipedia a platform free for all neutral editors.Msoamu (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is actually somewhat amusing for me. In a case like this, is a defense on my part even necessary? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear friends, sorry, but I cannot agree with Msoamu that MezzoMezzo is trying to change the tone / focus of whole articles according to his personal views or that he is trying to provoke other editors through his conduct. He tries hard to verify all his points with reliable evidence, he tries hard to maintain a neutral tone and he tries hard to explain his edits one-by-one. I do not agree with all of his edits, but I cannot conclude that he is a biased editor with an ulterior motive or a Salafi or Wahabi who is trying to undermine all other interpretations of Islam. By the way, the Barelvi page has not been "totally neutral" at any stage since I started watching it a few years ago. Indeed, it is unlikely that any page on any religious movement will be totally free of competing viewpoints (and corresponding edits). Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Great!I am witness to this editing Pattern and behavior of this particular editor MezzoMezzo who has history of inserting his bias in various articles.This is not about just a Barelvi article,much more than that.I request admins here to look deep into the motives of the editing of this editor which you will find is just pushing negative comments. Shabiha (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Any comments about the Barelvi article should be thrown away immediately. Since the article was unprotected, MezzoMezzo hasn't made a single edit, whilst I've made 4, Shabiha has made 1, GeorgeCustersSabre 1, and Mosamu 1 (which was reverted). I thought I'd sorted this dispute out, evidently not. MezzoMezzo has outlined every single proposed edit on the Barelvi talk page in its own subsection for discussion. This isn't the mark of a POV-pushing editor, whereas Msoamu has barely involved himself in the discussion (although, to be fair, Shabiha has been highly involved). By the way, they've found sources that show that not all Barelvis are terrorists, in a section about condemning the assassination of Salmaan Taseer. Also note that Shabiha has edited Mezzo's comments himself on a talk page, without any real reason, to try and make MezzoMezzo look like a POV-pusher: [43]. I can't speak for the other articles, and I'd hoped that all involved parties would sort them out one at a time, starting with Barelvi, but if anyone's guilty of POV-pushing, it's Msoamu and Shabiha. I think this should WP:BOOMERANG, especially as Msoamu was blocked for edit warring on this subject for constantly inserting his POV into articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the Ibn Arabi allegation, I can verify that Msoamu is the one causing the problem, as all MezzoMezzo did was remove a massive chunk of unverified information (or verified only by primary sources, which aren't sufficient in this case; the information was highly non-neutral. Even with the edit, the article still needs major improvement. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• One major issue is that the majority of Msoamu's diffs are also very old, I believe, and yet being presented as if they're a recent issue... Lukeno94 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have not discussed here just a single Article ′but continuous patterns and motives of him'.He is continuously engaged in proposing Sufi movement Articles for deletion.But he is facing failure in his attempts.Many editors have removed his Deletion Prod from various Sufi Articles see here [44] ,[45].Msoamu (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

See here

• Msoamu, a lot of your issue here is that you're presenting diffs from 2007 as if they're recent. They're not, and from mine, and other editor's, assessments of this dispute, you are by far the more disruptive. There are very few diffs you've presented that date from after your block for edit warring. I believe I requested that you'd stop trying to sully MezzoMezzo's name with half-baked accusations, sadly, you haven't. I can only see this being resolved by a WP:BOOMERANG and a topic and/or interaction ban being enforced on Msoamu, sadly. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Luken,Kindly read my above comments.There are major POV pushing and disruptive editing by MezzoMezzo with in a month.The time period from which he has started this years editing.I have given numbers of Pages and Articles as Proof which he has recommended for Deletion with in a month and reverted by various editors.All the Pages in past and in present he has recommended for deletion belong to Sufi movement ,for which he seems to have certain agenda.Even I have shown recent changes by him to reduce importance from various Articles so that later they can be suggested for Deletion.Most of the pages he has developed belong to Salafi movement which is in strong opposition of Sufi or Barelvi movement.This is not a case of half baked accusation or something else.Non salafi Islamic expert can easily identify his edits.He has been accused of doing this many times.

• I have brought this case here to examine his edits in depth and to seek comments on his editing pattern.Msoamu (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Your comments seem to suggest that sourcing doesn't matter a jot - if you disagree with an edit, it can have a thousand reliable sources backing it up, and still should be removed. That is totally incorrect, as are assertions that Mezzo has regularly gone against consensus - the opposite is true. Some of these complaints about AfDs are unfounded, as other editors have removed significant chunks of information (rightly or wrongly), and that is what Mezzo has based their arguments on. Also, you've confused speedy deletion and AfDs in your diffs - the two are very different. You also label things as "big accusations" when they're not, they're single sentences worded neutrally. Saying things like "Barelvis have begun mixing with Shi'ites more than before" is NOT an accusation, it's quite possibly a statement of fact (I don't know the source, so can't check), and it's blatantly absurd to claim that - I don't suppose you're anti-Shi'ite? In fact, you've even provided diffs here that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with MezzoMezzo - try this one: [46] as an example. You're so blinkered by either your dislike of MezzoMezzo, his (fairly neutral) views, or these movements themselves that you're making a boatload of unfounded accusations, based on a mixture of old, dodgy or downright incorrect evidence. For what it's worth, I'll provide my talk page assessment of this dispute here, from the 9th of February:

• Right, I'm not an admin, so I suggest you contact one of them about de-archiving the AN/I report, or more probably, how to proceed with a new one. The first AN/I diff is definitely a personal attack: "1.This is high time that Wikipedia should frame a policy to check and examine the role of various editors who have acted in a manner which is fit to be called a WikiJehadi."here is a clear attack. I would not consider the second one to be, merely Msoamu defending his position in an aggressive manner (which is similar, but not quite the same thing).here I'm not sure whether the third diff is a personal attack; it's borderline, but probably not.here He's accused you of a COI, not anything more. I was not convinced that there were any real attacks in the remaining 3 diffs. Below, I will state what I think of the editing on the articles:

• Barelvi. User:GorgeCustersSabre would appear to agree with you that Msoamu has removed less-positive content from the article:[47]. One thing you may not have realized is that way back in 2006 (!) Msoamu was warned about re-writing the article from his point of view by User:Firien:[48].
• Wahabi. User:Dawn Bard appears to agree that Msoamu is not being constructive, and has made poorly-sourced additions. A quick look at one of his edits would lead me to agree with this - providing a forum as a reference for a religious group being home to extremism is clearly not on.
• His talk page. I see you warned this user about this way back in 2007, so it's clear that this has been going on for a very long time between you two editors.

Normally, I would suggest that you stepped back from the topic and left the edit war, particularly the Barelvi article. However, in this case, two separate editors agree with your contributions, and not Msoamu's, and some of Msoamu's additions are borderline vandalism. I would suggest you request full-protection for both articles for a short time, to prevent the edit war continuing, and that you write a new, better AN/I with the help of an admin - as Msoamu has been at this for nearly 7 years, it has to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Msoamu, I suggest you look at your actions, apologize, and move on, and join the discussions, otherwise the ONLY way I can see this age-old problem is for you to be topic banned from editing anything to do with Islam, broadly construed, and an interaction ban with MezzoMezzo. You were flagged as being disruptive on these articles in 2006: this needs to stop. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
• Dear Luken,I learnt a lot from this discussion here.I will try to be calm and cool.Many times third person can clearly tell us that what is really wrong.Hope to see your cooperation in editing,I regret my complaint.Thanks.Msoamu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's unfortunate that you decided to go against the discussions I'd tried to have with the pair of you, as it's likely this will WP:BOOMERANG back at you, with your history of being involved in edit-warring on these topics as long ago as 2006. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter-claims

Msoamu and two editors with whom he sometimes collaborates have launched what I feel are a number of personal attacks on me in the past few days or so.

In the case of User:Msoamu:

Accused me of supporting Salafism and Wahhabism here.

Note that Msoamu was recently blocked for edit warring, POV-pushing and personal attacks (against me). This user has been blocked for vandalizing the same article in 2006.

In the case of User:Hassanfarooqi:

Accused me of engaging in a "Salafi jihad" and turning Wikipedia into a "jihad ground" here.

Called me an "anti-Sufi bigot" and accused me of engaging in a "Jihad against Sufism" and brining a jihad to Wikipedia here.

Accused me of being an "anti-sufi wahhabi" and on a "jihad to wipe them (Sufis) all out" when creating this page.

Note that Msoamu seems to be egging Hassanfarooqi on here.

This user was also blocked in 2006, but for personal attacks rather than vandalism.

In the case of User:Shabiha:

Changed one of my comments on a talk page, seemingly to portray me as a POV-pusher, here.

Accused me of supporting Salafist jihadism here. Yes, it's there. Look all the way down at the very last sentence in his edit.

This user was blocked in 2007 for edit warring and personal attacks.

Especially troublesome are the accusations of me supposedly supporting holy war and violent extremism. I work for a reputable institution; should I ever be outed, such accusations can have personal ramifications for my family and I. I've tried both ignoring it and asking for it to stop, and multiple other users have tried reasoning with these three to no avail. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I unintentionally deleted Your comments on a Talk page.I was para phrasing my own headings,in this process mistakenly done that.That was not motive which you understood.Next,the comment was not directed to you and was in good faith.Please avoid taking it personally. Shabiha (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• can I present here some earlier examples of Personal Attacks on me ? Shabiha (talk) 13:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

First, disclosure: Mezzomezzo asked me on my talk page about this complaint and whether or not he should post here, and I advised him to post a short summary with diffs as he has done above. Having said that, now that I see the diffs, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha need to stop the attacks immediately. I am willing to AGF that Shabiha's comment was not intended as an attack and the deletion was in error; but the other two are totally unacceptable. The are evidence of a battleground mentality at best, and outright offensive at worst. Were these western users casually dropping the term "jihad" it might be vaguely understandable, but these editors (based upon the topics they contribute in) must certainly know how strong and aggressive and, ultimately, rude such a label is. Just because someone nominates a lot of articles in a particular subject matter for deletion does not mean that they are attempting to wage a holy war of violence and eradication. Having seen some of the content Msoamu was defending, this is very disruptive. I'm interested in hearing what sort of defense these two have for their attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Qwyrxian. Shabiha (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Response to counter claims asked by Qwyrxian:-

I am admitting that my wordings and behavior violated wiki policies and guidelines.For that I faced a blocked and I express my sincere apologies for the same.I am in discussion mode on Barelvi page.You can see my sincere discussions [49].But on the other hand would you like to examine these things.Sorry,If I wrote excessive points here but Don't this kind of behavior also needs some kind of action ?

• User:MezzoMezzo accused me of POV Pushing[50] while i was just restoring a consensus version unchanged since months.
• Trying to insult me and another editor Baboon43 [51]
• Accused me of having some hidden reasons [52]
• Claiming falsely that his edits have support of more than one editor which later on proved to be false [53]
• He used the words, intentional disruption for other editors[54]
• He was asked to refrain from making remarks about bias towards other editors[55]
• Personal Attacks on more than one editors-
• Accused Baboon of Racism [56]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [57]
• Seems to be engaged in edit warnings [58]
• Accused User:Sunnibarelvi to malign the Salafist movement by creating a Template on Salafism.[59].Msoamu (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

There's some signs of tendentious editing on Mezzo's part but I'm not sure if it is intentional or unintentional as i have not really looked into it..based on my previous discussion with Mezzo on Talk:Barelvi he took the discussion to ani which leads me to believe he might have strong feelings about this barelvi article. Baboon43 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• All 3 editors are definitely passionate about this topic area, however you look at it. Msoamu's edits have regularly been the more biased - some of Mezzo's are definitely a bit iffy, but it's rare that someone other than Msoamu or Shabiha has reverted them. Part of Msoamu's problem is with his grasp of the English language: due to him clearly not being fluent, he sees things as being insults when they're not - for example, the diffs about Mezzo insulting him and you are most definitely not insults, and the one saying he has the support of other editors is sort-of true, as GeorgeCustersSabre has reverted Msoamu's edits back to Mezzo's edits. Shabiha also may suffer from a similar issue, albeit to a lesser degree. Inadvertently, Msoamu has also pointed to an inappropriate comment by Baboon - "your either a wahabi or just lack knowledge of the subject", of which the first section is inappropriate - you should not be speculating about what religious beliefs an editor has if they haven't publicly stated them. (I can't comment on the last bit, I've used those sorts of comments myself) Mezzo's template comments start off a bit marginal, but then he does improve them with some relevant points. I would state that "Sunnibarelvi" would be advised to stay away from the groups that Barelvis are known for having disputes with, due to the COI problem (not just his own, which I believe he actually handles reasonably well, but that of other editors, which may provoke a battle). These are just my observations; I'm definitely not a Muslim (nor am I anti-Muslim), let alone a member of any of these groups, so I'm neutral :) Lukeno94 (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the ANI thing with Baboon, I took it there mainly because, after 6+ years of seeing Barelvi editors create accounts solely for the purpose of rewriting that article to push their POV, I've come to expect that from any non-native English speakers adding overly-positive content or deleting any content which is remotely negative. In the case of Baboon, things were sorted out (and he's apparently not a Barelvi or even from South Asia to begin with). I don't have strong feelings about Barelvism and I've never met one; I freely admit, however, to having strong feelings about the article. For years, the fact that most English speakers (and this is English Wikipedia) don't know much about the movement has been capitalized upon by Barelvi editors (not all Barelvis, but all of these editors have been Barelvis) in order to push POV about which most English speakers are not aware. I was never even aware of it until I witnessed this editing behavior across 2006-2007; were it not for editing Wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what Barelvis are.

As for the attacks, then Hassanfarooqi has a history of attacking anybody who disagrees with him even on articles relating to sports. Without even scrolling down, I checked his last 20 edits and found two personal attacks on other editors in addition to the three on myself. I don't think his issue is disruptive editing (I don't have the experience with him to say that) so much as it is habitually making personal attacks, despite having once been blocked for it. From what I can tell, nobody else ever seems to complain so it's hard to say how often this has happened in the years since his last block.

Msoamu has a combination of things. His editing has been described by disruptive by at least three or four editors other than Lukeno. He only seems to edit articles relating to Barelvism and the movement's opponents, and in all cases seems to present the beliefs of Barelvism as objective fact - Talk:Barelvi is testimony to that. He also has a tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him insulting names, usually relating to religious violence and extremism. I didn't know what a topic ban was before it was mentioned here but it seems to be the only way; as far as I know, he could still comment on talk pages but given his six years and going of POV-pushing followed by personal attacks and disruptive editing if he doesn't get his way, it seems to be the only solution. It seems that any article in which he takes interest never receives fair, productive attention or discussion.

About Shabiha, then again, after six years of interacting with this editor and having previously been involved with content and conduct disputes with him, my good faith has about run out. To be fair, though, Shabiha engages in discussion regarding content in addition to occasional personal remarks, whereas Msoamu generally engages in personal remarks in addition to occasional discussion of actual content, while Hassanfarooqi seems (on both religion and the soccer articles I saw) to just engage in personal attacks.

I would like to see some sort of repercussions at least for Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi. Not simply for attacking me personally, but also for the good of the articles on which they set their sights. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits of MezzoMezzo have been described by various editors as Non Neutral and it is not my view that his editing tendentious.Many Salafi editors also have tried in past to change the page according to their wishes.I have tried to maintain it neutral.I have supported in past criticism section and it is there.Msoamu's latest evidences are enough to prove that MezzoMezzo is not free from attacking editors Personally.No one is free from errors.We should try to be Neutral and objective as much as we can. Shabiha (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Shabiha, there have been very few that have had major concerns with Mezzo, apart from those mentioned here (namely yourself, Msoamu, Sunnibarelvi and, apparently, Hassanfarooqi, whom I haven't come across, and haven't seen mentioned before). Most people have had issues with Msoamu. As I've said several times, you've all made mistakes, but Msoamu is probably the more aggressive, and part of the issue is the fact that you and Msoamu have a weaker understanding of English, and are less able to communicate than Mezzo, whom seems fairly fluent. All 3 of you have made allegations of personal attacks that have been completely incorrect, however (simply as English isn't your first language). This is coming from a native British English speaker, so I'm in some position to judge. No offence is meant by this, it's merely my observations. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that both Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi have had a minimal amount of activity, so they have logged in. I'm concerned that they might just be trying to dodge the discussion so that it conveniently "goes away." Still, a discussion is not enough and the pattern of disruptive editing and personal attacks - again, especially ones relating to violence and radicalism - are something I would like to see administrators address. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Counter counter claims

I do not know who Mosoamu is. Any accusation of collaberation between us is a fabrication by the person who goes by the fake name MezzoMezzo. All I know is that MezzoMezzo is a Salafi which can be seen on his page, and he is an anti-Sufi as evident from his edits against sufi bios. As for my getting banned, it is easy for a gang of editors (or one person with many fake names) to complain and ban temporarily. I have seen many crusades and jihads against sufi bios, and each time I expose their vandalism, they get me banned. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude, are you kidding me? You log in for less than two hours and already launch on more personal attacks against me? In about an hour and forty minutes, you just:

Accused me of vandalism for nominating articles for AfD and made a clear threat of some unnamed retaliation,

Accused me of being on a "jihad" again in this edit

Implied that I'm a part of a terrorist organization here

Accused me of nominating articles for AfD based on my personal beliefs instead of the stated content issues here

Called me a bigot simply for nominating articles for AfD here

Accused me of nominating articles for AfD due to personal beliefs one more time

Did you even check what took place here? I brought you into this because Msoamu was clearly encouraging your behavior per the diff I showed above. Whether you know him in real life or not, you've clearly jumped onto this train.

Can administrators please do something about this? I haven't seen blatant personal attacks like this in a few years here on Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any real accusations of a "collaboration", but bloody hell, that is a ridiculous comment to make, Hassan. I don't believe he is particularly anti-Sufi, or pro-Salafi, and certainly not to the degree you're accusing of him. Accusing him of being in a crusade, or a jihad, is a massive personal attack and this needs to be punished by a block, especially as you've made no attempt to provide evidence to back up your outlandish claims. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Propose some immediate action re Hassanfarooqi edits within last 2 hours as above. Among those edits "Why are you so afraid of revealing your name? Are you involved in a terror organization?" is not the only one totally unacceptable. Mezzo has already apologized for and withdrawn AfDs on the totally unsourced Sufi saints articles a week ago, it's evident that he didn't understand the AfD criteria (not alone there). In that week not a single source has been added, just more personal attacks on Mezzo. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, my feeling is that this is all way too complex and long standing for ANI to solve; some of these complaints go back years, and it would probably take RfC/U's on everyone to really see if there are long term problems. As an alternative to that, I propose that we give Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and MezzoMezzo final warnings: any more personal attacks, incivility, or blatant POV pushing will result in escalating blocks, to be issued by any uninvolved admin. If any of them are in fact "innocent" (and note that I believe that MezzoMezzo is much more the victim here, possibly blameless), and are editing in the best interests of Wikipedia, then they aren't at risk. In a sense, what I'm recommending is that we place these three users on discretionary sanctions. Yes, I know that there is no such thing, but I think you can get my idea. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully accept and even welcome being put on discretionary sanction. I fully accept and welcome administrator scrutiny of any and all edits I make on Wikipedia indefinitely, and given the overly long nature of this conflict, a final warning after which no warnings shall come (Lovecraftian, no?) should solve this. I am confident that my editing here is merely to improve the site and thus I have no issue if my account remains under such scrutiny forever. I only ask that administrators follow through should personal attacks come from any of those involved, including myself. One question, will Shabiha be exempt from this? I feel that he has been involved in the same issues. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• I too feel that Shabiha should be placed on some kind of warning, although to my knowledge, he hasn't been involved in the dispute quite as long, so maybe it'll be a 3-strikes-rule or something for him. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha has also been at it on the Barelvi article. His block back in 2007 was for his personal attack on my talk page here due to the same POV/content disagrements. Similar comments about myself rather than relevant content can be found under his contributions during the past month or so. It's not limited to the original two examples I posted up there; while his comments are milder than those of the other two, the tendency for personal remarks is still there and has been for at least six years. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that the Shabiha and Msoamu are back to refactoring comment to a pro Barelvi POV, see here.Cobalion. Setting Justice everywhere.semiactive 12:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Not only that, it's my comments, not MezzoMezzo, so they've got no valid reasons for it whatsoever. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear all,I welcome any proposal given by Administrators.I am ready to cooperate with all respected editors of this nice site. Shabiha (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I came across a small part of this at AfD by accident. Both Msoamu and Mezzo requested I say something. But I'm not familiar enough with content aspect. All I can say is that first impression that Mezzo was the problem quickly (sorry Msoamu) were reversed to Qwryxian's view that Mezzo isn't the problem here. However if it is "too complex and too long" then pre-final not final warnings are called for. Also Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, you could avoid friction by reading WP:IRS and WP:PSTS and following it carefully with every byte added in article space. If content is sourced, even using Urdu Arabic or Farsi, then frictions and edit wars are much less likely. Also Msoamu, play the ball, not the man, okay? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments. I became aware of this discussion because of a message Mezzo left on my talk page. Some might consider it WP:CANVASSING, although I can see that Mezzo isn't the only editor asking for outside input. I was the admin who blocked Msoamu. I haven't read the long list of bullets Msoamu posted at the beginning, although I clicked on a few of the diffs. I belive Hassanfarooqi was added in the middle of all this by Mezzo. Hassan was properly notified by Mezzo of this discussion, but I note that they haven't edited since February 20, so they haven't had a chance to respond, even though they are included as part of Qwyrxian's proposal. Although Mezzo doesn't object to the imposition of "discretionary sanctions" (it's kind of an editing restriction with a discretionary sanction flavor), it's unclear to me why he's included except perhaps out of an abundance of caution to be "fair". I commend Luke for his tremendous efforts to mediate, and I commend Qwyrxian for his proposal to resolve the situation in a practical way.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comments I was also asked to comment since I blocked Msoamu for six months in December 2006. Whilst that is old news, it appears from my review of some of the diffs and the comments above that there has been little improvement in his attitude to other users. I'm not sure why Mezzo merits a final warning, that appears to be intended to give an impression of even-handedness which is not justified. Msoamu clearly carries most of the responsibility here, and any sanctions should reflect that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "warning" of MezzoMezzo was primarily a move towards even-handedness. My worry was that the previous discussion had bogged down and was overflowing with so many diffs (some ridiculously old) that I felt it likely that it was just going to end up archived without any action taken. My thinking is that if MezzoMezzo is, in fact, editing entirely in good faith (something I think very likely, though the large number of single subject AfD's can be a matter of concern), then the warning ultimately has no effect, as I'm trusting that future admins are smart enough to tell the difference between a real infraction and something trumped up by an adversary. My other thinking is this: I'm of the opinion that, in a certain sense, once a user has been here long enough, they shouldn't need civility warnings; that is, we should all be editing as if we were on a final warning for civility. I really don't want Msoamu and Hassanfarooqi to just be able to walk away thinking "It's okay to call someone a jihadist, as long as I make sure to be the one to file the complaint with dozens of diffs from the past 5 years". I want them to understand that this behavior stops now, or they stop editing. It's a risky move, but given that MezzoMezzo has indicated a willingness to accept the "warning", I'm even more comfortable with it. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Admins have worked hard to resolve this issue and I am really obliged to them all.I have always tried to improve the page with reliable sources and references.The continuous pushing of POV and nomination of one side's Articles for deletion,emphasizing on only negative/criticism proves that MezzoMezzo has really edited with a particular motives.He has been engaged in edit disputes with a number of editors.He has called them racist as in the case of 'Baboon and in case of other editors.It seems from his Canvassing and editing pattern on Sufi Articles that he don't want to allow other editors to edit these pages.You can find him on all Sufi Articles ,deleting genuine information while pushing negative/criticism.It is only he ,who has fight with so many editors.He will not allow any one to edit his favorite salafi Wahabi pages with neutral pint of view.see these pages how much POV has been supported and protected by him.I am not the only guilty here.ThanksMsoamu (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• That's a serious accusation, racism, especially when you haven't provided a single diff to prove it. I suggest you provide a diff immediately, or retract the allegation. Or do you mean that Mezzo was accusing Baboon of racism? I've never seen Mezzo be racist, you canvass as much as they do, and I think you are WP:IDHT with regards to your issues - it's very, very rare that anyone other than you, Shabiha, Sunnibarelvi or Hassanfarooqi, has ever reverted MezzoMezzo, or even had serious issues with Mezzo's edits (the marginal AfDs aside), whereas several editors, many very experienced, have reverted you. It's utter rubbish to speculate that he doesn't want to allow other editors to edit the articles, if your allegation was true, he'd have edited Sufism much more recently than the 9th of February, for example. Likewise, he hasn't edited Wahhabi since the 9th of February. The "Terrorism" section, which you edit warred over, for example, was a severe violation of WP:NPOV and Mezzo was right to remove it, pending a discussion. You fail to participate in many of the discussions, which only makes things worse. I feel that this discussion proves that, Msoamu at least, needs a topic ban. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Msoamu is referring to when I said that one of Baboon43's comments - not Baboon, but his comments - bordered on racism - not were actually racist, but bordered on racism. Anyway, I can see this ending easily with permanent surveillance of all edits by Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, Shabiha and myself with all four of us being on "final warnings," though a topic ban in the case of Msoamu would also help the state of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia, the personal attacks aside. Hassanfarooqi's accusations of jihadi are more problematic and I really don't feel he should walk away from that without some sort of repercussions. He did engage in edits even after Msoamu notified him of this discussion on his (Hassanfarooqi's) talk page, so he obviously knows that this discussion at least began. The question is now: what solution will be implemented and how will it be implemented? MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo accused Baboon43 of Racism [60]in these words, Baboon, this intense dislike of Saudi Arabia you seem to be promoting here and on other articles almost borders on racism. and this [61]

He seemed to be engaged in edit warnings [62].Baboon43 was editing various Articles and he was forced to say to MezzoMezzo this ,by the way it seems you like to confront editors by following them around..seeing i never seen you on this talk page until you started snooping around my contributions[63].There are more than other five editors with whom MezzoMezzo has history of engaging in edit disputes.The history of Mawlid Article tells that he is only interested in showing different movements in negative lights[64].This edit dispute lasted a long between him and other editors. Similarly he is always working on removing validity of different Islamic concept which Salafis don't like and is approved by Sufis see Tawassul he removed validity section [65] [66][67]Read this heading,it does not talk about validity but liked only criticism[68] supported by MezzoMezzo.He engaged in Sufi Wahabi disputes with various other editors here on Bidah Article [69].If he would have been so much neutral than multiple editors would not have accused him of pushing POV.He is also master in proposing Sufi related Articles for deletion.You will not find him doing same in the case of his favourite movement or supporting genuine criticism on wahabi/Salafi Articles.Even the scholars of Salafi movement will be untouched from criticism.What respected editors think ?Msoamu (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

His tendency of pushing his POV into various Articles and habit of engaging in edit disputes on Sufi related Articles [70]Added his POV [71],[72],[73][74].

He is only interested in inserting Criticism ,was accused of Cherry Picking material for this purpose see in Al-Ghazali [[75]].Msoamu (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your point has been made, Msoamu. This has been going on for what, a week and a half now? We've had trusted editors and several admins show support for Qwixrian's proposal and one editor suggest a topic ban. Just to keep things on point: what is the final decision, how will it be implemented, and who will do so? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We need an uninvolved editor (usually an admin) to decide if there is consensus for action of any type here. To be honest, the fact that Msoamu has gone back on the offensive rather than apologize for or even acknowledge the serious problems his/her editing has makes me think that we might even be warranted in skipping the warning. I'm of half a mind to do so myself, as I don't think I'm involved enough here to raise to the level of WP:INVOLVED...but I'd prefer another admin act, one way or the other. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Respected administrators,I have already apologized here and I am in no mood of Offensive. MezzoMezzo's continuous offensive forced me to bring some proofs from his editing pattern.I respect your opinions and decisions.Msoamu (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Either you're refusing to get the points people are making, or your English isn't good enough for you to understand that it is your editing style that is much more problematic than Mezzo's. Mezzo has made some marginal decisions, but so have I, whereas you have made a number of very bad edits, and then warred to try and keep them there. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments I usually avoid commenting on cheap attacks, but was dragged on into this holy war after MezzoMezzo went after my bios trying to get them deleted, and then reacted on my defence them by posting all over my page. Hassanfarooqi (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really, so you avoid commenting on cheap attacks, and yet you make your own cheap attacks above? Hmm. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Interaction ban

An interaction ban between Msoamu and MezzoMezzo is the only appropriate solution in this case.

Support. Zaminamina (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - with respect, I don't think you've quite understood the issue. This ban would be unhelpful as it doesn't address any issues with biased editing, and as they both contribute primarily to the same articles, it makes things even worse with that regard. It also ignores any issues from Shabitha and other editors involved. The proposal above this is far better. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Such a ban would be impossible, since the two editors already co-edit a large number of articles...and there are ongoing AfD's and content disputes in which neither of them should necessarily gain precedence. Furthermore, from my reading of the situation (which is somewhat limited), MezzoMezzo is attempting to conduct wide ranging cleanup in topics that have been created and/or protected by Msoamu, and the encyclopedia would be significantly worse off to lose his editing in those topics. Again, returning to the key point that lead for my call for the above proposal: calling someone a "jihadist", repeatedly, is something that needs to stop, period. I cannot believe that using such a strong invective is uniquely caused by the relationship between these two. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

While my opposition to such an unworkable solution goes without saying, the fact that I'm one of the subjects here might disqualify that comment. But to support what Qwyrxian said above, a big concern of mine here is the personal attacks which have already occured, and the pattern of continuous personal attacks and disruptive editing which have gone on with Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi and Shabiha for the past six years. While an interaction ban won't solve things, we still need something, as leaving the situation as it is will effectively prevent a large number of religion and Islam related articles on Wikipedia from ever receiving fair, objective discussion. I think the comments from multiple users here have demonstrated these concerns. How can we resolve this issue and implement a workable solution? MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban for both MezzoMezzo and Msoamu seems to me relevant solution of this long lasting problem.The love of MezzoMezzo for Salafism and then his interest in editing Sufism related topics thereby creating and causing many disputes on various pages similarly love of Msomau for Barelvi topic and his interest in editing Salafism or Wahabi topics is the only reason of dispute.They both can utilize their editing experience on other topics.This is most neutral workable and solution of this continuous problem. Shabiha (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And...that makes me think you need to be lumped into the "final warning" category above. Mezzomezzo's edits seem to be not only acceptable, but really necessary and important. Why would we topic ban him from an area that clearly needs a lot of clean up, and that he's willing to do? Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to not directly defend myself until now, but perhaps it's in order. Shabiha, I am not a Salafi nor do I love Salafism any more than Sufism, or have any more interest in editing one article more than the other. And the thing is, I've told you that. I've told Msoamu that. I've made it clear more than once that I want nothing to do with ideologies or movements; I just want an objective presentation of information for readers of English Wikipedia, most of whom ostensibly have little experience with Muslim movements. You and Msoamu are both Barelvis and have made that clear on past versions of your respective user pages. And that's ok. Belonging to any movement, religion or ideology doesn't disqualify one's opinion; as Stephen Jay Gould said, objectivity is fairness in spite of bias, not denying one's own bias. The problem is that the two of you seem to have accounts solely for editing the pages on the Barelvi movement and its opponents, and promoting this world view - which would have been shown through reliable sources in my disputed edits - in which Barelvis believe that all of their opponents are part of a conspiracy against them, and anyone who criticizes Barelvism must be a Wahhabi. Six years is long enough for me to say confidently that I have seen this attitude demonstrated.

You want to make sure the movement isn't slandered, great. Wikipedia needs that. Shi'ite editors ensure that their sect isn't misrepresented. General Muslim editors ensure that anti-Muslim bigots can't misrepresent Islam, and objective non-Muslim editors ensure that Muslims can't paint an overly rosy picture of our religion. There are three areas which are lacking: people to keep Barelvism in check, Salafi editors to ensure they aren't defamed (most Salafi Wikipedians like Servant114 and DawudBeale left in 2009 when a major English-language Salafi website posted a polemical diatribe against Wikipedia), and Deobandi editors to ensure they aren't defamed (I have never, ever seen an open Deobandi on Wikipedia). There are some Ahl al-Hadith editors, but their English is awful and they aren't very active. So I positioned myself over both Barelvi and Salafi related topics simply because I saw a need for objective monitoring that wasn't being filled (in the case of Salafism articles for four years now, in the case of Barelvism articles, since I joined Wikipedia).

I am not a Salafi. I am not a Sufi. I do not have some sort of love for Salafism, nor for Sufism. I really don't care about these movements as they don't affect my personal life. I just want objectivity on this site. I am not always successful or correct and all good Wikipedians will freely admit that about themselves. But your constant accusations and, lately, subtle insinuations that I'm some Salafi in disguise are unwelcome and, given my frequent clarifications on my position from the movement, unneeded. So please, stop hinting or otherwise insinuating that I'm some secret Salafi editor out to defame your movement and let's all try to focus on the issue at hand: how will this content-conduct dispute be resolved? I swear to God - and even for Wikipedians who don't believe in one, the fact that I do should make the weight which this swear carries apparent - that I have zero problems at all with permanent, unending administrative monitoring of any and all edits I make. I say that because any inappropriate edits on my part are mistakes and I'm open to those mistakes being corrected, as was the case with In coctu ilis and GorgeCuster'sSabre. I have absolutely nothing to hide and such monitoring could even serve as a good form of evidence should I ever be accused of things like this again - I would always have someone who could vouch for that. There could be other solutions to, but at nearly two weeks I would just like someone with the necessary responsibility to carry out the decision.

I would prefer not to comment here again. I'm a long winded speaker and writer and however valid my comments might be, I know that merely reading them is a task. I just want this to be resolved soon so all concerned editors can move on and resume tending to Barelvi, Deobandi, Salafi, Wahhabi, Ahl al-Hadith, Sunni Tehreek etc. as normal. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits speaks themselves.I will not say any thing.You called me several times Barelvi I did not object,It is a terminology used by some to show entire South Asian Sunni Sufi movement in bad light.I respect your feelings but you should have avoided calling me names.I have always tried to contribute Wikipedia with positive intentions and objectives.I have always tried to contribute positively with an open mind.I am open to any corrections. Shabiha (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The edits speak for themselves...how? Are you claiming now that I'm lying when I tell you that I'm not Salafi (or part of any other movement for that matter)? And you're once again proving to me the lack of objectivity which brings me to these articles...Sunni Sufis in South Asia are composed of two groups: Deobandis and Barelvis. Once again, you seem unable to acknowledge what mainstream scholarship has accepted, and insist on claiming that Deobandism is excluded from Sufism and Sunni Islam...hence, the need for people like me who can ensure that Barelvi doctrine (or any other doctrine) is represented as subjective doctrine and not objective fact. In this case, yes, the edit does speak for itself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the value it might be, the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunni Sufis and Salafi Jihadism is fairly demonstrative of what ends up happening to what would otherwise be productive, objective discussions on improving Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I was not willing to jump into arguments with any one here.I am not a party to this dispute despite that I was dragged here by MezzoMezzo.To tell the facts to Administrators and editors I am very humbly submitting this- MezzoMezzo claimed to disassociate himself from any movement.But he created and introduced majority of Articles belonging to Salafism or of a movement which is very close to it [76] it is known as Zahiri and is based on literal thought which has influenced Salafism[77].

He edited following Articles[78] on wikipedia,which clearly established his area of interest.He has many times in sequence nominated Sufism related pages for deletion and has removed large stuff from only Sufism related pages.I may provide proofs from his edit history,also proved by other editors. Shabiha (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

<deindent>I rewrote most of the BTC Touring articles or wrote them from scratch: I have no connection with the BTCC. That's a ridiculous allegation to make, that MezzoMezzo must be connected with Salafism. Mezzo has every right to create whatever he wants, as long as it complies with the guidelines - which, 99% of the time, it does. Also, you're lying about not being a party to this dispute, as you've been involved in several disputes across several articles. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - they edit the same articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and comment A solution to intractable edit wars which I have very occasionally and reluctantly used (because it's hard and thankless work) is to warn everyone concerned that I will remove any edits that are not impeccably RS sourced or which do not accurately reflect the RS sources, and that I will block anyone who doesn't play nicely (not needed so far in practice). That works quite well with single articles where one "side" is clearly pushing pov more than the other, especially as I'm editing from a position of knowing nothing about the topic, so npov by definition. I'm not sure how it would play across a range of articles, but I can't see why we shouldn't warn all concerned that edits that aren't impeccably sourced and neutral will be reverted, and may be backed up by withdrawing editing rights. If we just pussyfoot around this, the problems will not go away Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm down with that too, as long as it's undertaken. I don't think it's far fetched to say that the time I put into neutralizing and sourcing Wikipedia entries on Islam-related articles has yielded good results for both the sites and the readers. Islamic legal terms like Qiyas and Ijma are good examples of my efforts bringing almost worthless, unclear stubs to the level of acceptable articles, while the biographies I created of Islamic studies academics such as Dawud al-Zahiri, Camilla Adang, Siddiq Hasan Khan and so forth have not only added to the encyclopedia in the way of info but also inter-Wiki links for cited persons/authors. That work has come to a standstill on anything which Msoamu and Shabiha (and to a lesser extent, Hassafarooqi) turn their eyes. The examples of this are numerous, but in this section at Talk:Barelvi, there is the most encompassing, telling example of what working with either of them on Sufism-related articles is like: Barelvis (90% of all Muslims, actually) believe that when people die, they will be raised again at judgment day and Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, will be able to intercede with God on the behalf of sinners. Msoamu doesn't seem to understand that stating "Muhammad intercedes" is presenting dogmatic religious belief as objective fact is wrong, and doesn't seem to get why I'm insisting on "Muhammad, who Barelvis believe intercedes," because this intercession is Muslim religious belief and not an objective fact by the standards of Wikipedia. This is even more of a stumbling block when it comes to Barelvi beliefs about other groups, which neither of them will accept as a matter of opinion but rather as objective fact.

I'm using this as a telling example, not as some kind of slander; I'm trying to demonstrate that my efforts at neutralizing articles are simply not possible as it stands now, because I have other editors who seem to think that Wikipedia should represent their beliefs as objective facts. Running with what Jimbleak said above, this current situation is unworkable; the articles in which these editors have taken interest can not be improved, period, unless something is done. Maybe it needs a topic ban. Maybe it needs a final warning for all of us. Maybe it needs an admin to constantly monitor the pages in question and be ready to block any of us, them or me both, if we get out of line. I don't know, it's not up to me. But what I'm asking is for something to be done. Msoamu, for the past two weeks, has merely used this thread to make post after post about me, my beliefs (about which he knows almost nothing) and my edits; he has been entirely unrepentant and doesn't seem to possess any desire to move on. Now, given the comments above, Shabiha also seems content to simply sift through my old edits and created pages. Neither of them are looking for a solution, not here and not on the pages in question.

We've had a lot of good suggestions, but one of them, or several of them - again, the selection isn't up to me since I'm involved in this case - really should be implemented, and enforced, as all four of us (Msoamu, Shabiha, Hassanfarooqi and myself) have been warned. Given the recent escalation of personal attacks and the continued comments (none of them valid) about me personally, I don't see this issue going anywhere and I don't see Wikipedia's entries receiving needed improvements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

One block

Yesterday Hassanfrooqi made this edit, yet again attacking MezzoMezzo. I warned him. Since his response repeated the attack, I have blocked for 3 days. This behavior has to stop. If people are unable to comment on edits and are instead obsessed with attacking the editor, then they can't edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The response to your warning went beyond the original attack. A 3-day block was conservative. If the behavior repeats itself after the block expires, the editor should be indeffed.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think that blockage was of any benefit, I wanted to invite all of you to calm down, and ask Qwyrxian to concentrate on investigating the case rather than blocking. Obviously, editors from both sides are frustrated and may accuse each other, but blocking is more damaging than constructive. My first impression is that Msoamu had concerns that another editor is making too much unfavorable edits to Barelvism page. Lack of investigation and useless comments on this page will only cause more frustration. Have you investigated Msoamu's complaint? Zakwp (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can I ask if you've bothered to read any of this discussion, or any previous one? I investigated the situation before Msoamu's block (which is where 99% of the disputed things come from), and found it to be predominantly Msoamu who was POV pushing a biased view, whereas MezzoMezzo was generally neutral, bar a few AfD mistakes - that they apologized for. Also, I think Hassanfarooqi needs indeffing now, with talk page rights revoked - [79] they're basically asking to be indeffed, and they're continuing to slander MezzoMezzo and everyone involved. Msoamu's concerns are due to either marginal/poor English skills, a COI, or a difference of opinion about these articles than fits Wiki guidelines, if not a mixture of the above, and Shabiha suffers similar issues. This has been analysed to death, and action needs to be taken: indef for Hassanfarooqi, a short-term topic ban for Shabiha, a longer-term one for Msoamu, and a final warning for MezzoMezzo (as accepted by that user). Lukeno94 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

He created his account less than an hour before making that comment and according to his contribs, only spent an hour and four minutes of actual editing. So I would guess no, he hasn't quite read everything.

As for Lukeno's suggestion above, or any other suggestion, I'm down. Hell, as an olive branch, I'll submit to putting tougher sanctions on me. Put a big, unmovable template on my user page saying "this guy is under surveillance so take his comments with a grain of salt." Really, I have no problem with that because I know that my edits and comments are well-intentioned, even if sometimes mistaken, and I make them for the purposes of improving Wikipedia; thus I have no fear, and maybe the good will from suggesting even tougher repercussions for myself will get this sorted out sooner. That's my point: most of the suggestions here have been good. But until they're implemented, much needed improvements on multiple articles are on hold. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Lukeno94,I accept your suggestion,can you throw some light on reasons of suggesting a Topic Ban for me and not putting me in warning list?What offense and violation I have done here and Also comment on [80] and [81],whether it amounts to Wikipedia:TROLLING or not ?. Shabiha (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• What are you actually trying to show there Shabiha? The first diff shows nothing majorly untoward, yes, it's a disputed point, but it's not massively biased, or even close to violating NPOV. As to the second, I see MezzoMezzo removing an empty section (valid), rewriting a section to make it far more neutral and improving its layout (valid), and tagging a section that has no references as being unreferenced (valid). The reason I've proposed you to get a topic ban is simple: you seem either unable or unwilling to understand when an edit is biased and when it is not, and you can be fairly aggressive at times. Whether this is due to a COI, your weaker English skills, or other reasons, I can't say, and don't really wish to - but at present, the diffs you've cited there only strengthen my point. I've said that you should get a shorter topic ban than Msoamu, for the reason that your English is a bit better, you're much more willing to discuss things, and you don't constantly escalate issues to the highest forum. Part of the issue here is yours, and Msoamu's, weaker grasps on English that really don't combine well with editors such as myself and MezzoMezzo, whom tend to explain things in a fairly in-depth manner. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Zakwp is obviously a sock puppet, either of one of the parties here or of someone who just likes to screw around with me/admins in general. I'll figure out what to do with that account in a minute. And regarding Shabiha, I agree with Luken on the edits, though I know if I agree on the need for a topic ban. And regarding Hassanfarooqi, Luken, that was really your fault—you went to his talk page when you didn't need to while he was blocked to take a snipe at him. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but I know that if I were him, I'd feel like I was being baited. At this point, a topic ban on anyone seems impossible, since bans require broad community support, and for whatever reason, there simply hasn't been enough uninvolved comment here yet to endorse that. However, I am pretty close to simply clarifying on the people's talk pages that they are under final warnings—I believe that I am sufficiently uninvolved to do that. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I stepped back from the dispute, if you actually look at the diff it came before I posted at Hassanfarooqi's talk page. I admit I got sucked in there by his comments, as his attitude annoyed me and I was tired, but that's not really an excuse, so I apologize for that. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: the point Lukeno mentioned is only disputed by Shabiha. Even before his comment above, I added like a buttload of scholarly sources supporting the edit. I wish Shabiha had mentioned that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit differences shown by me were to prove that MezzoMezzo is trolling on pages where I edited.He was not there since a long and he inserted his POV without even explanations by following my contributions.This tendency has harassed me and other editors.He is just not allowing me and other editors to edit pages.Moreover Can i be held guilty if my English is not good and I have not committed any offense in real terms? Shabiha (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Shabiha, you have got to be joking. Not only were the diffs above of me adding valid sources, but you then ran amock at the page in question. As seen on its history, I was adding sources, formatting the article, organizing it in a logical way and removing Youtube links. You then did one massive revert of all of the work regardless of whether or not it was even touching POV points, and you removed the heading for protecting the page which leads me to believe you literally blanked the page and copy pasted an old version, and inserted a Wikipedia fork as a source despite me having mentioned that earlier in one of my edit summaries. You then went on to the talk page and claimed that the sources in question supported your view, to which I had to spend time transcribing to prove that they don't. Now you're still claiming on that talk page that the sources support your view?

Can we look at a temporary ban for Shabiha as well until needed work is done on these articles? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You removed a lot of headings even with out following neccessary etiquette of discussing them then I added sources in in to various headings which were removed by you with a clear Bias towards Article.Now Again you removed them and brought incomplete picture here.Is this really in Good faith? You removed a large sourced chunk , and made a complaint here. Shabiha (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Shabiha, your inability to accept the input of neutral editors is precisely why I've called for a topic ban; you're only reinforcing my call, at present. The contributions to the article you directly informed me about were 100% correct and absolutely should've been done. The other one is an edit you two have disputed for a while, but no one else has really gotten involved. Neither diff showed any evidence of biased editing. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with Qwyrxian's comments (way above). We do not have enough community consensus for topic bans. Also, there should be no indef of Hassanfarooqi at this point; it would be unfair based on the talk page issues. I'm ignoring the fact that he's practically asking to be indeffed. I'm willing to let Qwyrxian issue the warnings as sufficiently uninvolved. If he feels uncomfortable doing so, perhaps we could fashion the appropriate warning, and I'll do it. More than anything else, I'd like a little clarity going forward. (The new account is an obvious sock and/or troll.)--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh I have been threatedned here [82] in these words,result won't be good for you. Yesterday MezzoMezzo had removed some sections due to lack of sources and that too with out a discussion. Can he do so with out reaching on a consensus when he has been accused of pushing his POV many times.My addition of sources was rejected [83] was on my way of restoring some removed heading with sources [84] [85] and added more sources to another heading here [86] [87] trying to add his stand on a concept [88] and added more sources [89]

Now I request you to see and read other side of this sad story where MezzoMezzo has canavassed,incited, tried to potray himself as Good faith editor but his continuous editing on Sufi pages without discussion and with out good faith has harassed me.His potraying himself as most civil editor while adressing/attacking many editors personally,attempting to incite them by his trollings and following them has proven beyond doubt how much honest he is?He today and yesterday edited this page just to prove a Point that Barelvi movement is new sect founded actually by Ahmed Raza Khan while ground researchers and PhD holders who have done their work on this movement through out his life have proven that Sufi Movement of India is known as Barelvis by Salafis etc.There are numerous sources which contradict his point but he is here to push his POV so he will not stop.He can mock and harass as many times as he may wish.The page had these words supported by valid sources since long and he changed it according to his wishes.He removed many headings yesterday to which I today tried to add with sources but he cares for none and reverted and complained here. Shabiha (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uh, most people appear to agree with the majority of MezzoMezzo's edits. Mezzo has made some errors, but he is certainly not the bad faith editor you're accusing him of being. The things you keep citing as being "POV-pushing" is no more biased than any of your edits, and probably less so. You also continuously make points about his personal beliefs that are COMPLETELY inappropriate to make. Fact is, you're now insulting MezzoMezzo by referring to them as a troll, and making comments about personal attacks without evidence, let alone the fact they're also incorrect. Maybe you should get a similar ban to Msoamu... Lukeno94 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the solution is, I think it might not be implemented until things calm down here. Judging by the talk page at Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, Shabiha already seems close to falling back into edit warring in order to defend disruptive edits. Six years experience with him and I can sort of guestimate when short waves of such behavior are about to occur. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Warnings given

I've just formally warned MezzoMezzo, Msoamu, Hassanfarooqi, and Shabiha. The warnings were customized for each editor, but in summary each of them state that any future problems are incivility or edit warring is going to result in blocks. If someone wants to add something to my warnings, feel free to do so. I don't keep any of the relevant articles on my watchlist (I think), so I can't say that I'll be monitoring the situation, but any editor is welcome to bring violations to ANI. The involved editors, however, should note that bringing a frivolous complain to ANI will itself be considered a violation and could result in blocks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Tea Party movement; looking for community input

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Tea Party movement; looking for community input

 – Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tea Party movement / US politics KillerChihuahua 06:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tea_Party_movement. RNealK (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they changed it. The sub-page here is still being edited, too. KillerChihuahua 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Gaba p playing the race card in content dicussions

[90] Third: your mention of Chavez's crass comments is borderland racist. Aside from the crude spelling, the accusation of racism is a clear attempt to chill the discussion. I've seen exactly the same tactic before, repeatedly accusing another editor of being racist, repeat often enough and mud sticks. He had a chance to apologise, [91] instead he simply repeated it. The only example of racism here is his presumption I'm white in making such an accusation. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like charges of near-racist comments (or charges of charging someone of near-racist comments) are the least of the problems going on at that talk page. Trench warfare appears to have broken out there, in fact, and the name-calling is just a symptom. Sounds like DRN didn't work for you guys - might I suggest mediation or an RfC to resolve the issue, rather than everyone continuing to throw grenades at each other? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No change is too trivial to [92] to revert war over [93] if I make it and he tries to start arguments over the most ridiculously trivial things [94], [95]. Yes I know its childish and no I don't intend to play his games but if you have someone going at you constantly it gets wearing and you snap. Why is no one prepared to do something about this guy hounding me constantly. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is just an attempt at sidetracking the efforts at the talk page where we've been a month re-factoring a section after Wee deleted it with no consensus to do so. There are currently four editors over there agreeing to edit in a given version of the section and he just keeps introducing changes with neither source nor good reason[96][97] going directly against the wording present in the source used. I'll repeat what I said over there:

• I do believe referring to the official statements by the president of a Latin American nation as crass comments is borderline racist, as I believe referring to the actions of a female president as a "hissy fit" (as you did not long ago[98][99]) is borderline misogynistic (and I told you that much at the time). I'd suggest striking that part of your comment.

It would appear Wee has a distinctive contempt for presidents Chavez and Kirchner but it is definitely not ok for those feelings to permeate into his WP editing. Wee, your accusations of hounding and constant personal attacks ("disruptive", "childish", etc..) have gotten really old by now. It'd be nice if you could just drop them.

Please note I did not call him a "racist" but he did call me a "dick" earlier today (not the first time by a long shot). Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I am a volunteer at WP:DRN, and I tried to assist with this content dispute. There are nationalistic (UK vs Argentina) undertones permeating the dispute. The DRN case failed to reach a resolution. There is quite a bit of edit-warring happening, although I don't think the 3RR limit has been reached. The big problem here is the tendentious editing ... some of the editors are filibustering and refusing to work towards a consensus. My advice is for an admin to protect the page for 2 weeks or so; and to initiate an RfC. I'm trying to think of how to frame the RfC question, but dont have a great idea yet. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) With regard to "reciprocating" vs. "in return for": The two are basically synonymous in this context, and it is not identified as a quote, so I don't believe "stick[ing] to the wording of the source" is required. However, making such an edit during the middle of a content dispute seems like a bad idea, particularly if the other party is inclined to pick at it. I'd stick to editing only what absolutely has to be done in such cases, and leave the language "polishing" for a later time and perhaps editors uninvolved in the current controversy. To pick a grammar (not style) point, I believe the comma preceding "in return for" doesn't belong, or "reciprocating" needs "for" after it (i.e. it should be either "...sovereignty claim in return for Argentina's..." or "...sovereignty claim, reciprocating for Argentina's...").

As far as calling a country's leader's comments "crass" (and without reference to or knowledge of the particular comments involved), I don't see anything inherently nationalistic or discriminatory about it – the leaders of many countries have made crass ("coarse, crude, not refined or sensible") comments at one time or another, and have likely had them described as such in mainstream reliable sources. "Hissy-fit" is more commonly gender-related and colloquial. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I also refererred to Cameron as pretentious prick and I'm also on record as describing Gordon Brown's resignation as a hissy fit. Most former soldiers regard politicians with a healthy degree of contempt. None of which actually feeds through into content I suggest thats a complete red herring. I'd also comment the nationalistic undertones are very one sided ie come from one party.

None of the above justify calling another editor a racist, this is purely about chilling discussion with unfounded and unsustainable allegations. I do however note the person making such an allegations is making presumptions that are of themselves racist in nature. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, everyone cool down. This seems all too familiar.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• As mentioned in the past few times there were here - interaction ban time - its clear they will never get along. Moxy (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Before this degenerates much further, may I ask the small question of "what is the admin action being requested?" Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you actually do something to stop Gaba P baiting me please.

I am tired of the frivolous complaints here, I am tired of him going around telling everyone I am blocking things or alleging I am engaged in misconduct, I am tired of having to defend myself against frivolous allegations of misconduct by this guy but most of all I'm tired of this guy's constant personal attacks.

This is entirely one sided and stems from the fact he was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Alex79818, for which he has conducted a vendetta against me ever since. As its one sided I would like a one way interaction ban please. Make it two way if I abuse it but you have my word that I won't. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I think this has gone far enough. Wee has been accusing me of being a sock puppet of user User:Alex79818 for over a year now. After Wee first accused me of this (Feb 2012) I was blocked by admin User:Nick-D. The block was lifted after I gave away my right to anonymity to an admin (Wee knows the RLI of this user so the admin, User:JamesBWatson, could compare and see I was not that person) Wee was not convinced and since then his accusations have not stopped. Actually they have gotten worse. He doesn't imply it anymore, he is here now directly stating I am that user. This needs to stop.

At every ANI we were involved in since early 2012 (~3-4) he repeated the same accusations and I repeated my good faith proposition to once again give away my right to anonymity to some willing admin so he/she could check that I was not that user. No admin (except from the first one who ended up lifting my block a year ago) ever took up on my offer; Wee's accusations were simply ignored and his vitriol eventually dissipated until a new event like this one emerged.

He now is asking that I be banned accused of being such a sock puppet so I think it would be better if the matter could be put to rest once and for all. This is my proposal: I will do absolutely anything it is required from me to prove I am not the user Wee accuses me of. I am prepared to give any admin here access to my FB and G+ accounts and will submit myself to any test that might be necessary to determine I am not that person. If I can't convince the admin I am not the person Wee accuses me of being, I will retire from WP myself. If on the other hand, the admin can check for him/herself I am not that person then I ask that Wee be banned from interacting with me. I believe this to be the only way his accusations and constant attacks will ever stop.

Finally: please stop by the talk page of the article to see where the personal attacks and disruptive editing were coming from. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Point of order: Wee did not say you are that user in his above statement, merely that you were blocked as a sock of that user.

That said, the current issue is your assertion that Wee's statement was "racist." That needs to be withdrawn, as it's well agreed his comment was not racist. Once that's out of the way, we can look into the rest, if necessary. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Although I can not change what I believe I hereby withdraw my comment about Wee's Chavez remark being "borderline racist". I'll be more careful next time about commenting on what I could perceive as being "borderline racist".

Now regarding the issue of constant sock puppet accusations by Wee: here are the diffs where he accused me of being a sock puppet of said user since last year (there could be more lost in between): 22 Jun 2012, 21 Sep 2012, 23 Sep 2012, 17 Dec 2012, 16 Jan 2013, 16 Jan 2013, 29 Jan 2013, 30 Jan 2013. Not counting the times he casually brings it up like he did here today. So I repeat the proposal I made above. Wee can provide the RLI of that blocked user and I will submit myself to absolutely any test that a voluntary admin might believe to be necessary in order to confirm I am not that person. If I fail to convince him/her then I will voluntarily retire from WP. If it can be proven I am not that editor then I ask for Wee Curry Monster to be banned from interacting with me. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're saying you'll make that offer again then I'll make the same response as last time. Ignoring WP:OUTING concerns for a moment, it would be trivial for an editor minded to sockpuppetry to make up an identity and even if Curry Monster had got it wrong there is almost no chance that the name would be the same as that provided by a sockmaster.

Unless they were really quite stupid, a sockmaster would not give the same name as Curry Monster. A non-sockmaster also would not give the same name as Curry Monster. That your claimed RL identity does not match one provided by Curry Monster proves nothing because there are no circumstances in which you would ever have both given the same name.

Here's the facts. You were blocked as a sockpuppet of Alex79818. More than one admin at the time opined that the evidence that you were the same person was convincing. And we can drive a coach and horses through the logic that saw you unblocked.

Finally, the best way for you to avoid Curry Monster would be to avoid areas where he is likely to be around. That would be the Falklands for a start. And if, as you propose, an editor is to be sanctioned, it seems to me rather more logical that it should be for the editor who has already been warned and then blocked for personal attacks in the present discussion (then it was accusations of lying), and who has been brought here because of yet more personal attacks. Kahastok talk 20:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

So your solution for having Wee stop attacking and accusing me of sock-puppetry is that I stop editing? And that sounds reasonable to you? Gaba p (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For editors here not aware: Kahastok and Wee were topic-banned not long ago from editing Gibraltar related articles. Their team behaviour over there (defending each other's edits and actions) is a clear reflection of what goes on at Falkland related articles (clearly seen in Kahastok's comment above). They have both quite a distinctive pro-British position which they attempt to enforce in articles covering Gibraltar and the Falklands, both former British colonies.

Kahastok: Wee Curry Monster knows the RLI of that user. It's not just a name, it's his true identity as a person. I am not offering to give just my name to any admin that volunteers, I am offering to submit myself to absolutely any test to assert my identity and confirm I am not that person. If, like Wee, you too believe I am that editor then I offer you the same deal: if I can prove I am not that editor by once again giving away my right to anonymity and submitting myself to any test considered necessary, then you get an interaction ban on me.

Just to be clear: I am not looking for sanctions on anybody here; unlike Wee and Kahastok who have been trying to have me banned for quite some time now. I just don't want to leave yet another ANI knowing that whenever Wee feels like throwing mud at me, the sock puppetry accusations will resurface again. If Wee makes here a pledge to not accuse me of being a sock puppet of that editor again then this can be dropped instantly. Otherwise I see no other way around this. An editor can't possibly be allowed to accuse another editor of being a sock puppet time and again with no consequences whatsoever.
If giving away my right to anonymity in WP and agreeing to submit myself to any test considered necessary are not enough to put an end to sock puppetry accusations then what is? Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction, some time ago whilst in bad state mentally, as it happens I suffer from PTSD from my service in the British Army, I went through a period of being quite uncivil. It was uncharacteristic, I acknowledged my faults, accepted a topic ban and I've not repeated the same behaviour since. Constantly bringing up a case from the past, something that is painful for me to acknowledge but which is actually irrelevant is contrary to WP:CIVIL. Its trying to muddy the waters and its not the first time Gaba P has done it.

Sadly it seems on wikipedia that once sanctioned for any reason, it can be dragged up with impunity purely to cause personal anguish. Pointing fingers at the mentally ill seems to be a common bloodsport on here.

I just want to put Gaba P's comments into context his initial unblock request was refused, as the sock puppet case was compelling, he was later given the benefit of the doubt after assistance from me and later warned not to continue the personal attacks in the same vein. User:Alex79818 plagued me for years, despite that I gave Gaba P the benefit of the doubt and co-operated with having him unblocked, only for that to be repaid by Gaba P conducting a vendetta ever since trying to get me sanctioned. If he had left me alone, if he hadn't started the frivolous cases at ANI, then I would have felt no need to comment on the sock puppet case at all. As noted above he was recently blocked for personal attacks and has come back doing the same. That has to be the worst none apology I've seen here in a while. He managed to repeat the same allegation three times.

And no I'm not after him banned, I just want the constant personal attacks stopped. I don't seek interaction with him, he seeks me out wherever I edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of corrections are needed after Wee's comment above.

1. He never "cooperated" with my unblock. He didn't even bother stopping by my talk page after I was blocked following an accusation by him. This can easily be checked by going through my block archive. I searched and found by myself the information that he knew the RLI of this blocked user and Wee only provided it after I asked an admin to request it from him. Again, this can all be easily confirmed looking at my block archive.
2. I've started only 2 cases at ANI: the first after Wee refused to stop re-factoring my comments (which ended up with him agreeing no to do it again) and the second one after he and Kahastok completely deleted a section from an article with no consensus. The section in question could only be re-installed a couple of days ago after a month of work by at least 6 editors and both these editors attempted to remove it on sight once again: [100][101][102][103].
3. Wee is definitely after me being banned, at least from Falkland related articles. He even asked that much not long ago. When the admin suggested that he too be topic banned from Falkland related articles he said "fuck wikipedia, I'm out of here" (never really left)
4. "he seeks me out wherever I edit", he edits (almost?) exclusively in Falkland and Gibraltar articles. If I edit on any Falkland related article he will be there. I am a part of the Falkland Islands work group just like Wee but unlike him I have other interests too. I have so far edited in no more than 4-5 Falkland related articles of the several dozens around, yet Wee still accuses me of following him around.

Wee, I will not bother commenting on your accusations of "personal attacks" since they are simply a way to distract attention from the fact that you have still not agreed to stop accusing me of being a sock puppet. You either agree to stop your accusations or we look for admin to check whether I am or not the same person as that blocked user. If I have to once again give away my right to anonymity because of your constant accusations and once again an admin decides I am not that person then you get an interaction ban on me. You can't expect me to just sit down and take your "sock-puppet" accusations whenever you feel like throwing mud at me. One way or another this needs to stop. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, point of order re: your #1: If you had followed the diff, you'd have seen that the unblocking admin was convinced in part by an email from Wee. That he did not comment on your talk page is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I see diffs are being abused again to paint a misleading picture, see [104], [105], I self-reverted shortly after the diffs presented above. I realised two wrongs don't make a right and fixed it, including an apology to the originating editor. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

@HandThatFeeds: that email from Wee was only issued after I asked admin JamesBWatson to check into it after I serendipitously found out that Wee knew this user's RLI by myself. Wee absolutely never bothered to stop by my talk page to make any kind of comment after making the accusation and getting me blocked and most certainly did not send that email out of the kindness of his heart. He did so because an administrator asked him to and only after I had revealed my RLI as a last resort to get my account back.

Note that he still refuses to address the point of calling me a sock puppet which means he has no intention of dropping it. I can not accept that this editor has the privilege of accusing me of being a sock puppet every time he wishes to. How is that not a gross breach of WP:CIVIL? What else can I do to stop these accusations other than what I've already proposed? Gaba p (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As an outside comment with no interaction with any of the above, I can say that whenever I have seen Gaba p and WCM come up at noticeboards recently (this year) it ALWAYS ends up with WCM bringing up Gaba was blocked as a sockpuppet. (Erroneously as it turns out). Can an admin please tell WCM to stop doing this unless he actually thinks Gaba is a sockpuppet, and to take that accusation to SPI. Its getting very tiresome and serves no purpose other than to deliberately wind up Gaba as anyone can see above. And no hiding behind 'well I didnt say you WERE a sockpuppet'. Bringing it up at every opportunity is deliberately planting the idea. Its just as bad. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The block and unblock discussion is here User talk:Gaba p/Archive 1.

A condition of his unblock was to stop personal attacks [106] to edit constructively and collaboratively. He has continued to be confrontational and aggressive and has pursued a vendetta against me ever since.

The faux outrage about any mention of the sock puppet case is merely a distraction tactic from the issue of his battleground mentality. I bring it up because it is relevant, nothing more, nothing less. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Noting that:

1- this has been going for over a year now and Wee shows absolutely no intentions of dropping his constant accusations (even regarding my repeated requests that he stops doing so as "faux outrage") and

2- he comments on my "battleground mentality" when he can't even bring himself to agree to stop attacking me with false accusations of being a sock puppet,

I believe it is time to address this issue in an ANI report of its own. Unless an admin here proposes another solution I'll be opening a new ANI to deal specifically with this in the coming days. I refuse to accept that this user can simply decide not to stop calling me a sock puppet. Finally: please any editor reading this head on over to the talk page of the article where this started and see for yourselves who has the battleground mentality. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been warned before about threatening to take people to ANI as well. It very rarely helps.

I don't believe that Curry Monster is accusing you of sockpuppetry here. But it is not unreasonable of him to point out that since being unblocked with a stern warning to stop personally attacking people, remove the POV from your edits and remove the battleground mentality. You have continued to personally attack people and continued with the battleground mentality, and continued to edit from a POV - to the extent that not so long ago, in our current discussion, you were actually citing Argentina's foreign minister as a neutral and reliable source. And let's remember which editor has already been blocked at ANI - when discussing the same point - for repeatedly accusing other editors of lying. It wasn't Curry Monster. And it wasn't me.

Even when you were unblocked, your style was seen as "aggressive and confrontational", and it has not become significantly less so. The fact that it was a sockpuppetry block is irrelevant to this point - if it had been a 3RR block the point would be the same. You were told to change your style and you have not done so. Kahastok talk 14:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Kahastok's continued attacks on me teaming with Wee are not unusual since he behaves the same way everywhere (just ask User:Michael_Glass[107], or User:Martinvl[108], or User:Ecemaml[109] who dealt with them in Gibraltar articles). Talk about abusing diffs, I used the Buenos Aires Herald as a source which happened to be quoting said minister. When that source was questioned I immediately (exactly 20 minutes later) changed the proposed wording and source used. Incidentally, notice Kahastok's completely random mud throwing.

This is exactly why I'm proposing (notice the difference with "threatening" Kahastok?) to open a new ANI to deal specifically with this. Both Wee and Kahastok keep looking for ways to accuse me of anything instead of addressing the issue of repeated accusation of sock puppetry. I'll wait until tomorrow and, if nothing else is proposed, open a new report. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Stone me. If there is going to be another war... I think we know where it's gonna start _{What you mean, it already has?!?!?!} Basket _Feudalist 18:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Gaba p and Langus txt, Lord knows I did not want to comment or interact with you again, but Gaba, your tactics never change and editors and administrators need to know the truth. You keep trying to "change the subject of your abusive attacks and comments" hoping they forget the real problem here. Well, I will never forget. I tried to make some edits on the "article", and to defend an obvious untruths against another editor, and this is what I got. [110] It should be noted that it was on YOUR talkpage, even though it is signed by Langus txt, that is strange enough, but then you left it there until I found it and removed it myself. You should be blocked for that alone, along with your "alter-ego?" Langus txt. Mugginsx (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, whilst I saw how you were treated by both, it has to be noted that Langus-TxT has made an effort to edit in a more collegial manner of late. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe it, perhaps he likes to play to both sides, I really do not know. One thing I do know, he is NOT sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mugginsx, not again. User Mugginsx appears out of the blue every time to defend Wee and viciously attack me (and sometimes editor Langus too). This user does not take part of the discussions in any way but nevertheless shows up whenever Wee is in trouble. This is the third ANI this user has showed up to do the exact same thing: [111][112] always asking that I be sanctioned in one way or another. Your comment on editor Langus is so amazingly random I am lost for words. You appeared in my talk page accusing me of stalking Wee (just like he does, nevermind it is completely untrue) and Langus responded to you. I don't even want to consider that you might be accusing me and Langus of what I think you are accusing me and Langus, so I'll just leave it at that.

Wee's replies just reinforce my idea to open a new ANI to deal with the constant accusations of sock puppetry. He's had the chance to either agree to not do it again or take me to SPI as Only in death does duty end suggested above but instead has chosen to continue attacking me aided by Kahastok and now apparently Mugginsx too. This needs to stop. Gaba p (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Gaba for proving my point. For heavens sakes, did you not even read what you linked here? Here we go again back to "changing the subject" Your characterization of my remark on your page does not have any similarity to the truth. My relationship with any editor you mention is true ONLY IN YOUR MIND. On the other hand, you believe you can make the seamy attack aimed at me [113] in the "first person" on YOUR page look just "innocent and random". For once you have made me laugh. Mugginsx (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mugginsx please stop for a second and think what exactly you are talking about. I characterized your uncalled for attack on my talk page that I was "stalking Wee" as nonsense and I have absolutely no problem saying it here too. It was and still is utter nonsense. If you want to take that as a "seamy attack" there's really nothing I can do about it. The ones changing the topic here are Wee, Kahastok and now yourself and nothing changes the fact that you appear out of the blue whenever Wee needs a hand throwing mud at either me or editor Langus or both. Your behaviour has gotten really old by now.

Thank you for proving that attempting to discuss the matter of Wee's constant sock puppetry accusations at this ANI report will be near impossible. Unless an admin advises otherwise I'll open a new report tomorrow. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, I never mentioned any names in that link you gave here or anywhere else and you also know full well which remark I am talking about that I described as seamy. I have linked it here twice. Please do not try to act dumb with me. It does not become a physicist. Mugginsx (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

So you were accusing me of "stalking" some other editor? Which editor was that? Considering that you had already accused me of stalking Wee previously (should I present links proving this?), I think we both now that is exactly what you were doing. The link you gave here twice is me calling your accusations of "stalking" in my talk page nonsense. Your accusation of "acting dumb" are just bizarre. Mugginsx I'll ask you to please stop disrupting the discussion. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Shall we put the full disgusting message left for me on your talk page here for all to see Gaba? As for My message to you on your talkpage, it was a sincere suggestion that you might benefit from mentoring and my offer to help find you someone qualified to help you. I see you conveniently left that off the link you provided which no matter how many times you say it, does NOT mention any names. Do you think everyone here is a fool? Is that it? Do you think you are so clever that you can say anything and editors will believe you? If so, that is dillusional thinking my fellow editor and I advise you to stop playing this little, and I do mean little mind game of yours. Mugginsx (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Mugginsx mate, I feel like I enter the Twilight Zone every time I have a discussion with you.

1- I know it is utterly disrupting the discussion at hand but for god's sake please put up the "full disgusting message" I left for you on my talk page because I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.

2- The link I provided is exactly the same link you provided here twice (!!)

3- Finally: here's the proof that you had already falsely accused me of stalking Wee by the time you appeared on my talk page out of the blue three months later to accuse me of stalking "certain editors". If you are implying that in your accusation you meant some other editor then please say who because, once again, I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Gaba p (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I already did, more than once. Don't you pay attention? You seem to like to sound smug and superior Gaba but you come across as neither. If you do not think that message on your talk page was inappropriate and yes, disgusting, then there is something very wrong with your idea of propriety on Wikipedia. They were rude, insulting and sexist. Further, you seem to come to every discussion like it is a "game" to you and that you are the smartest player and everyone else just can't help but believe what you say. I agree with you that you must feel like you are in the Twilight Zone and I have no doubt you are confused when someone calls you to reality. You know EXACTLY what I am talking about. You seem to make a game out of this to amuse yourself - look at your edit count - under 20% of it is content editing - the rest is talk. It is almost as if you enjoy seeing yourself in print regardless of what you have to say to do it. I don't. I am through with you. Editors and Administrators can find the links and see the obvious if they want to. I am going back to content editing which is what I do. You can continue to attack, evade, change and widen the parameters of the discussion, and then to maintain ignorance and innocence when it suits you. You have already been blocked more than once. I fear if you do not change, you will be blocked again. Mugginsx (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please clearly link to the message you're referring to? So far the only message I've seen linked is [114]. While Gaba P's edit summary and subject title change was rude, as is the message by Langus-TxT, I don't see any anything sexist there and it definitely doesn't seem as bad as the message you seem to be referring to (I definetly wouldn't call it disgusting). I admit I may be missing some contex here as I have no idea who youknowho refers to. But if the message by Langus in my link is what you're referring to, then you may want to explain why it's so bad. All it seems to be is a rudely written accusation of possible meatpuppetry or inappropiate collobration combined with an accusation of stalking, hounding and fixation on certain editors, which is wrong particularly when nsupported. But unfortunately these sort of accusations and messages seem to be flying both ways here. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I did a bit more digging and found out you are female. I see historically Gaba P referred to you as 'he', while I understand this can be offensive, it is common. When it was pointed out to them you self identified as female they said something like 'they'd seen no evidence but would call you she', this could be seen as offensive if the meaning is they don't believe you are female but I think our only option here is to AGF they actually meant they'd never seen where you self identified as female. There was also some kerfuffle over a case where Gaba P said something along the lines of you being fond of Wee. This would be highly inappropriate if they were suggesting you had some sort of romantic feelings or 'crush' on Wee but they have said this was not their intention and I would agree with others who commented at the time that I'm just not seeing it. Note that I don't see how their could be anything sexist about it since from what I can tell Gaba P wasn't even aware you were female at the time so even if your intepretation was correct, it seems clear they could not be making the assumption that was the case because of your sex. I'm not sure if the same problem arises here. If youknowho refers to Wee I can see how the remarks by Langus could be intepreted as suggesting you had some sort of romantic feelings or crush on Wee. But while it's slightly more possible here then the Gaba P case, I'm just not seeing it particularly given the comment on whether you are related. In any case, since the comments weren't written by Gaba P, I don't think you can blame them for not seeing the same ting you're seeing which as I've said is far from clear in my eyes. Note that even if Langus had meant it in they way I brought up, while the comments would be highly inapproriate, they aren't necessarily sexist. Are you even sure Langus is aware you are female or do you have any reason to think their suggestions arose because of you sex (or for that matter that they're thinking of it in a romantic or sexual sort of way as opposed to a more 'stalker fan' sort of way)? If you really feel that strongly about it, I'd suggest you seek clarification from Langus, hopefully this could be sufficiently resolved in the manner of Gaba P's comments of you being fond of Wee. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For the love of god Mugginsx. Could you please tell me what comment of mine you are referring to as "nasty" and "vile"? This is seriously getting ridiculous.

Nil Einne: I referred to her as a he in the beginning just by default. I commented that I had no "evidence" but would call her a "she" because it was Wee who pointed out I should refer to her as a female, not her. She never once told me she found my referring to her as "he" offensive (did she?). I commented on her (at the time I didn't even know she was a woman) being "fond" of Wee because she would come out of the blue to defend him ferociously (like she's doing here) I absolutely did not meant it in a romantic way but in the "having a liking or affection" way. I checked with an admin if that message could be interpreted as sexist and he came to the same conclusion you did. In any case I'm not even sure anymore if that is what she's talking about or if it is the comment by editor Langus that she linked here twice. If the case is the latter then again, I have absolutely no idea what she's talking about and it wasn't even me who made that comment. If you could explain it to me (given that she seems not willing to do so) I'd appreciate it. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic ban

After the above comments, it is clear that both parties have engaged in very uncivil behavior. Wee frequently makes sockpuppet accusations, while Gaba has made claims of racism (albeit, borderline), a violation of WP: NPA. The atrocious amount of manure flinging, as well as innumerable attempts to get each other's WP: GOAT, as well as the odd comments strawman by Mugginsx clearly establish that there is a problem in dire need of a solution. Ergo, I believe that a topic ban on Falklands-related articles, IMHO, on both editors would be an appropriate course of action. However, I will support an interaction ban if the community finds that a better solution to the problem. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No that is not a fair or accurate appreciation of the situation. Point of fact at every WP:ANI discussion it has been remarked that I have remained civil despite some very strong provocation. I have been called a liar, a racist, a POV pusher, a British nationalist and a hardcore Falklander. He even called me a liar at ANI and was encouraged to do so.

Gaba P wants me to be topic banned that much is plain - you'll propose to give hime exactly what he wants. He creates the poisonous atmosphere, I don't.

Further I don't make sock puppet allegations,I refer to the original unblocking for a good reason. We see a huge faux over-reaction claiming I am doing so but its a distraction tactic to draw attention away from the warnings on his uncivil behaviour and his battleground mentality. As User:Basalisk noted at the 2nd ANI case it is a case of one editor paralysing an entire topic - and its instructive to note that within hrs of Gaba p being blocked for 31 hrs for incivility the editors remaining agreed on a consensus that proved elusive with his presence.

Gaba P constantly displays the kind of battleground mentality and uncivil demeanor that should have seen him blocked long ago. He covers it up very successfully by spraying around a lot of false accusations, throws in a couple of diffs (which don't support the accusation but they're not checked anyway) and he gets away with it time and agin. The message I'm getting quite loudly is that I am wasting my time expecting anyone at ANI to enforce civil and in reality I'm probably adding to my stress levels unnecessarily by remaining civil in the face of such provocation as I may as well vent back - it doesn't matter as I will be sanctioned for being the victim of his WP:HOUNDing. He has pursued a childish vendetta for a year to get revenge for being blocked and you're proposing to give him what he wants - to get someone with a great deal of knowledge about Falklands history topic banned. Absolutely brilliant.

You want this to stop, make this a one way interaction ban - stop him hounding me. I don't seek him out and if I were to abuse it I would expect you to block me indefinitely. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And another thing, though he was blocked, I was convinced to give him a chance and help with his unblocking. My reward for that was to be hounded by the guy for a year and no one has stopped him doing so. You propose to reward my WP:AGF by topic banning me from an area where I have made a huge contribution. Gee thanks. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

While I have some sympathy to those who feel someone is a sockpuppet but for various reason it hasn't been firmly established e.g. a previous sockpuppetry case was inconclusive, ultimately there comes a point where you have to put up or shut up. Particularly when the aggrevied party is clearly annoyed by your accusations. In other words, if a user remains unblocked, either put together a successful SPI or stop making the accusations until such time you can. Except that unless I missed it, you have refused to undertake to stop making such accusations instead suggesting it's not an issue. In fact above you appear to be suggesting you do not make such allegations instead simply refer to original unblock. Except I've seen myself from links in this thread e.g. [115] [116] that you are or were very recently, so your comments in defence are actually reenforcing my view below. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, while I haven't looked that much at the articles and talk pages, I'm tempted to support based on the fact when doing some research I found most ANI discussions that I saw involving them seem to amount to large walls of text with those two and one or two other regular participants, and very little outside participation. If this sort of thing is going on at ANI, I can only imagine what's happening in he actual disputes and what I have seen and read seems to confirm it ain't pretty. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I deserve a topic ban, I remained civil throughout a discussion that came about after Wee edit-warred to remove a whole section form an article[117][118][119] not caring that the RfC that Wee himself opened in no way permitted him to do so. Just read the comments by the closing editor[120][121][122] on that RfC. Wee did not care and removed the section anyway. After this came a whole month of re-factoring the section where, contrary to what Wee says here, it was him and Kahastok who kept blocking the consensus. A simple look at the talk page con prove this, please go take a look. Wee even made an issue of a minor edit himself later called "too fucking trivial to argue about" but he made an issue out of it anyway[123]. That is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour.

Wee accuses me of hounding (one of many things he accuses me of), how about a single diff? How about when I edited an article Wee had not edited for a month and a half and he immediately started lobbying[124][125] accusing me of multiple things (much like he did in his comment above)? The answers he got[126][127] were not was he was expecting so he moved to attack me in the talk page of the article. My exchange in the talk page of that article with other editors had gone without a single issue, while Wee's first comment there was a direct attack on me accusing me of "soap-boxing".

Is calling me a "dick" repeatedly[128][129] being civil? Is calling me a "filibuster" a dozen times in a ten day time span[130][131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138][139][140][141] being civil? Is calling me a "sock puppet" for over a year (and dismissing my repeated requests that he drops it as "faux outrage") [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149] being civil? The talk page history proves I have remained civil, again please take a look.

A simple way for this to stop would be to block Wee from interacting with me. That takes care of the accusations (all of them) he has no intention of dropping, I'm spared having to give away my right to anonymity once again and we both can continue editing. I am not the first editor to have issues with Wee (and Kahastok) and his WP:OWN mentality, as can be easily proven[150][151][152]. He had an infinite amount of chances throughout the last year, and an enormous amount just here in this discussion, to agree to stop accusing me of being a sock puppet (or take me to SPI) and refused every time. Now it's being proposed that I be topic banned along with him. This is definitely not fair. Gaba p (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User: Der Kommisar, I think your characterization of my comments as "odd" is unfair. I think if you read the message that I linked which I had to remove from Gaba p's page, you would agree that it is not a message you would like your mother or sister to receive. I would ask that you strike-through your remark that characterizes my comments as "odd". They were a normal reaction to a very nasty message, especially to a woman. I could have requested to have him blocked but chose to give him a chance to apologize, which, of course, he never did. I did begin to edit on that article but chose to back away after seeing the hositility between editors and then vile comments made to me personally. Mugginsx (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In answer to Nil Einne. Yes I do still entertain a suspicion of sock puppetry. I deliberately did not bring it up here as its not the place. I agree I shouldn't have mentioned it previously; mea culpa. I am minded to go to SPI with the behavioural evidence but a two way interaction ban would be chilling in that respect.

The reason I did mention the previous block was simply because it marks nearly a year of near constant personal attacks, confrontation and aggression from Gaba p, when a year ago he was warned to stop it. He never has, in fact as he has escaped two previous ANI episodes without sanction, he has merely got bolder and bolder in the way he does it.

I see Gaba is making a great deal of me referring to WP:DICK as in to stop behaving like one. I am not calling him a DICK. Leave me alone Gaba, stop the constant personal attacks and guess what I'll not mention it again.

Filibustering, yes he does that. I've provided evidence previously that demonstrates it completely. A common feature is to demand evidence in the form of sourcing, you do so, he then demands it again claiming it was never supplied. Repeat ad nauseum and you get the reason for those long tracts of text going back and forth.

One of the more bizarre aspects of wikipedia is you expect me to discuss matters to achieve a consensu with a guy like Gaba P. In a parallel with Randy from Idaho and the skeleton theory, you expect editors used to neutral writing to discuss matters with extreme nationalists to find the neutral ground.

I do that, then when it gets to ANI, those long tracts of text are evidence of me being a problem. I don't do it and I'll no doubt be accused of not co-operating to find a consensus.

Either way you're fucked if you do and fucked if you don't.

Really even for wikipedia this is bizarre. Acting in good faith, I help an editor looking at whether there is room for reasonable doubt in a sock puppet case. Per WP:OUT I should not have revealed RLI of even a sock puppet. I took a risk, JamesBWatson took a risk, my reward for doing so has been for Gaba P to pursue a vendetta for vengeance for the original block ever since.

Really I have reached the point where I am just about done with wikipedia.

A topic ban in my case is purely punitive for being the brunt of Gaba P's obsessive behaviour that is really online stalking. The fact that as the victim of his aggression I now face being topic banned from an area where I have made a huge contribution is not only a huge slap in the face but also a monumental injustice.

Gaba P has set out to get me sanctioned for over a year, even if it takes himself down. All I've asked is that he leaves me alone to get on with the editing I used to enjoy. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to double-guess people's political opinions as such, I have little doubt that I would (probably strongly) disagree with WCM's on these matters; however I think a TB would be an outrageous affront to a current editor, and a deterent to future editors. No topic ban please, in the name of sanity. Basket _Feudalist 17:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1- Wee still keeps accusing me of being a sock puppet even after I gave away my right to anonymity and after I have proposed here to do just about anything it takes to have him stop accusing me of such. This has been going one for a year now.

2- You didn't call me a "dick"? "stop being a complete and utter WP:DICK"[153], "it really is about time you grew up and stop being a WP:DICK"[154]. People can follow and read diffs Wee.

3- Filibustering is but one of the things Wee has accused me in the last year. "POV pusher", "disruptive editor", "sock puppet", "stalker", etc are among the other things he has accused me of. It only takes a brief look through the talk pages of the handful of articles I've tried to contribute and Wee has tried to run me off: Falkland Islands, Self-determination and Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute.

4- Wee's bias when editing earned him a topic ban not long ago and as I've said, I am not nearly the only editor with whom he has had trouble in WP[155][156][157].

5- He keeps telling how he "helped" with my unblock when he did not bother showing up once by my talk page after accusing me of being a sock puppet and getting my account blocked. He only presented evidence for the RLI of that other editor after I found that he knew who he was and after I asked an admin to please check it out as a last resort to have my account un-blocked. That Wee thinks he can claim here that he "helped" me in any way is laughable.

6- He just keeps on accusing me of "hounding" him but has yet to present a single diff of me doing so. This is just another one of his non-stop unfounded personal attacks and, as I've proven above, he did follow me over to an article to attack me not two months ago.

7- Again he accuses me of trying to "get him banned" (without a single diff to prove that much) when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. He has asked that I be banned/blocked in one form or another since last September.

Please stop by the talk page and see for yourselves how the interaction between me, Wee and other editors over there went about and decide which editor was being abrasive. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic banned. Lets make way (some breathing room) for other less confrontational editors to work on theses articles. These two have dominated the talk pages on this topic drowning out others with there walls of text ABOUT each other (as above). In the name of sanity - time for others to get a word in.Moxy (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Mugginsx (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

RE Muggins, I characterized your comment as "odd" as a courtesy. I won't argue that the comment was not a nice thing to say, but you deliberately turned it into a strawman, misinterpreting Langus' comment as Gaba's, which is another accusation of sockpuppetry (another factor to be considered, along with the unsupported !vote). However, if you wish me to strike out my comments, I shall. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure whether to support this topic ban or not, what I do think is that Gaba p should be indeffed. This user has been blocked before for personal attacks, and in fact the whole sock-unblock saga is very, very questionable to me - Gaba p was still being fairly uncivil straight after his unblock, even to the administrator who literally bent over backwards to try and help them! The "I'm not a sock" argument doesn't really hold water with me, behavioural evidence got them blocked and they're STILL following the same pattern of editing. Plenty of users have warned them about their incivility, so I'm fairly sure it's time for a lengthy block, and probably the indef I've called for. Technically, Gaba p was never cleared of being a sockpuppet, he was given the benefit of the doubt, so although WCM's constant citing of it may well be tiring, WCM is actually correct to stick to their belief. And the fact other editors hold that belief as well is also telling. WCM possibly should be given a "cool-down" block of a few days or so, to allow them to have a break, calm down, and resume editing in a less marginal manner. Just my tuppence ha'penny worth. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Lukeno94: did you miss my constant offerings to once again reveal my real life identity as a sign of good faith and so another admin can check I am not that blocked user? How would you have behaved if your account was indefinitely blocked after doing absolutely nothing wrong and just because of a false accusation that you are somebody else (like mine was)? Of course I was agitated at the time (a year ago) and of course I get agitated when the editor responsible for me being forced to give away my right to anonymity keeps repeating the same accusations for over a year. If agreeing to reveal your RLI (to compare with another user's RLI) is not enough to be cleared of sock puppetry accusations then what is?

The only real block I had was one for 31 hours after an editor said I shouldn't be characterizing Wee's repeated misinterpretations of facts/comments as lies and I have not since. Your comment is quite unfair. I've stated here repeatedly that I'm prepared to do absolutely anything it takes to prove I am not the person Wee accuses me of being and yet you still jumped on Wee's wagon of wanting to have me blocked accused of "not being cleared of being a sock puppet". If it was you who were accused and blocked for being a sock puppet, that block lifted after you gave away your RLI but the accusations sustained for a year by a single editor: what would you have done differently? Gaba p (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• My calls for an indef are more based on behaviour than socking. As I said on my talk page (don't see why you felt the need to try and discuss this in two places), it's the fact you've been behaving poorly towards other editors, and this situation extends to the admin who bent over backwards to help you, since you were unblocked. Looking at the edit history of that article, it's apparent that there's been a multi-way revert war over pretty much everything there, large or small. Frankly, I'd say the lot of you should be topic banned at least - Gaba p, WCM, Langus-TxT, Kahastok... you've all been involved in revert wars one way or another (REGARDLESS of if you've broken 3RR or not), ironically, some of you have even warred themselves in the absolute mess that process has become. Some of the topic bans should be shorter than others - Langus-TxT doesn't seem to be a major problem, although they have edit-warred to some degree. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone cares about Wee sticking to their belief. However there's no need for Wee to constantly bringing it up. You can hold a belief without having to bring it in to the discussion. As I said, ultimately if they haven't been able to establish it sufficiently to result in Gaba P being blocked, constantly bringing it up does nothing but inflame the situation. Nil Einne (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to be very cautious about a knee-jerk reaction of, let's just ban everyone and all the arguments will go away. As we found when such a reaction was applied in the Gibraltar case, it does indeed remove all the arguments - along with all the drive, interest and experience that we need to make the articles better. Getting rid of the people reverting vandalism and objecting to obvious POV, the people who know and understand the topic and the likely issues, will only damage Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.

With respect to the above proposal, Curry Monster has a very strong record of editing on this topic, and is very knowledgeable. He is of significant net benefit to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. If it is true that both he and I have been arguing for greater mention of the British POV in discussion with Gaba, it is only because Gaba's editing comes so strongly from an Argentine POV that some balance is needed. If you have someone arguing who continually argues from a particular POV, and nobody even tries to make the case for a fair presentation of the other side, the article will reflect that editor's POV.

Fact is, most of the shrillest comments on the talk page come from Gaba. Most of the personal attacks come from Gaba. Most of the threats come from Gaba. Most of the aggression comes from Gaba. Most of the most egregious POV editing - such as I noted before - comes from Gaba. Most of the filibustering - particularly of the form where an editor refuses to acknowledge that any objection or point has even been raised - comes from Gaba. Compromise and consensus are far more easily attained when Gaba is not around - the same could not be said of any other editor (regardless of nationality or POV) currently or recently involved in the article. As an involved admin pointed out in a previous ANI (as cited by Curry Monster earlier), when it comes down to it the issue here is a single editor filibustering to get the article to reflect his POV. To suggest that this is the fault of the rest of the editors does not address the root of the problem and legitimises Gaba's poor behaviour. Kahastok talk 16:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The above is basically why I'm saying Gaba p should be indeffed. As to why I'm stating there should be topic bans, be it temporary or more permanent, is because you've all revert-warred each other as well as Gaba p on and off. I'm in no way attempting to legitimize Gaba p's behaviour. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe I addressed this point in my first paragraph. Topic-ban everyone and we end up with no improvement and ultimately damage to the encyclopædia.

I do not agree with your assessment: I do not believe that edit warring has been a particularly significant feature of these discussions. Where edit wars have broken out they have mostly been resolved as we returned to the talk page within a day or two without further need for admin intervention. And if we're looking at edit wars (beyond simple application of WP:BRD) that have not intimately involved Gaba, frankly, I'm struggling to find any in the recent history of the article concerned. Kahastok talk 16:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Kahastok: what about a single diff to prove all those accusations? To anyone reading this, please go to the talk page of the article and see if you can spot any of the things Kahastok is accusing me of. Lukeno94, are you aware that Kahastok has been topic banned along with Wee not long ago? The behaviour that earned them a topic ban is exactly the same one they display in Falkland related articles: they team to enforce a POV and bully out other editors.

Read the comment by an editor in the talk page who said verbatim "it is your [WCM's] "return" from brief absence that has ratcheted up the personal rhetoric, if anything". Can you see any comment similar to that from outside editors regarding my editing? When Wee stopped editing for a few days a consensus rapidly emerged which was immediately contested upon his return.

Regarding my "behaving poorly towards other editors", could I ask you what/who are you referring to? I have edited in many places and WCM is about the only editor I've had this kind of problems with (and I'm not nearly the only one that can say so: [158][159][160][161][162][163][164][165]) To the admin who unblocked me (JamesBWatson): I have nothing but gratitude towards him, as I told him about a year ago.

Really, your call for an indeff block on me and a slap on the wrist for WCM has me baffled. Please read the diffs I've presented and tell me if they don't point to a continued behavior problem with Wee. Please go through the talk page and tell me if you can find examples to back Kahastok's accusations which you seem to have taken at face value. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to sort through this mess, but I can offer a piece of advice, Gaba - stop using bold in your comments. If you need emphasis, you should use italics; using bold can, speaking frankly, create the impression of shouting to cover up the weakness of a case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that only caps meant shouting but if that's the impression given then I won't use bold anymore. I use bold because I use italics when quoting, I'll try switching to underline. Also perhaps I'm emphasising too often and should reduce the number. Thanks for the advice. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only echo Kahastok's comments. There is only one disruptive editor here, where as User:Basalisk noted has paralysed an entire topic area. How many examples do you need of disruptive editing:

• Filibustering. I repeatedly explained an approach to judge weight [166],[167],[168],[169],[170],[171],[172],[173],[174], User:Gaba p repeatedly claimed I hadn't [175],[176],[177],User:Hohum provided the same explanation [178], User:Gaba p thanks him claiming I hadn't [179]. I did ask Hohum for a sanity check, as he provided an identical explanation. The same explanations were provided by User:Irondome, User:Kahastok, User:Apcbg etc. I could pick anyone of a number of examples, another being his frequent claim that I stated newspapers were not a reliable source. I made no such statement - I and others pointed out that newspapers were not a reliable means of judging WP:WEIGHT.
• Abuse of Diffs. User:Gaba p alleges I was removing or preventing installation of content presenting these diffs (also to support his claim of edit warring) [180],[181]. Both were self-reverted [182],[183] almost immediately. Sadly as I've noted, few people bother to check whether the diff evidence supports the claim made. Its a damn effective tactic for distracting from his editing.
• Abuse of Process. User:Gaba p started a DRN [184], claiming I opposed mention of a topic. This was completely untrue. I never once made any statement whatsover either way.

As regards the comment on edit warring justifying a topic ban for other editors. First of all, when you have one disruptive editor deliberately edit warring to introduce contentious material it does place a good content editor in a difficult position. You try and follow BRD but every discussion you try to initiate becomes an exercise in being abused. You do nothing and you see article quality and POV suffer and if you do something you run the risk of a block. I adopted the policy of tagging disruptive edits in the hope another content editor would fix it. What I observed was that few decent content editors would risk getting involved with dealing with Gaba p. Those that did got the same abuse - Mugginsx being a case in point.

At every previous ANI I have requested an interaction ban. I just want to edit without the constant personal abuse. I am not interested in arguing for arguing's sake with an editor obsessed with having me sanctioned. Make it mutual if you must, though I can assure you a one way ban on Gaba p would be enough. I don't seek him out, he seeks to attack me.

I would however suggest that a formal SPI be conducted to examine the evidence. The unblock was informal and out of normal practise. He was not exonerated by any means but given the benefit of the doubt and a chance to edit constructively. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

What about your issues with several other editors throughout WP Wee? [185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192] I'm sure you have explanations for all those cases too and I'm pretty sure it's never you who is being "disruptive", "edit warring", "pushing POV", "abusing", etc, right? Still claiming I seek to attack you with not a single diff when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. Still claiming I seek to have you sanctioned with not a single diff when I can prove that exactly the contrary is true. I can assure anybody here that if Wee gets an interaction ban on me all these issues go away immediately. I'd have absolutely no problems with a mutual interaction ban the same way I had no problems when a few months ago an admin suggested that we both be topic-banned (Wee, on the other hand, most certainly did) What I do have a problem with is with Wee's (and Kahastok's of course) constant proposals that I alone be topic/interaction banned when his behavioral issues with many other editors can be clearly seen as I pointed above. Regarding the SPI I'd urge you to open one as soon as possible Wee. As I've said I'm prepared to do absolutely anything it takes to have your constant sock puppet accusations cease once and for all. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over use (misuse?) of wikilinks in a table.

Since their debut(s), most of the NYC area bus route articles have had each route terminal's locale (and associated rapid transit services) wikilinked no matter how many times the locale (and services) appears in a table. There are a few tables on each page.

In the article: List of bus routes in the Bronx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), user: Other Side One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started undoing all the edits that I was making so the tables would "match" the other (at least six) articles that contain such tables. At that time, the tables in that specific article were a patchwork of locales' wikilinks and non-links (black text). User also stated on my talk page that I gave them a vague reason (yes, I did originally) why all the links should stay, but it appears the other editor never saw my post on their talk page (two days later) that gave a non-vague reason (since then, this editor has posted on my talk page). Recently, the other editor has edited the tables in List of bus routes in Queens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) accomplishing the same thing (reversing all the wikilinks under the edit summaries of "GOOD FAITH"), although the Bronx article has not been re-reversed at this time. I contend that the links should stay as they have generally always been there with no complaint and the links make for a better wiki experience for the reader (and the editor) by not having to search as many as (or more than) 100 entries in the tables to find a link (or not) to a locale. Also, in my opinion, the links make the table look cleaner.

Diffs: (Bronx article)
It started with one link here: [Feb 7, 2013]

then this whole section: [Feb 9, 2013]

and this section also: [Feb 9, 2013 (2)]

then my reversals: [Feb 10, 2013]

undo from other editor: [Feb 23, 2013]

and my undo to the previous undo: [Feb 26, 2013]

(Queens article)
One time: [Feb 26, 2013]

I will wait to do any further editing on the Queens article (or any further "undos") until there is a response/resolution to this dispute.

Thank you for your time and attention with this matter.

  --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:OVERLINK, the first time something is mentioned in an article it can and should be wikilinked - future ones should not be. It doesn't matter if someone had failed to remove them a week ago or a year ago. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

But here's the rub in regard to "overlinking", this "article" is more a collection of tables, as opposed to a regular "paragraphs" and "sentences" article. I agreed and even stated that in a "regular" article that over/repeating linking should never be done. Under WP:REPEATLINK it is stated: "Even within these general limits, the choice of whether or not to repeat a link should consider whether the added value of linking a particular occurrence outweighs the consequent dilution of the value of other links." The linking here does not hurt the value of other links...

Thanks for the expedient response. --SkipperRipper (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And that was the basis of my whole point in removing the redundant wikilinks...both this and plain ol' common sense. This is nothing personal against SkipperRipper and any other editor, I was only acting on good faith. Other Side One (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm tarnished because I think that "List of Bus routes..." articles are a brutal and non-encyclopedic topic. List-of's should only provide a table of contents to existing articles, not provide route schedules (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins! How refreshing to find that I am in perfect agreement with you! This is making a shitty day a lot better. One day we'll tackle the policy/guidelines for lists, one day... Drmies (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring the question of whether we should have these pages...when something is not linked outside of a sortable table, it should either be linked nowhere in the table or everywhere — our tables are sortable many different ways, so it's going to be easy to make it so that the link appears in the middle or the bottom instead of the top. If you're a reader, you're going to be confused if you sort it multiple ways and then look for the link: "Where's that link? Why don't they just link it the other times?" Much better to make it so that readers can click the link every time or none of them, in order to spare them the time of looking for a link. Now...I must say that I agree with the idea of getting rid of these pages. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

See you at AfD, Nyttend: I'll gladly follow. I'm not leading, since there's a million J-pop fans out for my balls already and I can't multitask that well. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we building an encyclopedia or are we hosting bus schedules?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  04:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• What would you call this? (No, it's not a bus schedule.) Drmies (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • De gustibus, Drmies. "Slave of Chocolate"?--Shirt58 (talk) 06:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the "more links are better" camp, particularly with tables, and especially those that are sortable (which are cited as exceptions to the one link "rule"). Having them all linked looks less messy than only some links, is certainly more user-friendly than making the reader search for a link (and wonder why some aren't linked), etc. In other sites, you would never see the "one link rule" used on a table (or most of the time, even in articles). I think additional links rarely diminish the value of existing links unless you start linking common words that are likely never to be followed. What's more, I think there are a significant number of editors, and even more readers, that agree. (Tangentially, I don't think WP is the place for rapidly changing things like big city bus schedules, airport destination tables, etc. It just doesn't seem practical to keep them accurate, nor are they likely to be used much unless they add a lot of value over the official sites, which seems unlikely). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their responses. Actually, these articles (tables) are not schedules per se, but more of a "guide", but I have to agree with BWilkins that these lists have little encyc. value, although there is a good amount of info there. I'll visit the articles for the locales in the tables now and again (and now I have the brilliant idea to check those articles for their bus routes...) . That all aside, now what? Keep all the links? One per article? --SkipperRipper (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand the issue with sorting and finding links. The other issue which is often missed is that if someone is doing manual cleanup of links, the more you have in an article and the more that can be missed for updates. If we did not have sortable tables, one link would be my answer. With sortable tables, I still think that is correct, but I understand the problem and accept that other editors will have different views. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued misinformation vandalism by anonymous user

User:94.55.149.54 has continued blatant misinformation vandalism after being given a final warning. Two of their four edits since that final warning have been definite vandalism; I don't know about the other two, but they don't get the benefit of the doubt IMHO. Evidence for blocking here. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong venue - persistent vandalism such as this should go to WP:AIV. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 07:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The notice on AIV states that vandalism must be ongoing or very recent (and I've been told previously that I should post elsewhere when this wasn't the case). However, I'll post there and cite your comment as backup. Thank you. Ubcule (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps it's far too late for AIV now. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 12:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Billy Graham comment

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

---

While this edit was appropriate per WP:NPOV, the edit summary is not appropriate for the article of major religious leader. May we strike the edit summary please? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that it's the word asshole you're objecting to. I'm not even sure who it's referring to. You presumably think it refers to Graham. Would it be OK if it referred to someone else? HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It's referring to an editor, and it's not about who it it's referring to but its presence on that particular page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is it an issue that it's "the article of major religious leader"? Would it be OK associated with another article? HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of the morality of some of the people who read the article and edit the history. Obviously yo don't agree so why not ignore the request and let someone who does agree deal with it instead? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

HiLo makes a good point; meanwhile, you should notify the editor as you're required to do... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Notifications are usually for blocking. Is it also required for removing of a comment? I've seen entire edits removed here and the editors were not removed, but I can do so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I see that Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 also commented there. Am only asking for the visibility to be changed, not for the edit to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - You ask me to ignore the request. I ask you why you think some articles deserve different treatment from others. Either asshole is completely unacceptable in Edit summaries, or it's acceptable for every article. Far too many people want religious articles treated differently from others on Wikipedia, and they must not be. HiLo48 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's right. I insisted on notification 'cause the guy needs to be told to cool it down in general; otherwise, we'd be revdelling a lot here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone wrote that as an edit summary on an article about a children's television programme it would be unacceptable knowing the audience most likely to see it. If it was on an edit summary for a football team it would be less likely to offend. If it were left on an article about abattoirs, it may be entirely acceptable, in the right context. The context in which the word is used, in this case, does make a difference not only for how it is used but where. While I would never use profanity like this, I do understand that some editors may use it. The question is not about use, which you seem to think is the case, the issue is about the location of the use and its intention to provoke a reaction. It should be hidden. If you want to offend people, then leave it be. If you don't, then hide it, but don't pretend that you don't understand what I'm saying. It's insulting to my intelligence and worse, it doesn't reflect well on you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and the reference to "asshole" was a question in regards to who made the remark or statement that made the text a quote in the reference. In other words they were referring to the General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea. Religious leaders, whether they be major or minor do not get special treatment or consideration in this manner. I'm not even sure this is a BLP concern as it is not calling aperson an asshole but refers to a position as being an asshole.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So, (1) the pious readers of a page on a "major religious leader" must have special protection from having their "morality" disturbed by the word "asshole" and (2) only "someone who does agree" with the request should deal with it. Ridiculous. DeCausa (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Help:Edit summary:

* Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

This is not an absolute and is not actual policy or guidelines. The most that would be appropriate here is a possible warning for an uncivil summary that might (and obviously has) offended someone, but it was not aimed at a contributer but at the figure from the reference and not a named person.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Am I missing something? It seems to me based on the link and the change that the asshole bit was likely directed at the contributor who called Kim Jong-Il a dictator, rather then using a more neutral and encyclopaedic term as the person who left the edit summar substituted with. I don't see how a ref is involved, the only ref doesn't even use the term dictator [193] so why would the person who left the edit summary be calling someone from the reference an 'asshole' over something the did not do? Anyway, while the describing Kim Jong-Il as a dictator in that context was probably not ideal, I don't think calling the person who added it an asshole was a good idea. I do agree the fact the subject of the article of the edit summary is a major religious figure is irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly who it was aimed at, and interestingly enough it had been there for many months, at least, so it's not like it popped in there yesterday. On the other hand, Kim was a dictator, so Guto2003 (talk · contribs)'s insult to the other editor was not appropriate. In fact, Guto2003 is openly a Communist, so it's no surprise he would bristle at a Commie dictator being called a dictator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The target of Guto's wrath would be the IP who added the term "dictator" about 6 1/2 years ago.[194] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

In the beginning was The Word, eh...? In the interests of being able to dish it out and take it as well it should be used in far more religion articles. Basket _Feudalist 19:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with Billy Graham or with religion. It had to do with a Communist-supporting user who objected to the Kims being called "dictators". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was incorrect. That was not a reference. It was late and I saw the ref tag next to it. If the editor is name calling at another contributer than that isn't right, espeially in the edit summary.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Although none of that was the point of this thread. The OP is concerned that those of high moral character are, naturally, drawn to this article on this "major religious leader" and they would be affronted to see such profanity as "asshole". Therefore, it must be plucked out, i.e. revdel is called for! DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

That may be what they are asking for but we did need to determine exactly what was being done that was innappropriate. I assumed it was directed at a public figure, but it appears it was directed at another user. As for the rest, we don't know anybodys actual moral character and we don't edit, revert or delete contents to keep from offending a select group of individuals based entirely on a their own moral standards.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. I'm a preacher's kid who has served in ministry for over 20 years, but when I come to Wikipedia, I put on my hat of neutrality. I have the utmost respect for Walter, but merely requesting that the edit summary be stricken based on the subject of the article as a "major religious leader" or that "those of high moral character" might be offended is simply inserting our own personal opinion into our editing practices. Although DeCausa was being sarcastic, the point was valid. There are people of high moral character creating, editing, and reading all kinds of pages around here. Even people that focus on porn stars and drugs and dirty dancing. Editors on Billy Graham's article or those within the Category:Christian Wikipedians don't have a lock on morality. Like Walter, I don't use profanity. I've come to expect to see it on Wikipedia. "Don't be a dick" is highly offensive to me as a woman. But it truly is an old boys club around here. I've come to realize that boys will be boys. (Warning: Putting on my ministry hat.) This is where grace comes into play: Wikipedia is not censored. There was no personal attack in the edit summary. "Who is the asshole" is very different from "You are an asshole". Oversighting is not necessary here. Just leave a warning for Guto about inappropriate edit summaries and move on. The world won't end and Jesus won't come back any sooner just because someone said a bad word on Wikipedia. Cindy(talk to me) 21:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Like HiLo48, I'm mystified as to why it would be an issue because it's on the article about Billy Graham. We should always keep WP:CIVIL, but we should certainly not have special rule for articles about religious topics or persons. A warning to the user about his/her use of language, that's all.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP who was the target of Guto's wrath has not edited in 5 years, so it's just Guto shooting off his mouth about an edit he doesn't agree with. The original poster's complaint here is, at best, "right, but for the wrong reason". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

NOT

...staying off WP:ANI. But thanks for the the threats. Basket _Feudalist 22:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...seeing as he called us a bunch of cretins, perhaps a 72 hour block for disruption should have been indef for disruption/NPA/general jerkosity. I won't be offended if someone extends (but I'd be surprised if someone reduces) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Impressive talk page, especially the first section (attempted Arbcom candidacy after <100 edits). Interesting early edit history. [195] [196] (Apparently, "Paul Barlow eats it" was the user's signature at the time.) [197] ('better' signature) [198] (frivolous BLP vio).

Wikipedia – the encyclopedia that every juvenile troll can edit. Hans Adler 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Also [199] and [200]. I see far more heat than light from this editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone might want to swing through their recent contributions and see if the AfC articles they promoted are good enough for mainspace. I moved one back earlier, because there was no credible assertion of notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary City is a collection of quotes and closely paraphrased texts, making the whole thing a copyvio. But look at the histories of it and of other AFC's he's promoted: Covered California, Swiss Lanka Hotel School, George Fuller Miller Sr., and The Fralin Museum of Art at least - all created by users with zero history but an uncanny grasp of reference syntax, templates, and complex infoboxes (e.g.) on their first or second ever edit. These users are evidently not new to Wikipedia. 31.185.196.159 (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• This guy has been trolling all over the place, I doubt this block will sort the issue out. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have reversed a number of the AFC accepts per my note at their talkpage before losing the will to live and giving up. . I'm minded that they are more trouble than they are worth if they do not buck up their ideas. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone please block me indef for a sec

Resolved

Use a non-templated reason. Apparently we can't do that anymore. I am refreshing my memory on what it looks like from the blockee's side. Viridae^{DON'T PANIC} 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've taken this request. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You could just look at MediaWiki:Blockedtext Spitfire^Tally-ho! 00:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

humorous note:indef for a sec is redundantSerious note: There's also the MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext and MediaWiki:Autoblocker messages :) gwickwire^talk_editing 01:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think the word you're looking for is "contradictory" rather than "redundant" — Ched :  ?  01:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

actually, i was looking for oxymoronic. regardless, i should c/e my comments first clearly. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you remember to unblock them? If not, :D Mdann52 (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfly Productions

What to do with this article? Dragonfly Productions is receiving repeated disruption from IP editors who have some legal dispute over the name of the company, (See also Dragonfly Film and Television Productions) and claims made on the article. It is true that the article needs better cites for a lot of what is said, but the IPs' approach to the situation has been to fill the page with disclaimers, unsourced claims of fraud, and probably BLP violations about the company owner. I've requested page protection, but think some more permanent solution is required. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Dragonfly Film and Television Productions seems to be a copyvio since the text is essentially copy-pasted from their website.[201] Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty close. Tagged for db-copyvio. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah

<temporarily redacted>:ANI-notice

95.86.69.45 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

95.86.69.121 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

95.86.113.160 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

212.76.112.148 (talk · contribs):ANI-notice

I am experiencing a problem that I need help in resolving resolve

Users are misinforming, but are not logging in and do not have talk pages they use anonymous ISPs to make changes - either deletions of my content with references and/or straight up vandalism against Mayer Alter Horowitz both on Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and his personal wikipedia page

The User originally was <temporarily redacted> (I know this because they used Mayer Alter Horowitz's cell phone number to create their user name - the letters HN probably stand from Horowitz number) and you can see from <temporarily redacted>'s talk page that he was warned of making changes to Mayer Alter Horowitz's page without references since December 2012, but currently the user <temporarily redacted> no longer exists (but his talk page still exists) instead he (we have a feeling of who it is) uses anonymous ISPs without talk pages such as: 95.86.69.45, 95.86.69.121, 95.86.113.160, 212.76.112.148, et. al. You can see that the ISP is dedicated only to making changes at Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and Mayer Alter Horowitz and the main agenda is to purport that Mayer Alter Horowitz is not a member of the Moetzes Agudas Yisroel which is false, and I have provided proof and references through pictures and newspaper articles that continue to get removed by this user through endless reverts which I only know how to revert back to the original which is causing and edit war

What I have been doing is making short comments in the Edit Summary when I try to undo his changes But I'm not sure if that is proper (although he responds in kind so one can see his responses) and don't know how else to handle this I have written on the Talk page of the article Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah for third parties to get involved but I don't know how successful that would be as I don't know who visits that page and how frequently

Consider the following diffs http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moetzes_Gedolei_HaTorah&diff=541497036&oldid=541250007 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moetzes_Gedolei_HaTorah&diff=540967302&oldid=540967023 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moetzes_Gedolei_HaTorah&diff=540547668&oldid=539209881

Note that I always log in and identify myself, am trying to be polite, non-objective and provide proper references I myself know Mayer Alter Horowitz, aware of my potential bias, but am knowledgeable of the content and am only trying to project truthful information and if anything I am writing is non-objective or unsupported I am willing to have my copy edited by others but my content and references should not be deleted just because of a personal vendetta of an individual

Please advise on my talk page Thank you for your help

BetzalelGersten (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ... odd. It's related to a real-world dispute, but all of the parties involved in the dispute claim that its against their religion for the internet to exist so I'm not sure why they're bringing it here. I suspect semi-protecting the page would solve the problem quickly. Bobby Tables (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree that temporary semiprotection of Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah is justified. The article has a number of good sources but also several unsourced lists of council members that probably shouldn't be there. The warring IPs seem to be trying to insert negative information about Mayer Alter Horowitz and the Bostoner school. It's getting near the point where disruptive editing blocks could be issued to the IPs but semiprotection is simpler. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion above be oversighted, as it discusses someone's phone number?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  17:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected the article for a month.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd IP edits

A couple of days ago, an IP added a request to a navbox I have on my watchlist requesting that something be added to it. I declined, as the article, Morphing Grid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), was not suitable as a standalone article (something I had done last year) and I restored the redirect that had been there. The IP then restored the page, and after I sent it to AFD because honestly it needs to be deleted, the IP tagged it as fancruft. This was really confusing, as why would he make the page just to tag it as unnecessary, again?

I then looked at the history of the article and found that several IPs, all from within London, have been editing the page, building it up and tagging it for cleanup. I've also been noticing that these same IPs all do the same thing to other similar pages. The pages do need cleanup, but this is all the IPs do. They add content to the page as any other editor interested in the topic and then claim that it's not notable for inclusion or it needs cleanup or it's fancruft. This is all really weird and it's hard to tell if they're actually being constructive when all they do is add information that they later disagree with.

This is a small sample of the strangely behaving IPs

• 31.54.166.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.149.52.147 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.148.185.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.148.179.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.151.119.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.153.171.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.153.170.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.151.17.201 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.149.49.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.151.114.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.151.116.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.151.117.63 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.153.188.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.169.192.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.153.186.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.157.118.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 109.157.113.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

They are all geographically related, they are all adding content, and then they are all tagging pages they have edited for cleanup after adding content that is contra to the cleanup. One of the IPs added a PROD tag to the page I have at AFD. What is going on here?—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for purposes of clarity, it would help if you specifically indicated whether each and every one of the IPs you listed is individually doing all the things you indicated, or whether your statement above was to be taken as applying to them as a group. I would agree that, if a single IP were tagging articles and adding cruft to it, for instance, that would be a very strange thing for anyone to do, but I suppose it could make sense that, for instance, there might be some sort of school-based edit warring prompted by some discussion on some noticeboard in London, for instance. Also, I suppose, it is certainly possible that, if the IPs belong to schools, for instance, someone in charge of the school's computers might be monitoring the "contributions" made from the schools. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

This does not appear to apply to the primary purpose of this discussion. Crazynas t 11:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"Also, I suppose, it is certainly possible that, if the IPs belong to schools, for instance, someone in charge of the school's computers might be monitoring the "contributions" made from the schools." -- What's your point here exactly, John? LalaLAND (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Basically, if, possibly for the first time I'm aware of?, some schools might be making an effort to ensure that "contributions" of dubious quality made by some of their students are monitored, possibly by having an employee of the school review them, we might be rather grateful for the assistance. Granted, I am in no way sure that is happening here, but, for all I know, it could be, and I'm not sure that I would necessarily object to having a bit more help in oversight of students whose efforts are, sometimes, counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Wow. What an incredibly over presumptions thing to say. As you said; not only is there no way could you could be sure, I doubt there is a single school in the world who employs someone to monitor wikipedia contributions and reverse them. Just because you "wouldn't necessarily object" to it, doesn't mean there's any basis whatsoever for believing that. Also, your comments seem quite unlettered to me. LalaLAND (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Less over presumptuous than your own rush to conclusions, dare I say. I myself fairly clearly indicated that I didn't think it likely, but it seems to me to make sense to not rush to conclusions without evidence. And, honestly, yes, having been in contact with a few schools at various times regarding such things, there actually is a way someone could be sure, if there were an e-mail to that effect sent. I pointed out a few reasons to think that there might be, admittedly unlikely, reason not to rush to judgement until evidence is presented, and requested some of that evidence. Your own comment above seems to do nothing to actually address the matter under discussion in any way, shape, or form, and I would sincerely ask of you to refrain from purely negative comments on noticeboards. If you can do so, please give the people to whom the questions are addressed to supply some information before completely offtopic personal aspersions and attacks directed at others. Your own comments indicate a rather pronounced lack of awareness of basic guidelines and policies to me, and I very strongly suggest you make an effort to acquaint yourself with them. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Now John, let's not blow things out of proportion here. There was no personal attack; I purely commented on your edit not on you. Please don't accuse me of a personal attack when the comment is above is there for everyone to see and contains no such personal attack. Comment on the content not the contributor. I'd recommend reading WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Now please address the issue here instead. This will be my last comment here. Thanks. LalaLAND (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC) And I simply asked an editor who only created their current account yesterday as per here to actually have some familiarity with policies and guidelines. You do seem to have a rather serious knowledge of policies and guidelines for someone who has only edited for two days. Is this perhaps a second account, perhaps of someone who edited under another account before? And please indicate exactly which issue you have requested that I address, because I don't see anything in your comments which seems to call for such. Also, I think it would be very useful if you indicated what prior accounts or IPs, if any, you have used. And, honestly, I think just about anyone would say that "your comments seems quite unlettered to me," particularly coming from someone who has only been active since the 2nd, would reasonably constitute a personal attack. I think it might be worth looking into whether this new account might itself in some way be tied to these recent edits, considering the language seems to at least me to be more or less "British" ("unlettered" is a word I have rarely seen elsewhere, and certainly not in the US), and possibly, dare I say, of someone from perhaps London itself? John Carter (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Some of the edits are after 1am, which is unlikely for a school, and the use of the IPs doesn't overlap, so it looks more like one person or possibly two using the same internet connection. The geolocate link on Special:Contributions puts the IPs in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, not London. Peter James (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Peter for clearing that up and proving that: 1 It's not in London and 2 It's not a school. Which effectively means John could by all means strike his comments out of this section and it wouldn't matter in the slightest as now they are not just unfounded but have been shown to be outright falsities. LalaLAND (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The bickering aside and my geographic mistake (I only checked a few and they seemed to be in southeastern England), what can be done here, as they are disruptively affecting the various articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm entering this discussion to attempt to make it focused on the issue at hand: these IPs. I too assumed from your description, Ryulong, that this was a school, but as Peter pointed out, it can't be. If this were only one or two IPs, I would assume that it's a parent monitoring and reviewing his/her child's edits, but the widespread behavior rules that out, unless there's some parenting group dedicated to allowing children to use Wikipedia and then reviewing their children's edits (it would pretty awesome if that's the case, but it's extremely unlikely, and would have been mentioned in the media somewhere, no?) So in all, I'm very confused. Clearly each IP has multiple people using it, or is just a troll trying to get as much attention as possible a la Willy, AND we know that, whether multiple-people accounts or trolls, this is a widespread trend in that geographical region that we don't know about. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

109.153.185.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) just started making the same kind of edits.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

And 86.136.129.221 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also matching the geographic area and behavior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

109.148.177.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) another one int he pool. Why is this IP so dynamic?—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If it isn't a school, and it apparently clearly isn't, I also would tend to rule out the possibility, although I would love to see it happening, of parents supervising their children's wikipedia edits. Granted, the odds of the moon turning into a giant cheezburger are probably better, but, yeah, theoretically, it could happen. As these edits all seem to be from the same basic area, one idea which comes to mind is that, maybe, one editor, or perhaps a group of editors who maybe really don't like each other much, or maybe someone hearing from someone else at work or school of their "editing", and being concerned about that, might maybe be using something like free local or business wifi, like maybe at restaurants?, to access wikipedia to check up on each other. This would, maybe theoretically, create a situation where one editor corrects another editor from their personal computer at the same McDonalds (for instance), that the previous editor had used, with the results of both being tied to the IP of that McDonalds. Not likely, admittedly, but that seems to be maybe one possibility. It might be really nice if someone checked to see what the various IP's involved are tied to. John Carter (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Imposter/sock needs a block

After reverting vandalism at Salvia officinalis by 24.54.160.97 (talk · contribs),[202] they commented on my talk page and then reappeared to vandalize the Salvia officinalis as the newly created FIRSTLIGHT1234 (talk · contribs). Blocks of the imposter account, and the IP, would be appreciated. First Light (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, First Light (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, Harassment and Vandalism

Resolved

 – and just in case we get accused of not trying to help inexperienced editors, I'm also going to bookmark this. :)

— Ched :  ?  19:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I have been a member of Wikipedia since 2010, and I have made hundreds of edits for articles, such as corrections and to add additional information. However, until recently, I had never participated in any of the Talk or Afd sections. Wikipedia wasn't my hobby, but I used it regularly for reading.

Recently I received some messages via a Yahoo group that told about an individual who had a Wikipedia article written about him, Steve Cottle, and that a close personal friend had decided to see to it that it be deleted. This seemed odd, and I wondered about possible jealousy and a likely conflict of interest. Seeing others respond to Mr. Cottle with a sense of floundering, I posted a message at the Yahoo group about the problem.

I didn't know Mr. Cottle personally, but I knew very well who he was. I'd read many messages of his, had visited his archive of newspaper comic strips and found it invaluable, and had even independently discovered the article about him, had downloaded it on Jan. 9th and found it interesting and informative. Since I knew who he was and why he was notable, I thought I'd look into the matter.

I interviewed him extensively using a text chat with transcripts saved, and discovered he was actually text chatting with his friend at the very time that he (samrolken) had initiated an Articles for deletion (Afd) action at Wikipedia. A chat transcript confirmed samrolken's explanations for this action (the Afd) and the nature of the interaction, which seemed quite antagonistic towards Mr. Cottle, his friend, ridiculing him and calling him names.

I did some research and found this: "'You should not create or edit articles about ... your close friends.... You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and this "Wikipedia:Vandalism "Abuse of tags "Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {afd} ... or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

This seemed like a serious Conflict of Interest which samrolken should not have engaged in according to the guidelines I read, which are designed to ensure editing is done with neutrality and impartiality, which under the circumstances I described, is highly suspect. Deleting is a form of editing. I entered a Keep comment, which an editor MrX, suppressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cottle

MrX also criticized me substantially and declined to do anything about this reported COI. Since things went so adversely, I declined to participate any further in the Afd and cancelled my plans to enter more Keep comments. samrolken eventually posted on my Talk page, and I tried to engage with him, but he refused to acknowledge or discuss the COI, though he admitted they were close personal friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drhankh#Steve_Cottle

I suggested withdrawing the Afd and continuing the discussion on my talk page, but he was adamant on getting things his way, which I felt was highly improper. In a 2nd post on my talk page, he closed with "... I'll not be interacting with you any more."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drhankh#samrolken_Quits_the_Discussion

Later, he sent an email letter to Mr. Cottle, then invaded the chat room where Mr. Cottle and I had a chat scheduled. samrolken parked himself and refused to leave, preventing me from talking privately with Mr. Cottle. When we were alone, samrolken, insulted me repeatedly, taunted me, called me names, and dared me to do anything.

He soon invaded a Yahoo group by joining it and posting a lengthy message there, which annoying the owner, who revoked Mr. Cottle's moderator rights as a result.

At another Yahoo group, a member alerted me that samrolken was trying to delete articles that I had simply edited. And I discovered that samrolken had indeed initiated an Afd for the article Russell R. Winterbotham, a published science fiction author.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russell_R._Winterbotham

This seemed like harassment and retaliation.

My sense is there is a clique of people and samrolken feels untouchable, and he could care less what certain people think about the ethics of his actions. He has repeatedly spoken very arrogantly at the chat room. He has a displayed a clearcut malevolence, and based on how I've been treated, have no interest in either intervening in these two Afds, nor doing any more article editing for Wikipedia. Please note that I have documented two published articles about author Russell R. Winterbotham on my Talk page; they are from physical books called encyclopedias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drhankh#samrolken_Tries_to_Retaliate_by_Deleting_Article_Edited_by_Drhankh

I would also note that samrolken seems to be reading all this material (based on comments he makes to me at the chat room), yet he hasn't taken any initiative to note that these printed articles in books are available, which an objective person might do, more evidence that he's simply being malevolent. In my opinion, samrolken is simply engaging in vandalism, and that seems unethical to me. He has also been seemingly stalking me, using Mr. Cottle's chat room to post taunting remarks, tracking what I am doing and ridiculing me.

For example, samrolken knew about the reply from Shaun9876 long before I became aware of it (and of course taunting me about it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shaun9876#Conflict_of_Interest.2C_Harrassment_and_Vandalism

Despite samrolken's taunts (transcript kept), I do hope there is at least one honest person within the Wikipedia community that might be concerned and want to do something about it. Drhankh (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reformatted to convert this from a ton of little lines. The original version is here, if you care. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice wall of text and what a wonderful way to become endeared at Wikipedia with a passive aggressive accusation of dishonest editors. You seem to have missed the main part of what a conflict of interest is at Wikipedia "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". This seems to apply to you more than anyone else as you have taken a private conversation (an outside interest) with the subject to advanced it, and it seems to be more important to you than the spirit, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. You seem to have a become a bull in a china shop here over this. This may have a boomerang effect. Mr. Cottle appears to have made himself pretty clear:

Steven Cottle Response

I Lilreader (talk) never thought the actions happening would happen. All I hoped for was the chance to save the page created about me, and not an overall attack on others. I thought it would be a good idea to get a 3rd party involved for a clean viewpoint. All I really wanted was help saving the article regardless of why it was up for deletion. It seems everyone is on the attack side right now.

This should be noted for everyone involved in the matter

• Personal misunderstandings between longtime high school friends (Samrolken (talk) & Lilreader (talk)), and private conversations, should have been kept private and not shared with others.
• Samrolken(talk) nominated the article out of a good faith belief that there were problems with its verifiability and notability.
• This should not be personal, and any discussion should be about the content and verifiability of the article itself, and not of any people involved. Lilreader (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

--Amadscientist (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amadscientist,

Please don't accuse me of making arguments or statements that I never made nor make snap judgments about a situation of significant complexity. You wrote: "... what a wonderful way to become endeared at Wikipedia ..." I am NOT here to become endeared. I explained that since 2010 I make corrections -- to articles I am reading for my own education and interests. This is what I did with the Steve Cottle article. I explained that I had never participated in the talk sections or other areas, and that unlike samrolken, this is not my hobby.

I came across a problem, which is now a series of problems. You wrote: "... dishonest editors." I never made any such statement. Why don't you quote me rather than falsely characterize me in your words? This notice is almost entirely about one individual samrolken. I am not at all attempting to "advance any outside interest." In fact, I have no outside interests. My only interest is to attempt to seek justice. I became aware of a problem through a message that came in my email. I received messages from other people, all commenting on this reported situation concerning samrolken's attempt to get the Steve Cottle article deleted.

Are you saying that because I learned of a problem pertaining to a Wikipedia article via email messages that were posted to a Yahoo group, that I was obligated to ignore the matter based on what you perceive as certain Wikipedia rules? With all due respect, I think that is sheer nonsense. I have seen, from MrX, samrolken, and yourself, that certain principles or rules can be manipulated to make anyone's actions appear suspect. An important element of fairness is to examine all of the facts in an impartial and neutral manner and not jump to conclusions, especially not regarding someone who is obviously new to this type of venue.

You talk about "... the spirit, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia." There is a voluminous amount of material and your allegation is very vague, but I strongly disagree. I can't say I've read everything, but I have certainly read a lot of material, have downloaded everything I've read, and tried conscientiously to take all these different principles into account. I also got the feedback of another user, who read essentially what I posted here, and he suggested this as one of two places to post my material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Shaun9876#Conflict_of_Interest. 2C_Harrassment_and_Vandalism.

Regarding your quote from Mr. Cottle, I am aware of that, but two things to keep in mind. First of all, I am not representing him, I am an independent Wikipedia user who wants to see justice done. Second, I have interviewed him previously, and I have many statements by him which contradict what you quote. The statement he made was based on the undue influence of samrolken. Now if all you want to do is to make snap judgments and not get all the facts, then why don't you just move along? Because I don't think such an approach is helpful to anyone. If you even paid attention, I stated in my piece, before it got reformatted, that samrolken invaded the chat room of Mr. Cottle and refused to leave, preventing me from communicating with Mr. Cottle.

In fact, samrolken has been doing that since Saturday afternoon. He also uses it to taunt me, which at least borders on stalking. This isn't just about what samrolken did regarding Mr.Cottle and that Steve Cottle article, it's also, what he's done to me, and an article I edited, which he is trying to delete. And trying to delete an article just because I had worked on it, affects everyone. The article is for Wikipedia and anyone who wants to read it. For samrolken to initiate an Afd as retaliation when I wouldn't agree to his demands, affects the community and is plain wrong. Rather than deflect attention from what I wrote, if someone wishes to comment constructively, I suggest someone respond to the reported conflict of interest between samrolken editing an article about his close personal friend, especially during an angry discussion. From my reading of the Wikipedia guidelines, and I do provide a specific quote, samrolken should not engage in this, regardless of whether he might think he's being fair, or whether he can lobby his friend to convince of this for the moment. The guidelines are for him to recuse himself, because any close friendship or angry relationship is very likely to affect a person's judgment, and at the very least give an appearance of a conflict of interest.

An editor should only be editing, changing or deleting articles in which he can do so in a neutral and impartial manner. Isn't this true? Isn't this important? Is is this to be simply ignored as if it doesn't exist? If you think it's unimportant, I seriously question your judgement and commitment. It's very important. Unless you address this point, I cannot give your arguments any credence.-- Drhankh (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Never thought I would ever use this but....... TLDR.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you REFORMAT it as you have done at least twice, into a single long paragraph, then yes, it will be too long. You certainly don't have to read it. But please stop reformatting my text. It makes it hard to read and seems very unfair to me. I am quite capable of editing my own copy. -- Drhankh (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I did it once. The first time was done by another editor. You could try looking at the history. About the only thing I can think of to say here is: Toro embolado.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Call to close this thread. No admin intervention required unless a temp block to the OP for disruption, COI and battleground mentality.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you should give others a chance to read this and form their own conclusions, esp. since I've criticized you. Drhankh (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. Since you have not made it at all clear what admin intervention is being asked for in this thread, it is just soupboxing. This noticeboard isn't for editors to post diatribes.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, I am not an editor. And regardless of your opinions, they are not facts, and so far, you are the only person who has posted substantive comments. Please allow others to read and comments to form a consensus, not get your own way out of spite. Others can read the material, ignore it, or comment if they want, but they need time to notice it. Drhankh (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's my place to recommend specific kinds of intervention, since I hope that Admins are more experienced than me, but I think the Afd on the Cottle article should be withdrawn. Drhankh (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for requesting admin intervention for incidents on the English Wikipedia. What is the incident you are reporting that took place on Wikipedia and what intervention are you requesting?--Amadscientist (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I did try to read through a lot of this, although with "walls of text" along these lines I sometimes loose focus. I get the impression that much of the problem lies outside the Wikipedia jurisdiction (Yahoo, Facebook conversations, private chats etc.), so could you please explain exactly what administrative action you're looking for in regards to users/policy, etc. — Ched :  ?  07:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I've read this twice, and I can't see any request for admin action either. The two AfDs are proceeding properly (although one does have a couple of suspicious looking SPA votes) and the rest appears to be vague claims of off-wiki disputes. I think this can probably be closed. Black Kite (talk) 08:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ched. I am trying to explain that samrolken has been harassing me, trying to delete a second article simply because I had edited it, tracking everything I do on Wikipedia, and then posting disparaging comments to me using Mr. Cottle's chatroom (with just samrolken and myself in the room). As I tried to explain, someone at a Yahoo group noticed that samrolken had initiated another Afd on this article (Russell R. Winterbotham) I had edited, and it seems like a Conflict of Interest for samrolken to be trying to delete an article edited by someone who's told me repeatedly that he dislikes me intensely.

I was hoping that someone would understand that samrolken shouldn't be trying to edit or delete articles about a close personal friend or someone he dislikes (Conflict of Interest) and should stop trying to harass me. I had hoped someone would understand what he's doing and talk to him. I tried, and those were the steps suggested by MrX, and this was the next step according to both him and Shaun9876. Two experienced editors sent me here. (This is all in writing.)

samrolken refuses to accept that being involved with his friend's article is a blatant conflict of interest, and so far, not one person has even addressed it. -- Drhankh (talk) 08:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Close and warn OP.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Ched asked me questions, Amadscientist. Don't you think the fair thing to do is give him time to read my reply to what he asked me? Please stop trying to control the discussion. You've had your time to make your points, let others participate. Thank you. -- Drhankh (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I truly think the best thing to do is discourage you from further disruption. You have brought an off-wiki discussion on a Yahoo group to this project and bullied a number of editors. You show clear signs of battleground mentality, conflict of interest and have created enough drama, both on Wiki and off that another editor felt the need to out themselves to stop you, and it is possible that you are guilty of WP:PRIVACY by outing an editor as a personal friend of the subject . You make accusations to the broad community in regards to honesty in a manner that clearly shows your disregard to others. All attempts by a number of editors has gone unheeded and I feel you are now guilty of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Closing the thread and warning you is a kindness at this point....and I am one of a number of editor that tries to retain editors....but not with this attitude.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) OK, I did find User:Samrolken, as well as 2 of his post to your talk. (here and here) While it's obvious that the two of you don't agree, I don't see a direct violation of WP:NPA on those alone. I also looked at Steve Cottle, the article's history. I don't see that Samrolken has edited the article, so I don't see any WP:COI. I also looked at the talk page (Talk:Steve Cottle) and don't see anything there. I'm not aware of any policy that forbids even the subject from nominating said article for deletion (WP:AFD), so I'm not sure of anything actionable in that regard. Yes, any editor is encouraged to not edit an article about themselves per WP:COI, but they are encouraged to engage in discussion on the article talk page if they have concerns. If Samrolken is harassing you on Facebook, on Yahoo, or some other "chat room"; there's simply nothing we can do about it here. IF they are violating WP:HARASS on Wikipedia, can you provide links to those particular posts? If not, I'm sorry, but I don't see anything we can do here. — Ched :  ?  08:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Addendum. While I detest the cherry-picking of sentences from the (spirit of) Policy, and I mention this only as a word of caution: this section also says: "You should also not write about people with whom you could reasonably be said to have an antagonistic relationship in real life. Just thought I'd mention that. — Ched :  ?  09:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(note: I'm about done for tonight, but will look back tomorrow) — Ched :  ?  08:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't view myself as an "editor" (though I have edited a lot of articles). I am not trying to get especially involved in Wikipedia activities. I tried to rectify a problem, but some people seem unwilling to consider what I've actually written but rather come to subjective interpretations. I do think some people think about what I've written. Anyone who isn't interested this thread doesn't have to read it or post comments. Thanks for your additional comments, Ched. I don't think anything needs to be done immediately. Time to reflect on what different people have mentioned would be helpful. -- Drhankh (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The moment that you clicked "Save page" the very first time, you became an editor. As you've clicked "save page" at least a half-dozen times right here at ANI, you're now an "experienced editor". (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried to explain, but I can see probably not well enough, so apologies if it wasn't clear, but since 2009 or so, I've simply been editing articles that I read and saw corrections were needed or information was missing. Until late Friday evening, I had never had ANY interaction with anyone at Wikipedia. I saw myself as a reader, a user, and a member, someone who made conscientious edits, which were mostly corrections, fixing mistakes I noticed. I never thought of myself as an editor. I had visited some Talk pages and read some of the discussions. I had read policy material. But I wasn't an editor like the rest of you. I got here because it seemed necessary. I haven't been looking to do it regularly. -- Drhankh (talk) 09:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who edits here is an editor.. It's not the same meaning as in the book publishing business, where it implies a position of authority (albeit one to be argued with by the 'client'...). Nor is it the same as in the newspaper/magazine world, where it definitely implies a position of authority (who isn't usually argued with by underlings...). We use a more basic meaning 'one who edits'. We don't have people like the publishing world does. Admins are often more experienced than many of the 'ordinary' editors (but many of the top by numbers and quality editors are not and do not wish to be admins). I was a reader for years until I discovered a silly edit in an article and signed up to correct it. And now I'm an admin (didn't run fast enough...). On content matters, I have opinions. You have opinions. Both of us are part of what makes up consensus. There is room for many different types of work. I cart out the garbage and nitpick on textual matters. Others create loads of articles. Yet others spend time in policy and procedure discussions. We're all here to keep things running and build the encyclopaedia. (Yes, there are vandals and spammers too - that's why we have admins...) Stick around and really get to know the place. Or just pop in and nitpick over wording. All helps. Peridon (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi BWilkins, many thanks for your comments! I smiled when I read them. "The moment that you clicked 'Save page' the very first time, you became an editor."

I still remember my first time. That was back in 2009, when I edited the Buster Crabbe article to add the material "Crabbe starred in the television series, Captain Gallant of the Foreign Legion (1955 to 1957) as Captain Michael Gallant; the adventure series aired on NBC. His real-life son, Cullen Crabbe, appeared in this show as the character 'Cuffy Sanders'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buster_Crabbe#Television

Apparently the original author of the article hadn't been aware that Crabbe had even starred in a TV series.

I knew he had, because I remembered watching it; I had reference books with the details (articles about the TV show, there was none in Wikipedia at that time), so I figured I'd help out by adding information on the show. I didn't even have a Wikipedia account at the time. It wasn't until 2010 that I created an account.

I had the impression that there was a heirarchy of Wikipedia members with at least three levels, users, editors and administrators, and that I was just a user. One reason for that thought was that in my profile page, it says:

"Member of groups: Autoconfirmed users, Users"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

Since I'd never applied to become an editor, I never thought I was one. :-)

You know samrolken actually told me something very similiar Saturday evening, "Everyone is an editor." He was talking more about himself, but I wasn't sure whether I believed him.

But in my Talk page, I quipped "Then I suppose I have been promoted. :)"

"... you're now an experienced editor". Ok, thanks.

But there's still a lot of things that are very new to me. The only time I really read much in a talk page was one of the articles on Tom Swift where a person I was acquainted with, Scott, was embroiled in some kind of controversy; apparently he wanted the article to mention his fan fiction, while someone more experienced didn't. So I read up on it. That's when I learned about sockpuppets. But I never wrote anything in any talk page.

I can see there appears to be a lot of customs, ways certain people are used to doing things. This doesn't mean I didn't try to read up on things, I did, but the material is voluminous, and it's difficult to just read and absorb completely if you're not using it.

It's something like learning a foreign language; just taking a course (to me) was a lot harder than going to a foreign country and speaking the language; it came much quicker to me that way.

Ched's been very helpful in his responses, but there's so much material (contentwise) as far as concepts, that I'm still having trouble completely grasping all of it, maybe even a lot of it. And that's not even counting the references.

I think some people (not him or you) may simply be expecting too much and simply not understand that I can't absorb it all in only 48 hours.

And a lot of the stuff I've encountered for the very first time is since I entered this section, which is only about 2 hours ago (when I had drafte his reply). I was hesitant to even come here. It appeared very daunting and complicated before I started.

Anyhow, I hope people will have some patience with me, as I am trying to learn as fast as I can. I realize there is at least one person who feels I rubbed at least him the wrong way, but I feel like he did it to me first. I don't think he appreciates how experienced he is compared to me and how fast he can do things compared to me as well. I could barely keep up with him (and couldn't really). I'd be typing a reply to him, and when I tried to update the section, I couldn't because he'd already changed it with new comments. ;-) -- Drhankh (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Too-Long, Didn't Read. Drhankh, rather than novellas of content explaining, how about short bulletized lists (or some other synopsis mechanisim). Also your very short lines are really disruptive. Hasteur (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peridon, many thanks for your comments. Very helpful. Yes, I'd actually worked as an editor, and I did actual editing work. So yes, I did think of it as a title, and was sure I wasn't one, because I had never applied. So you signed up for a silly edit. Well as you can see from previous remarks, I did a whole partial paragraph and still didn't sign up. :) Well the screen said I didn't have to. It said I could just edit. Of course later I regretted not having created the account back then, because I probably missed out on some bonus points or something. :)

"I cart out the garbage and nitpick on textual matters."

Well I fix almost every mistake I see, from spelling and punctuation to grammar. Even of the proposed to be deleted Steve Cottle article, I still went ahead and added a missing end quotes symbol. :)

Hey it doesn't hurt to be a perfectionist at sorts, and you never know, perhaps that article won't actually get deleted. :)

"On content matters, I have opinions. You have opinions." Thanks, that's good to hear. As I mentioned earlier in this section, until perhaps 3 days ago, I had simply never interacted with any editors, with no one at Wikipedia. I think there were times I actually wanted to, to get someone else's opinion or how to handle an article. Now that I think about it, yes, I remember this thought came up several times. But quite frankly, I could never figure out how to do it. I'm not saying that I hadn't been really persistent, I might not have been able to figure it out, but I suppose I was looking for an email address or a private messages system, and this is totally different.

Does that help explain things? So if I felt really unsure, then I just didn't edit something. My thought was to leave it alone unless I was sure I knew what I was doing.

"Both of us are part of what makes up consensus." That's true. Initially I had asked MrX how to post a Keep comment on the Afd for the Steve Cottle article. I had looked at it, I was pretty sure I understood how it was done. But it looked very unintuitive; I was expecting a form with fields. However, I didn't want to mess things up. Anyhow, he answered my question just fine. But then after I posted my comments, he was highly critical of me, acted like I had commited great offenses, and I felt I had do nothing in the least wrong. I think part of the problem was that he perceived me as an obvious newbie. Another part of the problem was that he came across to me as condescending, as if he knew everything, and I knew nothing, and I didn't cotten to it at all. Two other editors treated me that way, one of them being samrolken, though was very demeaning, calling me names. Anyhow, to reach consensus, there has to be mutual respect, and true communication, and just because another editor may be more experienced, even if a lot more, that doesn't (I think) give them any right to be disrespectful to me, to be demanding as if I have to take orders from them (which happened earlier in this section), or to act as if or pretend that they know everything, that I know nothing, and that by default they have to right and to imply that I should kiss there ring or other anatomy lest they banish me. I really was not going to tolerate that. It's not like this is my job or that I'm getting paid or that I really need Wikipedia or the aggravation. :) Hence, I stood my ground with three editors.

"There is room for many different types of work." I agree completely. That was another thing that irked me. Just because certain editors were doing certain kinds of work, and I hadn't been, they had no right to be demanding that I had to get involved to the same extent as them in order to in effect pass an initiation test. It felt like hazing.

"We're all here to keep things running and build the encyclopaedia." This is one of the things that annoyed me in my dealings with samrolken. He told me that this is his hobby, how many hours he spend editing, and sure lately I've been spend a LOT of time, but I never considered it my hobby. It was simply one of the places I regularly devoted time to making corrections, because I thought the articles deserved it. After all, somebody else might not spot the mistakes, make the corrections, or have the information I did. However, with samrolken, he acted extremely condenscending, calling such bad names, and I really didn't accept most of what he said as being the truth.

Sure, he could snow his friend, Steve Cottle, but I wasn't samrolken's friend, and I wasn't so naive. There was a big difference in educational levels and general experience, and his explanations of the 'inner' workings of Wikipedia seemed very hard to believe. I will say from actual experience, that yes, there was indeed SOME truth to what he told me, but it was just a slice of what goes on here.

I can see that for sure now. It does exist, but how big or small it is, I don't have enough experience to gage for sure.

"Stick around and really get to know the place." Thank you very much for such a warm welcome and encouragement, Peridon. I greatly appreciate it. I will have to admit, after some repeated interaction with one individual in this section, I was looking forward to finishing up this section and leaving. But I am feeling better now, thanks to Ched, BWilkins, and then you, Peridon. So thanks a million

And with that, I will take a break and rest. -- Drhankh (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Just for reference: Reader means wanders in from Google, reads, wanders out again. Only lasting thing is a click on a counter. User = editor = someone who does something. Confirmed or autoconfirmed can do a bit more than totally new or IP editors. Rollback and Filemover are rights that editors can apply for when they've been around a bit. Admins have more buttons to play with, including Block and Delete. They have no more say in policy matters or discussions than anyone else with the same experience level. Then there are bureaucrats and stewards, who do things that only they really understand. Like admins, chosen in discussions (not elections). And there are developers who do things that no-one really understands (or knows about until it goes wrong and everyone else gets angry...). Wikipedia is an argumentative anarchy with rules. Like in children's games, the rules can change if enough people get together (and no-one else notices...). Do try to keep the length of posts down - I worry about the length of mine at times. (Most of the time, I don't.) Peridon (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Blah blah blah blah LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hasteur,

Thanks for your comments. Yes, it was somewhat lengthy. In my original post, there were smaller paragraphs. But another editor undid all my paragraphs and turned it into one overly large blog. So I had to redo it, and to pacify him, I made the paragraphs bigger, so there were fewer of them. The same thing happened with my reply to another editor, who modified my text twice. Again, I made the paragraphs bigger. I will be happy to consider changes like you suggested ("short bulletized lists") but please keep in my mind, this is the first time I've attempted anything like this, so I really don't know how it's done and had never thought of doing it. I tend to not use 'bullets' since they are not on my keyboard. I use dashes instead. Would that suffice?

"Also your very short lines are really disruptive." Not sure what you mean. Can you give me a specific example or two? And add an example of it changed the way you think would be better? Then I would understand and could give it a try. Just please leave my original comments as is. Thanks again. -- Drhankh (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments, Peridon. Interesting and helpful insights. And thanks for your comment too, BWilkins. "Wikipedia is an argumentative anarchy with rules. Like in children's games, the rules can change if enough people get together (and no-one else notices...)." Good comment. Seems to hit the nail on the head with what I had been observing. :-) "Do try to keep the length of posts down ..." Understood, and I am trying. -- Drhankh (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Drhankh, I'm not even going to pretend I read every word of that, but neither you or Mr Cottle come off very well here. Cottle seems to be trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself ("All I hoped for was the chance to save the page created about me"), which is very strongly discouraged around here. And you, Drhankh, are tossing around accusations, pasting walls of text, coming very close to OUTing another editor you're in a dispute with, and trying to bring off-wiki internet drama to Wikipedia, all of which is completely unacceptable. You may (or may not) have a point that samrolken might have been better to let someone else nominate the article, but regardless of who pressed the button, he's right that the article can't stay--myself or any of thousands of other editors would have nominated it too if we'd happen to stumble upon it first. The best thing you and Cottle can do at this point is let it go and avoid making yourselves look worse. (Cue enormous wall-of-text reply) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Steve Cottle doesn't come off well here. However, that wasn't my idea, and I had nothing at all to do with it. I thought what he posted reflected extremely poor judgment. However, as far as I can tell, this was due to tampering by his friend, samrolken, who wrote Mr. Cottle a long email letter. That part was completely out of my hands. Its appearance here in this section was solely due to the adverse action of another person. I certainly didn't post it and would not have done so. You are entitled to your opinions, and just because you have a perception doesn't make it accurate. I had stopped writing in this section, you chose to continue it with your comments. I am not going to reply to everything, but I did read what you wrote.

At any rate, you interrupted me from other work, so I must be going. However, I hope this helps. -- Drhankh (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I got hacked!

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

---

Hello,

I have a friend who is visiting me today, and he knows I am editing Wikipedia. I went out to do some shopping, and accidentally left my computer on, with WP open. When I came back, I saw that my friend apparently had created the account Lovejailbait. He admitted to creating the account when I confronted him (and I'm not too happy with that!). I then logged into my account, and reported it to WP:UAA as a username violation.

I confirm that this is NOT a sockpuppet of mine, and I am telling you about this immediately so it won't be an issue later. (And I will of course keep my friend away from my computer! :P) Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 12:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) Just be sure to keep your account and computer secure in the future. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Mayasutra's talk page behavior

Mayasutra (talk · contribs) has recently hurled wrong accusations against me, in the talk page of Iyengar. See below.

• Mayasutra's offensive comments - [203], [204] - Here, Mayasutra accused me of POV pushing and says "According to you (and not according to Monier Williams), the Vadakalis have nothing to do with the Prabandhams", addressing me. And he also says(according to the second diff) "It is apparent Hari7478 is pushing a POV such that Thenkalais are associated only with Tamil and Vadakalai with Sanskrit, and by doing so, somehow wants to portray an ethnic difference".

But, according to these sources, including the one authored by Monier Williams - [205], [206], [207], [208], [209], Vadagalai(Northerners/Northern school) accept the sanskrit vedas while Tengalai(southerners/southern) have compiled a veda of their own(4000 prabandhams - in tamil). Despite providing these sources, Mayasutra accuses me of POV pushing. Also, i didn't mention a word on ethnicity.

• Mayasutra's false comment - [210] - Here Mayasutra has shown a diff of my edit summary and accuses me of wanting to push an ethnic difference.

This was my edit summary - [211] according to which i simply changed the section's title from "Common Origin" to "Philosophical Origin" because the section was all about philosophical origins, hence i thought this title would be apt. I wonder how Mayasutra took it for "pushing an ethnic difference". Clearly a false and vengeful accusation.

• Here's a list of Mayasutra's past accusations and abusive behavior in the article's talk page - for admin's knowledge of Mayasutra's long term attacks. See below.

[212], [213](this one's a communal attack on Vadakalais), [214](edit summary vandalism/accusations of racism in edit summaries - removed by admin).

Due to Mayasutra's "accusations of racism", an admin had previously warned him, here - [215].

The Iyengar page has been under general sanstions for quite some time. I haven't abused other users in discussions, and i don't know how Mayasutra keeps getting away with this behavior. Hari7478 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything other than a content dispute here. Some of the diffs above are really old but, regardless, none of them are attacks. Mayasutra suggested mediation in this diff], did you try that? If not, perhaps that's the way to go. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It is fundamentally a content dispute but there seems to be a multitude of underlying problems relating to behavioural issues. Both the parties were blocked recently for warring, both appealed to me for support of their position and things certainly have been fraught. I've suggested WP:DR on a couple of occasions and, yes, I too have suggested that there may be some POV stuff in play, not to mention tendentiousness, WP:OR, misrepresentation of sources, IDHT and an inability to keep the discussion on a single talk page. If there is blame, it is certainly not reasonable to apportion it entirely to one party. However, I'd like to think that the fundamental dispute can be resolved, even though it will certainly not be to the satisfaction of both people. It seems at heart to be related to issues of ethnicity, which is a messy subject area anyway. More eyes might be helpful but not immediate admin action. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, Am open to WP:DR. Its apparent Hari7478 is stuck on 3 terms--European, Aryan, NorthIndian, and walls are written on it; with a particular POV pushing on Vadakalai versus Thenkalai. Am fed up of his misrepresentation of sources IDHT. I do not take kindly to such allegations either. Nor to ridiculous claims of me attacking Vadakalais as he says "[216](this one's a communal attack on Vadakalais)". Whatever he wants to prove, let him prove. Please advice on WP:DR -- since you are currently involved in sorting out issues between Hari7478 and me, is WP:DR advisable?--Mayasutra [= No ||| Illusion =] (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Mayasutra

Unfair talk

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

---

The User:Freemesm called my edited article as 'crap' without mentioning the reason. Additionally mentioned that, he want the deletion of the article. But, I believe that the modification, deletion or any other change of an article should be according to Wikipedia pilicies. The whole talk of the user seems unfair to me. link --Rossi101 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101

Agreed. This user need to be taken down a peg or two. LalaLAND (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rossil, I'm very sorry that this happened to you; I've left him a warning and (bar a reoccurrence) I think we can close this up. Note that in future, when you list someone at AN/I, it's considered proper to drop them a note and let them know :). I hope future interactions with this user (and the rest of our community) are more pleasant for you! Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I am new to Wikipedia

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

---

I am new to Wikipedia. Can I get blocked from editing due to a "Beginner's Mistake"? DevynCJohnson (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

[217]

No, won't. I apologize for my earlier mistake. Happy editing! Arctic Kangaroo 14:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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