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

Repeated use of derogatory racial epithets in edit summaries by User:Calton

For at least the eighth time on record (see the outcome of an edit summary search here [1]), User:Calton has directed a derogatory racial epithet at another editor. (See this edit summary [2].) From the first time he was called out on this behavior by User:Sjakkalle [3] to the most recent use of the epithet against User:Yworo [4], Calton refuses to even acknowledge that he is being uncivil, no less using a racially offsensive epithet. The term is hardly obscure (see, for example [5].
I therefore call on any uninvolved administrator to indefinitely block User:Calton until he acknowledges the gross misconduct involved and publicly commits to the community that he will not commit such misbehaviour again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a person of mixed-race parentage...if someone called me "Buckwheat" to my face, that person would shortly require medical attention. There is no wiggle room here as to the connotation. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No excuse for such verbiage. It's astonishing he's been allowed to get away with it repeatedly. An appropriate edit summary for his indef could be, "You're done here, Alfalfa." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

He gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have indeffed - his block log shows a long history of this kind of behaviour, which he just refuses to acknowledge or change, and I do not feel he has a place here because of that. GiantSnowman 13:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) GiantSnowman got in there just before I could; there's no place for this sort of behaviour on Wikipedia, and I see from Calton's history that he's been on the receiving end of this sort of block before. A productive editor he may be, but such attacks go against the very fundamentals of Wikipedia's operation; good call by the Snowman. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Calton has been here since 2004 and done untold good work for the encyclopedia, especially in areas that many of us more sensitive souls are reluctant to enter; as he says on his talkpage, "mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical". He's an impatient guy, and has gone too far in his wording quite a few times. Many times I've been able to understand him, considering the aggressive SPI's he mostly deals with. But with the "buckwheat" issue, you've lost me completely, Calton. What the hell? I've never seen you be racist before (obviously I must have missed the other uses of "buckwheat"). If Calton has some kind of idea that it's not offensive, he should still have deferred to the people who told him it was — as soon as Sjakalle told him to stop it in 2005, he should have done so. I agree with GiantSnowman's indefblock for the impenitent use of "buckwheat".

But I protest against GiantSnowman's hasty conclusion that Calton "doesn't have a place here". As soon as he undertakes to keep a civil tongue in his head, specifically with regard to the offensive term Buckwheat, I for one am willing to unblock him. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC).

I think I would tend to agree with your comments here Bishonen. Calton's positive contributions far outweigh the occasional lapse in his temperament that we see. I think a block is clearly needed here to give Calton time to calm down and reevaluate how he interacts with editors. My experience is that he generally does edit more productively post-block. I would suggest that we knock the block down to one week and see how he is after this. No need for an indef in my opinion. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

How about we go with what the OP suggested and keep it as indef until he acknowledges that his behaviour is unacceptable. He's been blocked before for this sort of behaviour, and ultimately it has changed nothing. If we promise to unblock him after he has acknowledged his error, then it shows that he has learnt not to do this again. Having the block expire after a week teaches him nothing. – Richard BB 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Knowing Calton, he will never admit he is wrong and we'll lose an editor who is productive most of the time. If we set it to a week, he will return after his block in a better frame of mind for editing (but of course, he still won't admit he was wrong!) and we don't lose him from the project. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that's the case. He's been blocked before, and even if he is a bit more productive when he comes back, he'll ultimately end up back here again, as history has shown. I suspect that the threat of having eight years' worth of work ending with an indef will force him to admit his error — and even if it doesn't, I'd rather a good editor blocked if he's going to be racist. – Richard BB 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend the racism - That was bad, but we have to look at it in the grand scheme of things and see what's better for the project. As I said, he'll never admit he was wrong. I'll also suggest that he'll be blocked again at some point in the future. Looking at his block log, he hasn't been blocked for 3 1/2 years - That's not too bad a recent record if you ask me. However bad the edit summaries were, I would prefer to keep Calton on the project and reduce the block. That said Richard, I obviously respect your opinion given the severity of the misconduct. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't take a week to realise and accept that dishing out racial slurs isn't acceptable. There is no fixed time limit in which an apology and assurance is no longer needed. Fixing the block to a week achieves nothing if no change in behaviour is offered. Leaky Caldron 14:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The change in behaviour won't be offered expressly, but it will happen. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Any editor can be replaced. He doesn't have to "admit he's wrong", but he has to pledge never, ever to use racist insults again, especially in edit summaries where they remain permanently visible. That's not a ticket to being un-indef'd, but just one requirement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) If he will never admit that using racial slurs is wrong, then I fully agree with GiantSnowman that he has no place here, regardless of the number of good edits he may have done. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, he doesn't have to "admit" anything, he just has to pledge to stop doing it. There's always a meager chance that he may honestly not know that calling someone "Buckwheat" is one step away from calling them the "N-word". If so, he needs to be eddycated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a good content producer should never outweigh someone's lack of civility and fondness for personal attacks, and it should never be used as an excuse for keeping them around. We probably lose many more potential replacements, scared off by the bully boys who think they are above the law, an opinion which is encouraged by the actions of those who defend them. GiantSnowman 15:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I recommend we be firm. Keep the block indef, and make it very clear that he can be unblocked immediately if he simply acknowledges it is a racial slur and agrees to stop using it. I expect he will eventually do so. But if we are wishy-washy about it and reduce it to a week, he has no reason to do anything but wait it out. Yworo (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. No reason to reduce it from indef before he even comments on the matter, as that sends the wrong message. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here,[6] Calton indicates he thinks the claim of personal attack is "nonsense". He's either truly ignorant of what "Buckwheat" implies, or he doesn't care. Either way, he needs to stay on ice until or if he gets the point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

But as the OP pointed out, one has to keep in mind that it was way back in 2005 that he was first made aware that it could be interpreted as an racial slur. And since then have been made aware of that fact by numerous editors. The chances of him being completely unaware of it thus seems very meager indeed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Colonel ought to be thrown out of the hotel!!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep the indef in place, but to lift it immediately if Calton gives a simple undertaking not to use the term "Buckwheat" again. I'm not looking for an apology or an admission of guilt relating to past conduct - just an assurance about the future. I'm uneasy about the "good content producer" defence. I don't think making some/many/thousands of good edits gives anyone licence to behave in ways that less productive users would be sanctioned for. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Any editor, with absolutely no regards to any merits they may have, should be immediately and indefinitely blocked if they insult others with racial epithets (or, arguably, any epithet, but I may be in a minority in that regard). They should be unblocked, once, only if they credibly promise not to do this again. (But can someone explain how "Buckwheat" is an insult? I'm unfamiliar with this meaning of the word.)  Sandstein  15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was reading this thread completely mystified; for once what a joy to find Sandstein, he and I must have led similarly protected and sheltered lives - what does it mean?  Giano  15:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only vaguely recall somebody using it, it isn't used in the UK I don't think, urban dictionary says "a lowly term for a black person". Either way, you'd think a long-standing editor would know not to call people racist names! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Billie Thomas.--159.221.32.10 (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

[7] has an entry for it. Fram (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in general. Buckwheat was also the name of one of the black characters in the Little Rascals series. Eddie Murphy used to parody Buckwheat as one of his Saturday Night Live characters. ("O-tay!") Neither the black kid Buckwheat nor the white kid Alfalfa could be described as the brightest bulbs in the Little Rascals tree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Like most derogatory terms for Black people, it's an Americanism. The name has connotations of low intelligence, use of African American Vernacular English, and poverty - the character of Buckwheat is a variant of the pickaninny stereotype. Eddie Murphy's parody, which is well known to Americans of a certain age, was intended to mock this stereotype. Skinwalker (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The use of Buckwheat implies stupidity as well; I remember the movies on TV when I was very young, and how we were always supposed to laugh at how the character just never got it. Hal Roach attempted to integrate the "Our Gang" (later "Little Rascals") series in the 1930's, when America simply wasn't ready for it, so the non-white characters, notably but not exclusively Buckwheat, were played as a series of very gross stereotypes to make them palatable. Over time, Buckwheat has come to take on the connotation of the slow-witted African-American stereotype that flourished in entertainment until comparatively recently. You basically couldn't be any more insulting unless you used a certain word that starts with an 'n'. I applaud the admin who took a stand and indeff'd. --Drmargi (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The "net positive" standard that people often mention is a reasonable guide, but you need to use it with caution. The "net positive" calculation is not simply the value of all the good edits minus the disruptive edits. If the disruptive edits are driving away other good content contributors, so that we lose all their efforts in the future, then the person who drove them off is almost certainly a net negative. For while the visible effects of a driven off editor may be a mere entry on WP:MISSING, or nothing at all if the editor driven away was a newbie, the contributions that we lost may be a very significant loss indeed. (RE Sandstein: My objection to Calton's use of the term eight years ago is listed in the original posting of this thread. It's origin is an easily frightened black character of the Little Rascals.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely, hence my disagreement with any argument of the sort of "but he's a good content contributor". Thanks for the etymological information. (I added it to Buckwheat (disambiguation)).  Sandstein  16:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The question is how Calton used the word, and the meaning of "Buckwheat" nowadays. For 99.9% of Wikipedians they probably don't even know what that word means unless they look it up, and if they do, people tend to have different standards of its meaning, especially as a powerful term such as "racial epithet". It doesn't seem he was using it on that rationale but more of calling the user an idiot. We can all agree that the word is uncivil, and bordering on a personal attack, and he shouldn't have used the word in a edit summary, but an indef block is going way too far here. Secret ^account 16:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Way too far? It could be lifted in hours if he does the right thing. Maybe you are confusing indefinite with permanent. Leaky Caldron 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't wait to start slipping "schwoogie" into edit summaries then, since I'm sure not many people know what it means... Tarc (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Calling someone "buckwheat" is no more racist than calling a person "junior" is agist or calling them a "pussy" is misogynist or calling somebody a "wimp" is an expression of homophobia. I'm sure there are other examples. Such words tend to be separated from their origins. Obviously, nobody should be calling anybody ANYTHING in an edit summary, but this isn't a case for getting PC feathers ruffled for a sanctimonious banning party (WHEEEE!) this should be a case for giving a stern WP:KNOCKITTHEHELLOFF warning. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, calling a man either a "pussy" or a "wimp" is an insult to his manhood. It appears that your studies of political correctness need some refreshing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, if you still think the term "buckwheat" is harmless, you may find these definitions enlightening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for whitesplaining that to the community. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Whitesplaining"? Is that the new "ableist"? Realised this was a bit of a personal in-joke nobody here would get, so struck the second part. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It sounds to me like a portmanteau of "whitewashing" and "explaining". Regardless, it sounds apt. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
        • That's one way of interpreting it, I suppose. Another would be as a racially-oriented comment in the other direction. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the blocked editor could say "sorry if you were offended by it, wasn't intended as racist, won't use it again on here" and resume editing... Buckwheat (character) anybody?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking

I see that he was unblocked, and claims to be utterly clueless about the offensiveness of that word. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have unblocked although Calton's appeal was hardly fulsome. Nevertheless I assume there will be many more eyes on Calton's future edits and I don't doubt that further problems, should they arise, will be reported here quickly. Let's hope they don't arise. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all he didn't know. In 30+years I have never known the term "buckwheat" (as in "back off, buckwheat") had any racial connotations whatsoever. I guess you learn something new every day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

His attitude is that if an insult is used by a character in a movie, it's OK to use here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Somebody should tell John Crichton to stop calling Rygel that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim, seriously ... you unblocked based on that unblock request? To be WP:GAB-compliant there has to be both an acknowledgement that the behaviour was improper and assurance that it won't recur. I'm not even sure I see the latter, but definitely not the former. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Buckwheat was re-popularized by Eddie Murphy in the 80's on S.N.L. with his portrayal of "grown up" Buckwheat. The usage here was obviously derogatory. Now that that has been cleared up, I hope the offender does not respond to OP with affirmatives in the form of "O-Tay!"  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Bwilkins, and I feel that the decision to unblock at this point seems like very poor judgement. Calton's unblock request isn't merely "not the most gracious"; it is incivil to the point that posting it anywhere would be a blockable breach of civility by itself. In it he says of the action "This is beyond stupid", of the complaint he says "no matter how bullshit the complaint is", and finally he minimizes the offensiveness by saying "some (emphasis mine) people find it offensive". The problem is not limited to just one word, it is to name-calling in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I know people that use the term to refer to someone pejoratively, even directly to their face, but absolutely without any racist connotation. I think children of the 70s are more inclined to remember that the character was kind of goofy (like most of the other kids on the show), and not just that he was black, unaware that some of his dialogue and actions were based on old stereotypes with which we were not familiar. As adults, we probably should be more sensitive to those connotations (and I just wrote one friend an email on the subject), but it's not unreasonable to think that there are those who don't know its specifically racial connotations. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter greatly whether Calton knew the epithet he was slinging around so freely was racist or not; he was told it was unacceptable seven years ago, condescendingly dismissed the complaint, and continued regardless. He knew the term was deeply offensive to at least part of the community, so his decision to persist with its use was indicative of a dismissive attitude towards Wikipedia's editors and towards collaboration in general. Frankly, I find it all but impossible to believe that someone could bandy about the same term for that length of time without knowing that it was, at best, racially insensitive. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of the character before this discussion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Poor unblock - and not just because it was my block that was overturned ;) - the unblock request was as half-hearted as they come, and we should have pushed for more concrete assurances. GiantSnowman 09:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• That was indeed a very poor decision to unblock based on that particular unblock request. It just goes against every point listed at Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Composing your request to be unblocked and was in fact itself a perfect example of why Calton has the kind of block log that he has. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Ill-advised unblock. Back in 2005, Calton was warned (see here) not to call people "buckwheat". So an unblock request in which he says he didn't know it was offensive is implausible. Besides, what would be the purpose of calling someone "buckwheat" other than to offend? I can't see why else he would have used the word.
  The block should be reinstated. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• This may very well be a case that ArbCom should take. Apart from the postings on the talkpage, and the AN discussion, Calton has already had an RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Calton, on him. Since he got unblocked by calling the complaints "beyond stupid" and "bullshit", I am having doubts that the community here is really able to deal with this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, I don't think we need ArbCom's involvement - there is increasing consensus that the unblock was poor, and therefore an uninvolved admin should be able to restore the indef without any issues. GiantSnowman 10:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• And who's going to do that? Aside from anything else, for all the drama that was generated last Christmas you'd hope that the average bleeding heart admin would stop for one nanonsecond to consider the community reaction before undoing an indef civility block these days, but apparently that's still not the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Reblocking

• Re-blocked. In view of the consensus above that the good faith lifting of the block by Kim Dent-Brown was premature, I have reinstated the indef block on Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This is unfortunate, but I expect it to be temporary. I also expect that any unblock is now going to include some form of civility parole. It clearly is protective in nature - especially when the editor refuses to accept the racial terms they're using, and the potential impact on editors. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I admire your guts, but the potential shitstorm that will be unleashed as a result of reblocking may well eclipse the original issue. It might have been more sensible to wait for a better-established consensus here - to that (retrospective) end, I regarded Kim's unblock as ill-advised, and would have Endorsed overturning it. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, if Calton goes WP:DIVA because he was rightly reblocked, it would actually say a lot about his character, wouldn't it? The consensus above was pretty clear, IMHO and further delays in re-implementing the block would have made the re-block stray into punitive instead of protective territory (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good re-block. In the discussion above I saw a good consensus that Kim's unblock was hasty, so I don't see the re-block as controversial. For my part, I was also unconvinced by Calton's unblock request, particularly given the warning in 2005. For a successful unblock I would like to see, at the minimum, a recognition that using the slur wasn't acceptable, and a plausible guarantee that similar behaviour won't continue in the future. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The editor met the terms that had been suggested; the unblock should have remained per unblocks are cheap. Simply because an editor didn't sufficiently grovel is not a reason not to unblock. If they repeated the behavior they could have been simply quickly reblocked. Moving forward, if ya'll really don't like what they said, draft a copy of the specific words you need to see before resolving this issue with a minimum of fuss. NE Ent 11:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Having "promise to never use the term buckwheat again" be a sufficient condition for unblock was a proposal by a small handful of editors, not the view of the majority in the discussion. The underlying issue is civility and personal attacks, and an unblock request calling the complaints "beyond stupid" and "bullshit" is more of the same behavior that got him blocked in the first place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Per Yunshui, I agree it was a very poor unblock request, but also foresee possible 3rd mover issues. You should at least drop a note on Kim's page. He's not usually the sort to get his knickers in a twist, and a courtesy note might help keep things a little cooler. (Although I do note that BWilkins did mention a revisit to this discussion) — Ched :  ?  11:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That was my intent of advising Mr Kim :-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just left a note for Kim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The blocking statement -- you need need to demonstrate an abandonment of the battleground mentality is vague and counterproductive. What kind of mentality would any editor have after been subject of this thread? Mr. Stradivarius's suggestion above is a much more preferable tack to take. NE Ent 11:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

NE, 99% of the time I'm in full agreement with you, but "This is beyond stupid. All right, I will not use the word "Buckwheat" -- no matter how bullshit the complaint is" seems to be quite a distance from "Battlefields" in this case. — Ched :  ?  11:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse re-block per my comments above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse re-block - as per my comments earlier in thread. GiantSnowman 11:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• About racism I don't want to wade into the wheel-drama that this has become, but as kids in the early 70s when we called each other "Buckwheat", it wasn't about race at all, it was used when someone did something dumb, like the Little Rascals character. ("Way to go, Buckwheat" when someone spilled something, etc.) We didn't think the color of his skin is what made him foolish. We also called each other Alfalfa or Spanky for various reasons. It is who we grew up with on the 5 TV channels of the time, something that 20-somethings aren't familiar with. Granted, WP:BIAS tells us to avoid terms like this, but to automatically say it must be a racist comment intended is folly, and is presumptuous. I don't know Calton, but to insist he must have racist intent is taking political correctness too far. I think that needs to be factored in when contemplating the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Calton already knew that the term is sometimes used as a racist insult, and that it may be perceived that way.
    In any case, why is an experienced editor ignoring WP:REVTALK by using edit summaries to make attacks on the character of other editors? This is fairly basic stuff, and it's unacceptable whether the insult refers to race or perceived stupidity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • And I agree that it isn't an acceptable term in a global community. My call is only to put it in a proper perspective when dealing with the situation and not assume he was using it as a racial insult, but rather, as simple racial insensitivity. There is a difference, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. As stated above. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The goal here should be to return editors to editing in compliance with community norms as quickly as possible.

Most people's superficial notion of "teamwork" is that it is equivalent to some namby-pamby consensus and bogus good cheer.
The only consensus worth having is a creative one achieved in the combat of fully engaged intellects.
— Jim McCarthy, Dynamics of Software Development (1995)

If a battleground mentality is reason to block someone, we'd have to block many active administrators, some arbitrators and at least one Ent, along with large swaths of some various wikiprojects. People fight for what they care about, and that is a good thing. The issue isn't simply battleground mentality, it's not engaging appropriately -- not fighting fair, if you will.

When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.
— Sun Tzu,The Art of War

The way we treat editors in situations is counterproductive; indeffing an editor and then excessively bashing them is wiki bear baiting, the normal and logical outcome will be the editor replies with intemperate language -- so we can then say -- See? We were right! There are uncivilized!

If the goal is to ban Calton because they are a bad person, then open the appropriate ban discussion at AN. Otherwise, let's treat them with respect and, instead of vague terms like "battleground" and "awful attitude" provide specific, concrete expectations. Whether or not "buckwheat" is racist isn't a useful debate -- it's clearly inappropriate. Editors should only be addressed by their account name or reasonable abbreviation thereof: for example, Bish for Bishonen (talk · contribs) or "puppy" for LethalPekingnese, or KDB or DB. So all Calton should have to do is make a simple declarative statement they will only address editors by their account names. They they're unblocked and we go back to what they're doing.NE Ent 14:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I did state at Calton's talk page that no terms at all should be used - but that seems to have been ignored by both Calton and Kim. GiantSnowman 14:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the conclusion but would note that the fact that the term is racist or racially insensitive highlights why your conclusion (and policy) regarding the appropriate narrower terms of address is a sensible one. (Also Users are still responsible for their own comments). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he used the name in a racist manner (and the evidence is that he was previously told it was perceived that way), he clearly used it pejoratively, so the question of racism is not a necessary factor in the re-block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good decision; I agree with Mr. Stradivarius above. A collaborative project can have no use for people who persist in insulting their colleagues, especially (but not limited to) with racial insults.  Sandstein  20:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• I have no problem with the reblocking, which clearly had consensus support. There's no wheel war here as far as I'm concerned and I certainly won't be unblocking Calton myself. The way I saw it when I unblocked, there was a feeling that Calton was unlikely to offend again having had this very public warning. I felt it was important to respond to Calton's appeal with some speed and so probably misjudged the consensus which then quickly solidified after my unblock. As it stands now I am a little uncertain about what Calton needs to do or say to make an unblock request stick - but as I'm not going to be the one to make that call I can skip that puzzle! Apologies for not replying here sooner, I've been away for the last 24 hours on family business. Now back and will keep looking at this conversation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I think the racial issue needs to be separated from the incivility. Had he written "jerk" instead, the result would have likely been a severe warning or short block, with reinstatement simply requiring a statement that he won't do it in the future. It's clear that there are people that do not know the racial component of "Buckwheat", and that Calton is one of them. Just because someone tells you something 7 years ago in the heat of an argument, and someone else says it years (and many thousands of conversations) later under similar heated circumstances, doesn't mean you should necessarily believe it, particularly if you are generally "anti-PC" (though you probably should investigate). It's clear from the block appeal that Calton did not acknowledge the seriousness of the racial component of the term (though I'll bet he does now, or at least understands it's more widespread than he thought), but also that he clearly stated he wouldn't use it again – all that should have been required. Procedurally, the re-block is pretty ridiculous, like a court overturning a case on appeal and then changing their minds and throwing you back in jail a day later. He should be unblocked and everyone should move on with their lives. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's more like a nice cop releasing the guy on his own recognizance before the court even had a chance to discuss it, and when they did, they remanded the guy into custody (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Please review Caltons block log. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone who thinks that Calton is "productive" should subtract the amount of time wasted by other Wikipedians in RFCs, threads on AN/I, arbitration, arguments on his talk page, and arguments on article pages. They should also take into account the damage he has caused to the reputation of Wikipedia. Many of the people Calton insults are new to the project. Their first human interaction is often with Calton. He is one editor, but how many people has he chased away? How many people are commenting on this thread right now? How does Wikipedia appear to observers when someone is allowed to ignore one of it's five pillars for so many years while other users are blocked without review? The damage to our reputation is deep and will last many years. I can only hope that this is a sign that Wikipedia now takes our civility policy seriously and not just a sign that Calton's patrons have left the project.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support reblock. I've looked through the block log of this user, and I see FIVE prior blocks for incivility, since 2006. If a user is still doing the same things 7 years on (even if it is 3 and a half years since they were last blocked), then being unblocked from an indef that quickly, after such a dodgy unblock request, is not the right move, to put it mildly. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Woah, pitchforks down, people

While Calton's unblock request was flippant, there was something in there that everybody seems to have missed: he was making a reference to the TV show Wiseguy. Yes, that was inadvisable for all sorts of reasons, but pretty clearly not intended as racist. This is ridiculous. Can anyone give me a valid reason how the encyclopedia would be harmed if we unblock him and take him at his word that we won't use it again? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the very specific education about this particular insult Calton received and flippantly dismissed very nearly eight years ago, his lengthy block log since then suggests that this is not, as so depressingly frequently asserted at ANI, a witchhunt over a specific naughty word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

But, again, would the encyclopedia be harmed if we unblocked, with the agreement of all parties that if the word is used again he'll be re-blocked, this time for good? It can't be understated that the supposed racist meaning of the word is far from commonly understood--I'm a native English speaker from the US and have never heard it used as a racist insult, though I've heard plenty of other ones. It's normally a character name and a plant used to make noodles. It really says something that we've had to use Urbandictionary to even find the insult definition. Urbandictionary is about as trustworthy and accurate as a drug-induced fever dream and would never fly as a reliable source in any article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the problem with Calton isn't the use of a single word ("buckwheat") but his consistent use, year after year, of insults: [8]. He cannot edit Wikipedia without making personal attacks. Making him agree to not use the word "buckwheat" is meaningless because there are so many other insults he can use (and has used) against other users. He will be back here again if you unblock him. He should promise to not make arguments personal at all. Even then, I would not take him at his word, because previous blocks have not persuaded him to change at all. So, yes, the encyclopedia would be harmed gravely by unblocking him. See my comment right above this sub-section for an explanation why.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Come on, that diff is from 2007(!!!) and his block log shows before this debacle he hadn't been blocked since 2009. He's not the Wikipedia Boogeyman some in this thread have desperately tried to portray him as. Stuff he may have done half a decade ago is of little bearing to the current issue. This is at worst a minor civility breach, he should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect too make stakes have been driven into the ground for anything to change at this point. Intothatdarkness 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Involved comment Prior to this, the last time there was a block issued - I was the one who blocked him. Yep, he can be a really crotchety old fart. Set in his ways. After I talked to him, I found that he's actually not a bad sort. I'm going on memory and a quick look at the block log here, so don't quote me - but, I unblocked him to participate in the AN or AN/I discussion. After talking it out, there was no need to reblock. I don't recall if I was aware of the 2005 stuff, but it's not like Calton is on AN/I on a regular basis. A cranky cuss that yells at kids to "get off my lawn"? .. Maybe. An unblock request with "this is bullshit"? yea, very weak. But considering that this is not supposed to be a children's playground, and tensions run high at times, I would ask this. He's here to help build the free knowledge base. When he gets back and posts a bit more reasonable unblock request - I'd ask BHG to consider unblocking. If I see it myself, I'll ping her. — Ched :  ?  04:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Bewildered comment: I can barely remember what I ate for dinner five hours ago. I doubt anyone on this project can remember anything they discussed 8 years ago, barring it being a monumental event in their life ("I proposed marriage and she said yes" or "that's when they called to say I'd got my dream job" or "Mom sat me down and told me that xxx had died"), let alone something comparatively trivial. Risker (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I cannot agree that this was a mere minor case of incivility, or that enforcing the civility standards in this case is an example of "pitchforks". Also, the fact that my warning to Calton was eight years ago and that he had forgotten is hardly an excuse. In this most recent incident, Yworo specifically asked Calton not to use the term "buckwheat" against him [9], Calton's reply [10] is very rude, and compounds the damage by calling a legitimate complaint "spouting nonsense" and telling Yworo that it makes him look "ridiculous". The unblock request was not merely "flippant", it was written in a highly incivil manner using terms like "beyond stupid" and "bullshit". It does damage the Wikipedia community if we give the impression that such language against fellow editors is okay, and that using those terms are a way of getting unblocked. (I'll mention that my views on this type of behavior have evolved over the years, and I have become stricter after realizing that incivility of this type can cause a lot of damage by driving off editors who become discouraged in having to deal with editors who call them names and insult them without any sort of consequence. This damage is not easily seen, as we never see the contributions the lost editors could have given us, but the damge is just as real.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The fact that your comment to Calton on this was eight years ago makes a HUGE difference, and nobody should be in the least surprised that he's forgotten it. EIGHT YEARS. I often look at my old contributions, especially AFD votes, and wonder what the hell I was talking about and I rarely remember actually writing any of it. Are you telling me with a straight face that if I picked out, say, 10 of your contributions from 2005 and gave you a pop quiz on them that you'd get a perfect score? Because I can pretty much guarantee that you wouldn't. And while I can't claim to be indide Calton's head I'd say that being accused of racism on extremely tenuous grounds and insta-blocked for it without getting to present his side, well, "bullshit" is actually a pretty mild word for it. It wasn't the gentlest word and it wasn't exactly what ANI wanted to hear, but I can't fault the man for calling bullshit bullshit, either. Sjakkalle, you're an experienced and respected editor, but you're being uncharacteristically unreasonable and bloodthirsty here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• (Un-involved non admin comment) Although there's an implicit rule throughout WP where senior editors are treated with more lenience, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I for one have absolutely no doubt that any relatively new editor (even one with a clean block log) would not be allowed to get away with this behavior in a million years. I realize WP has no real legal system but these kind of things can set a precedent, specially when all this editor has to do to get his block lifted is agree to tone it down and not use inflammatory terms anymore. Just my 2 cents. Regards. Gaba p (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That's often the case, but this time if anything it's the opposite. If I blocked a first-day newbie over a single word that may or may not be offensive, without warning, without getting their side of the story, and without assuming good faith, not only would the block be undone but I'd likely get a stern talking to about biting the newbies and such. Here, unrelated incidents from nearly a decade ago are being presented as evidence that he's some kind of habitual meanie, which wouldn't be a problem with a newbie. Yes, we can cherrypick a small handful of ill-considered edits out of Calton's 74,000+, representing a thousanth of a percent of his total contibutions. Just like I'm sure we could for any long-term editor. But if we blocked for that, across the board, we'd have no experienced editors left! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Been here since 2004. Over 74k edits. Over 35% to articles. Just dropping a few stats. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing battle over Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar-related articles

We have a now long-running battle going on over articles about Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar and his theories and related organizations. The subject first came to my attention in a FT/N notice back on 10 January concerning Progressive utilization theory (also called PROUT), which appears to be Sarkar's central socio-economic theory. This quickly ballooned into concern over other pages, and I set up a page listing all articles relating to Sarkar simply to make it easier to keep track of things without having to re-search constantly.

My personal assessment of these articles is complex. Sarkar, PROUT, Ananda Marga and a few related articles are plainly notable on their own due to involvement in Indian politics and a couple of incidents abroad; there is also an economist at SMU who published a bestselling and spectacularly wrong book. These articles suffer greatly from being written by Sarkar's followers from primary sources, and they tend to be promotional in large part. What has really kicked up the conflict, however, is the constellation of minor articles surrounding these. For instance, Sarkar wrote lots of books and pamphlets, many of which had articles and none of which has any significant footprint outside of the movements. These have been put up for deletion and all have either been deleted or redirected back to Sarkar's article. These deletions have been fought doggedly by a group of editors, all of whom apparently have some connection to Sarkar.

We very quickly fell into two camps. First, there was FT/N camp:

• Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who started the FT/N thread
• Garamond Lethe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Location (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CorrectKnowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and possibly others. These were opposed by the second camp:

• Abhidevananda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cornelius383 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Universal Life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Joining these, however, were a group of SPAs, all with almost no edits outside these articles and especially the AFDs for the various books. Not surprisingly this raised suspicions of sockpuppetry, and that led to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda, which was preceded by an earlier check. Both of these were technically inconclusive, but that didn't stop a lot of people from raising meatpuppetry and canvassing accusations all around. My index of articles has been accused of being a hit list aimed at deleting all of these articles.

As I said above, I don't intend to have everything deleted, and I've largely stayed out of the AFDs to try to lessen the ganging up impression. For the same reason I haven't gone after the various articles with a machete as by rights I could have. But it seems clear to me that there's some sort of canvassing going on to get more votes on the deletion discussions, and the pro-Sarkar camp has buried us in walls of text and other "policy is not going to get in the way of delivering The Truth to the world" tactics. This needs to be brought to some sort of resolution that doesn't involve so much Wikidrama. A simple RFC isn't going to do it because the scope of the problem isn't one well-bounded issue. Eventually someone is going to have to go after all the extensive primary sourcing in the articles which we all agree ought to stay. And behind all of this is a huge navbox template which promises the creation of many more articles which are also likely to be considered for deletion or merger. We need to stop the madness. At a minimum the SPI needs to be closed and archived, but from my point of view the pro-Sarkar side needs to be made aware that the articles are going to have to be brought into line no matter how true his teachings may be. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This seems like an obvious question, but what are they trying to accomplish by creating all these articles on WP, at best rewording all the info from their own publications and websites? Do they just like the wiki style of editing and presentation? If so, is it possible that is hasn't occurred to them that they could establish their own wiki installation? It's free and they would have complete control over its policies and presentation, versus trying constantly to work around and defeat WP's policies (which are necessary to keep it from becoming a pile of crap). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, how do we get to awareness "that the articles are going to have to be brought into line"? As I'm very sure you're aware, we're tripping over really basic levels of policy: what is and is not an independent, reliable, secondary source, the idea that articles should be based on reliable, secondary sources, that canvassing is bad and so is removing talk page comments written by others, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Is this the time and place to propose bans? Are you looking for 1RR on the remaining Sarkar-related articles? What, specifically, do we need to do to move forward? Garamond Lethet
c 17:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment & complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I repeat here what I've repeatedly said even here. I created the two tables below (the 1st is on a collapse box) to show the "persecution" of one group of users against all the articles related with the indian phylosopher Shrii Prabhat Rainjan Sarkar. These users are user:Mangoe,user:bobrayner, user:Garamond Lethe, user:CorrectKnowledge, user:DGG and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints. As everyone can see from the summary table (the second below) they proposed 16 AfDs all directed against the same topic in about a month. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page containing all the links related with this author on a sandbox of user:Mangoe. We have an evidence of the strong connection of these users' follow-up in the revision history of their "agenda" here and in some of their thalks.

1st Table: all the 21 AfDs on the same topic proposed by the same users. (Click on "Show" to display it)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Date bobrayner Garamond Lethe DGG Location Mangoe CorrectKnowledge Zananiri Dougweller North8000 Current edit counts 36575 4145 109627 11183 18657 5281 719 96754 29836 Neohumanism in a Nutshell‎ 6 January 2013 AfD proposal merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete or merge Delete or merge Ananda Marga Caryacarya (Parts 1, 2, and 3) 6 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Merge Delete or merge and redirect Delete Delete Delete or merge Shabda Cayanika 10 January 2013 AfD proposal Merge Delete or merge Delete Delete or merge Namah Shivaya Shantaya‎ 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Merge Delete Discourses on PROUT 11 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete Problems of the Day 21 January 2013 AfD proposal Strong delete Delete Delete Ananda Marga Elementary Philosophy‎ 24 January 2013 Delete Strong delete AfD proposal Delete Microvitum in a Nutshell 25 January 2013 Delete Delete AfD proposal Delete or merge PROUT in a Nutshell 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism 29 January 2013 Delete Delete Delete or merge and redirect Delete Prabhat Samgiita 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete or redirect Redirect Subhasita Samgraha 29 January 2013 Delete or redirect AfD proposal Delete or redirect Delete or redirect - Idea and Ideology 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete - Ananda Vacanamrtam 29 January 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Discourses on Tantra (Volumes 1 and 2) 6 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Human Society (Parts 1 and 2) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete A Guide to Human Conduct) 7 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete To the Patriots 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Delete Yogic Treatments and Natural Remedies 13 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Delete Yoga Psychology 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete Delete Namami Krsnasundaram 15 February 2013 Delete AfD proposal Delete Delete

2nd Summary table: Total number of AFDS and deletions proposed by these users on 21 articles

	bobrayner	Garamond Lethe	DGG	Location	Mangoe	CorrectKnowledge	Zananiri	Dougweller	North8000
AfD proposals (successful)	4 (4)	12 (9) (one undecided)	2 (2)	2 (2)	0	0	0	0	0
Delete/merge or redirect	17	5	8	11	8	11	7	5	4
Keep	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

All the group has always voted in a compact style only "Delete" or at least "Redirect". Not only that, some of them often held an inappropriate behavior sometimes even insulting. Let's start with a few examples of the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe/user:bobrayner/User:CorrectKnowledge:

• Examples of disruptive deletions

1. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted almost the entire article who had recently passed the AfD, as you can see from the revision history here. I reverted it but after a while the user:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition.
2. After losing this AfD user:Garamond Lethe deleted part of the article, and in particular of the incipit, where there were valuable informations that allowed article to overcome the AfD as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of disruptive deletions + insulting

1. On this talk page of this Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's template, user:bobrayner removed the picture of the indian philosopher, calling it "Sarkarspam". The user user:Titodutta asked bobrayner not to do that, and still bobrayner did it again. As you can see from the revision history here.

• Insertion of inaccurately sourced material on Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar's articles

1. User:bobrayner added inaccurately sourced material to the Ananda Marga article. And later that inaccurately sourced material was compounded User:CorrectKnowledge as you can see from the revision history here.

• Examples of insulting comments on AfDs' talks

1. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: As with other articles in the Sarkarverse, we have the obligatory keep !votes by Abhidevananda and a sockpuppet.
2. This is a comment accompanying the usual Delete vote of user:bobrayner on this AfD: ..on the there's still a stalwart editor and a sockpuppet diligently voting "keep"

I could go on and on but I will stop to make a courtesy to the readers. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop, Cornelius383. The walls of text are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Ditto for the misquotes and the distortion of other people's comments. bobrayner (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Cornelius, the moment you decided to try and claim these people who are "persecuting" you are socks, you lost all credibility here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. As I have shown above bobryner has said this more than once. Please tell me another word that I can use as a substitute of "persecution". It's clear that I used this word 'cause I cannot find another to describe the behaviors shown in Table 1.--Cornelius383 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I put no words in your mouth. "I never claimed any SPI for those users but I have my suspicions" can have only one intrepretation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly: it is your own interpretation. Suspicions are never certainties.--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is the only interpreation any reasonable person would make. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a "single-verse" user. I started editing on the en-WP on June 2011 and I contributed to many articles on various topics without ever having had any particular problem. When I started editing articles related with the indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar came a lot of problems. This is a fact. Of course I understand and I agree that the text I had to produce in order to defend myself was much. Of course it was not my intention to create a "Text wall" but sometimes the tank is full and the water comes out! What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? And if a group of users (almost always the same) had always voted compactly "Delete" or "Redirect" in all the AfDs? And if those group even created a "Deleting Agenda" on a sandbox that they are strictly following to delete all? And what if some of those users have an improper behaviour as I said in the three points I have outlined above? Please try to understand!--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you do in my place if only two editors had proposed to delete 21 of your articles related with the same topic? What I'd do would be to stop and ask if this was actually a topic that was suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, but then again, I might be odd that way. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but you didn't answer the other questions I asked here. Your first answer was quite obvious to me: since you created your personal page on WP declaring to be a Christian practicing abstinence and to belive in True Love Waits (a Christian fundamentalist group that promotes sexual abstinence), I do not expect you to agree with my points on what concerns the deletion of 21 articles related with a very different spiritual path. I will not even worth mentioning as offensive is it to me, as European citizen, reading on your userboxes sentences like: "This user trusts the EU about as far as they can throw it" or "This user supports the restoration of the Tsar and the Russian Empire as a Constitutional Monarchy". As a connoisseur of the crimes perpetrated by the British Empire in India it's even more repulsive to me reading on your WP personal page: "This user is a modern imperialist and believes in the re-establishment of the British Empire". Or again: "Pahlavi dynasty is the only legitimate regime in Iran" or "independence for Palestinian Arabs has been achieved with the establishment of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan".. I prefer to stop here. But let me ask you the last question that strongly stimulates my curiosity: I've seen all the awards exhibited on your page, but how did you get some of them on January 2007 if you open your personal page on WP on june 2008? :) I'm sorry if I went a little off topic but I hope that some of those who have to judge my articles on WP doesn't have these ideas! Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is an editing policy I follow regardless of personal POV. There's many editors here with personal positions I find distateful, perhaps even repulsive at times - but their opinions are theirs to hold freely, and as long as we all edit neutrally, we're one big, happy, dysfunctional Wikifamily. I honestly find it more than a bit dissapointing that you would decide that, based on my personal opinions, I would choose to suggest that articles be deleted regarding other practices. Policy is policy regardless of spiritual path. As for the dates, as clearly stated and disclosed, User:Aerobird is my legitimate alternate account. I established it in 2005, when I first joined Wikipedia; in 2007, being a bit burned out for personal reasons, I went on a lenghty Wikibreak. When I returned, I simply abandoned the old account, and created a new one, using the new identity I preferred using for things online, while clearly establishing and disclosing my previous Wikipediaing. When I became an admin (at which point the previous account was disclosed, as required), I re-adopted it as a legitimate alternate account as allowed under policy, as using my main account, which has the tools, on a public computer is potentially risky due to the possibility of password keylogging and such. That said, however, if you cannot trust my neutrality on this position, I can accept that, and will bow out of this debate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

C383, All of us have long and more or less uninvolved careers here. As far as I know, the only common link is through FT/N, except that DGG and I run across each other because we are both active in category maintenance and AFDs. All of us except GL have at least 10k edits. If there's any "conspiracy" between us, it's simply the common objective of preventing fringe crusaders from using Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their causes. Other than the list of articles, there has been no coordination with me and anyone else, and I haven't sought out other people who were not already participants in the issue. It's obvious that someone among Sarkar's supporters here has fetched up more participants: five new accounts are registered as the AFDs begin, and all of them quickly settle into voting on these AFDs, with two making such votes as their first edits. Given the course of these thus far, this tactic isn't working. But we are going to have to deal with the main articles themselves, and the policy-ignoring obstruction will be a much more severe problem there. Already Progressive utilization theory is full-protected because of this.

I want to repeat what I've said every time something like this has come up: I think that in-movement editors can be very helpful in this kind of article, because they potentially are more aware of secondary sources about their movement than us outsiders are. But the price they have to pay for participation is letting go of the crusade to bring their important knowledge to the world. We are not here to evangelize Anandamurti's teachings. To the degree that they are presented, that presentation must be neutral, and we certainly are required to present what the world thinks of those same teachings. If they are going to treat these requirements as persecution, it will go badly. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have notified DGG, Zananiri, Dougweller and North8000 about the discussion. Cornelius383, please collapse the wall of text, this makes it harder for uninvolved editors to follow the discussion. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I've put a collapse box around the table. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think my view of this was best expressed in my question at the afd on Prabhat Samgiita. I will support reasonable articles for which there is good evidence, and even make allowances for the difficulty of finding conventional sources for esoteric material. But I do not support unreasonably detailed articles on multiple books of an individual thinker that in the whole serve the interest of promotion of their views, and I think the introduction of such articles even foolish viewed as promotion, for nobody not already in the group of supporters will read them. I've said this consistently for the 6 years I've been here.

I don't approve of promotional editing--I is the biggest threat to the encyclopedic for if it is full of advertising nobody will take us seriously. Paid editors we can cope with: since they work for money, if we reject their improper editing consistently they will decide it's not worth the money. Zealous promoters of a cause do not stop, because they have a message. The sensible ones stop after they've achieved a reasonable article, and will take advice on how to get it. If we can turn attempted promotion into encyclopedic articles on notable topics, I will work hard and long with an article or an editor to get there. If they are not sensible, they will not take advice, and they will continue defending their material until we force them to leave, and even then it has sometimes been a problem.

I have repeatedly urged Abhidevananda to let me help him condense this material; he has politely but consistently declined. If a person will not accept help, nobody can help him. It's hard to be patient with such an editor. Still, it is possible, and we can politely but firmly edit and delete the material without insulting him or his cause. On the whole, I think we have done that, though I would not have used the word "sarkarspam" however I may have thought it.

In short, I approve of what Mangoe has said and done. He has made every possible effort to help, and he has done this with great courtesy. Perhaps even with too great courtesy--I would have taken a much shorter route with some of the articles, and I would not oppose a neutral editor making careful use of speedy deletion. With the PROUT article, if we cannot get a shorter reasonable article when protection expires, we shall have to consider whether we can do a redirect, which would be a shame. I do not think we need take any admin action on the editors, provided they do not try to reintroduce the articles, but it always helps to clear away any sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not have made the page [User:Mangoe/Sarkar articles]; I think it useful and not objectionable, but others have objected to similar pages in the past. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please DGG read my answer to The Bushranger above (the one that starts with: "I'm not a single-verse user.."). This is my reply to you too.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Definitive proof that Garamond Lethe and DGG aren't socks comes from one of the AfDs linked above: I don't think the DGG I know would have ever made this categorical statement. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Please Drmies can you explain? I really don't understand your point.--Cornelius383 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • First of all, suggesting DGG is a sock (or a master) is beyond silly, so much so that I can't even come up with a witty simile. Second, the comment was "References (still) don't count towards notability." Perhaps this is shorthand for "these references (still) don't count towards notability", but having looked at the references I doubt that DGG, who knows academic publishing like few other people here, would have said that. So--have you taken back those suggestions yet? Drmies (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with you Drmies. In fact, I never thought and I also never suggested that.--Cornelius383 (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you did; at the SPI, for instance. It's unfortunate that Cornelius383's comments so frequently contradict Cornelius383's actions. Personally, I'm flattered by the suggestion that I might be the same person as DGG; it's even better than a previous incident on this page where I was accused of being PZ Myers. bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't switch the narrative bobrayner. A portion of what I had to say about your behavior is written on my four points above. Please keep a more constructive approach and be less controversial. Thanks--Cornelius383 (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you had any suggestions on who controls the army of sockpuppets/meatpuppets that !vote "keep" on all your articles at AfD. Who would want to do that? bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better that you did it. Frankly you seem to be the most suitable person for such suggestions.--Cornelius383 (talk) 20:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Garamond Lethe asked above what I wanted moving forward, and looking at the direction the discussion is taking that is a question which really does need to be addressed. I suppose my first step is going to be to end my tolerance for the use of primary sources, so I expect to cut down most of the major articles drastically based on their reliance on Sarkar's own writings. I don't know that we've gotten to the point of 1RR-style protection, but it would be nice to get some assurance from uninvolved admins that they aren't going to protect this material from the deletion/redaction it most roundly deserves. I notice that Abhidevananda hasn't responded at all here, which is a problem. I personally am not so concerned about the puppetry/canvassing issues since in the end they don't seem to be having much of an effect on the outcome of the AFDs where they figured most strongly, but I would really like to see some responses from the pro-Sarkar side that show they understand the rules and are willing to play by them. Otherwise I don't see how we are going to avoid arbcom. Mangoe (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

On Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory I've made a few attempts at a modest proposal that editors comply with WP:V and WP:NPOV in future, but the article's defenders have avoided the question completely. This is quite frustrating. bobrayner (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

From Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory, this is my statement on moving forward:

Yes, the Rfc concluded a few days ago but the only editors stating that "nothing came of it" are those who are opposed to the consensus that formed. The consensus view of the respective discussions indicates that the article should in general "keep only those content which are supported by independent scholarly works" (i.e. Proposal 1 authored by Titodutta) and more specifically replace the current content with the draft noted on the talk page (i.e. Proposal 2 authored by myself). Integrating the material from the draft into the current article has no consensus (i.e. Proposal 3 authored by Abhidevananda). It would be nice to have an administrator rubber stamp this for us, but it is not necessary. We can request that page protection be lifted now, or we can wait until March 18th. It doesn't matter to me. Either way, I intend to act on the consensus that has formed once the page protection has lifted. If this needs to play out via 3RR to demonstrate the consensus to those who don't believe there is any, then so be it. If we want to do it in a more gentlemanly way, we can ask that this article be subject to 1RR.

The weight of consensus favors one side, so I think 1RR-style protection would be very useful in moving forward and also as a way of avoiding Arbcom. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:CsDix

Hello, this isn't a major issue but one that seems to be growing in scale of changes being made. CsDix (talk · contribs) has been making wholesale changes to multiple templates today. Several users have brought up issues regarding the changes he has made, and I have one as well. My main issue is in regards to this is regarding the categories he has been creating. I seem to recall a change to the categories names from Xxx navbox templates to Xxx navigational templates some time ago; CsDix has been going around redirecting said categories from the former form and redirecting to newly created categories in the latter form.

There is no detectable malicious intent that I can detect, but the scale of changes he has made could make this difficult to correct, if he is in error that is. Input would be nice, thanks. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I was here if / when there was a change from "X navbox templates" to "X navigational templates" (or is it "X navigational boxes"?), but the rationale is to maintain a consistent naming format across the the three most common kinds of (relatively large and/or not-inline) templates that appear in articles: navboxes, sidebars and infoboxes. Any templates in the category "X templates" are then unsorted (i.e. "X templates" is a holding category) until they are put in "X navbox templates", "X sidebar templates" or "X infobox templates", otherwise "X [type] templates" (e.g. "X inline templates", "X timeline templates" – see Template:Template category) if they aren't one of the three most common types. A bit wordy, but I hope that clarifies the clarification I'm trying to make. CsDix (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The first time someone asks you to stop, you need to stop and discuss before doing any more. WP:CONSENSUS rules (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree – which is what I've done here even without request (apologies if I've missed it) and done previously elsewhere. CsDix (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In other words, please stop, and see requested moves (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please be reassured that I have stopped (see Special:Contributions/CsDix). What am I looking for at Requested moves..? CsDix (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• RM isn't the right place. WP:CFDS is, if "navigational templates" really is the standard then you can nominate them for renaming under C2C. It should also save you a fair bit of work as once you've nominated (assuming no one objects) admins and bots will do the rest. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for this pointer – I've now just added this to the discussions there. CsDix (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• In the future please discuss an issue on the editor's talk page before starting ANI discussion. NE Ent 14:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000

In November, Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) was blocked for falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets. He was shortly thereafter unblocked with the understanding that he would no longer make "comments that can't be properly substantiated."

Yet just three days ago, Demiurge1000 falsely accused another editor, without any evidence, of contributing to the outing of a minor editor – on an arbitration page, no less. Their comment was rightly redacted by a clerk, and Demiurge1000 was given a very clear warning by Floquenbeam that any more false or unsubstantial accusations would earn them a block.

Demiurge1000 has made many, many negative comments over the last few months about the participants in an external website, labelling them "the boxcutter crew" and the like. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after making another such comment yesterday, I left a note explaining that his constant on-wiki taunting of these people is unhelpful and likely to backfire.

He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks, which he then followed by trolling my talk page.

As I told Demiurge1000, this is completely unacceptable behavior, and as such I have restored and extended the NPA block to 1 month.

Normally, I would not feel the need to bring such obvious NPA and trolling block to AN/I for review, but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about, I am requesting community input. As far as I'm aware, I've never had any disputes with Demiurge1000 before, but when it comes to WP:INVOLVED it's better to err on the side of caution, which is why I'm bringing it here. Any admin is welcome to adjust the block as they see fit, and as I told Demiurge1000, if he makes a credible commitment not to repeat the behavior, I would support a unblock. I believe it would be unwise to unblock absent such a commitment from the editor, but as always I defer to community consensus.

I have notified Demiurge1000 of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

28bytes, as you put it, "but as I am the latest in a serious of editors Demiurge1000 has insulted and/or made false accusations about...", perhaps a neutral third party should have done the block. Your block seems harsh (a month) and punitive.--MONGO 16:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think Demiurge should be unblocked without consensus here. Now, keep in mind I'm not saying that I think he should have been blocked. I'm not especially up to speed on all the ins-and-outs of that ArbCom situation, although it looks like a fiasco to me, so I won't pretend to know who should or should not be blocked. However, let's keep in mind that blocking and unblocking without consensus has caused significant unpleasantness in the not-so-distant past. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Righteous block, would have preferred another admin make it, in context. NE Ent 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think you provoked him a tad, though Demiurge needed little provoking. The most unsettling thing for me were his constant references to members of WO as the "boxcutter crew", but he seems to have committed to not using that term again. My thought is that it could be shortened to a week.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• The commitment seems to be to find a synonym for continuing to make comment about other editors. NE Ent 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Boxcutter crew" What does that mean? The Admin should have discussed with the User, why the User thought he was being personally attacked. Did he think you were impugning his motives? Also, someone else should have done the block. But there may well be an argument for a block of some length, but this is not clearly justified here, if you were arguably provoking him in the view of TDA, who was also involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Boxcutter -> 9/11 hijackers. NE Ent 17:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• It actually refers to an inappropriate comment one moderator made a few months back.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Here's one of "Boxcutter crew" comments, and yes, it means 9/11 hijackers, and yes, such kind of rhetoric should not be allowed here. Demiurge1000 should have been blocked indefinitely for this comment alone. Demiurge1000 belongs to the worst kind of users. He seemingly does not violate the rules, but makes false accusations time and time again. Wikipedia will be better off with Demiurge1000 gone for good.71.198.213.240 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No. Users are not blocked indefinitely for one bad comment. You're being way to harsh. –TCN7JM 17:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

TDA, when you say a moderator said that inappropriate comment, are you saying a Wikipedia Sysop said that? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• If this [11] is correct, "boxcutter" refers to some threat made on an external website. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a reasonable explanation, but most many readers seeing the term "boxcutter crew" are going to associate it with 9/11. NE Ent 19:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Not being most of them, I could not say. But what I thought of is a moving company, as in my experience that's who uses them in a crew. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The original context of Demiurge's famous box-cutter quote is here. Now, that comment was inappropriate. It was removed from the forum as a result a few hours after it was made, and the moderator who made it got a royal bollocking from the rest of us. Having said that, to describe it as a "threat" is nonsense. You only need to look at the context. It's a figure of speech. Lizzy Caplan e.g. once said in the New York Post, "I don't think you should be allowed to eat in a restaurant if you haven't waited tables at least once. It's so irritating when I see people being rude to waiters, like, it makes me want to slit their throats! Like, really? You're really this inconsiderate?" So the whole thing is overblown, just like the fuss that was made about the comments that sparked the Twitter joke trial. Not nice, not to be repeated, but not worth the fuss Demiurge has made over it. Andreas JN466 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

.

• I'm not a fan of Demiurge1000, but this seems like a rather long block handed out because their response to the warning, not because of the incident itself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• The opinions of the IP above notwithstanding (and it's rather curios to see an IP posting here), it appears that making personal attacks against some of the people at Wikipediocracy probably should not be a sanctionable offense. As for the IP, he does not seem to know what he is talking about, as boxcutter is almost certainly a reference to an inappropriate comment made by a sociopath on another site. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, but since I was the one being hit with that "boxcutter crew" remark, despite having no connection with the comment that prompted that term, I have to say I am utterly disgusted with your attitude.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Ditto. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I agree with Demiurge when he says, "On a minor technical note, I'm not at all convinced that when one "resets" a 24 hour block that would have expired nearly four months ago, a proportionate extension of it can sensibly be said to reach the region of one month." Therefore, I support an unblock. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Fully endorse block This editor has been politely given advice on multiple occasions by multiple editors. The continuous postings across multiple venues, from arbitration related pages to the village pump, complaining about "people talking about me" and all the drama that ensues in a mature environment is a bit of a mystery to me. Frankly I would have considered an "indef" until the user could display that they understood the reasons that this project exists. — Ched :  ?  19:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Additional note: Being unfamiliar with the term being tossed around, a bit of researching the meaning of "boxcutter", I was unable to find anything positive; but plenty of negative and derogatory explanations. — Ched :  ?  19:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Month long block is sort of excessive (as have been almost all sanctions related to this recent wikipediocracy mess). Perhaps reduce it to one week?--Staberinde (talk) 19:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't think the period of the block (at least a couple of users have suggested reducing it) is of any significance. The issue is what kind of "credible commitment" (28bytes's phrase) must Demiurge make to be unblocked? As usual, I'm unfamiliar with the background mess, but even in trying to follow the latest mess, I see little clarity. As a procedural aside, I don't believe 28bytes is involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• additional note I see that the blocked editor is now hosting a picture of some rather young people who are said to already be the targets of internet harassment. Considering the already mounting concerns over WP:OUT; I have to wonder if that is a particularly wise idea. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, so posting a publicly available picture of some WMUK members is now outing? That's horrid that you'd even try to go there. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Since we are using bolds, here's some more. Now, in all seriousness. 28bytes is just mad that we removed a comment he made on my talkpage, which is fully within guidelines. Furthermore, he's now told me that I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances, which means that tons more users deserve a block as well. This block was inappropriate, especially because Demiurge had never attacked anyone directly (afaik), and I feel that this may be an attempt to just cool down the ArbCom case before it explodes. Regardless, Demiurge does not deserve this block, as everything they've said so far is completely founded, and we both offered to provide evidence in private if asked to. Nobody's asked us for evidence. Therefore, you can't say this is unfounded and personal attacky, because it's all deserved. Block should be overturned and the blocking administrator should be seriously admonished. Oh, p.s., for those of you who want to know, the comments in question were by the blocking admin themselves, making them extremely WP:INVOLVED. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The comment in question[12] looks to me like good advice, not a personal attack, and I don't see that it makes 28bytes involved to the extent he couldn't block. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, given the situation, I hope you understand that seeing him come and tell us to basically "stop sniping" when it's fully warranted seemed a bit bad, given the concerns me and others have raised about the attempted silencing going on. Looking now, I don't think anyone made a personal attack, not demi, not me, not the blocking administrator. I think we should just unblock, all say sorry to each other, and move on (and I won't say fuck so much anymore, oh fuck I just fuck I'm still fucking saying it! Ugh! So hard!) Humor for those who didn't catch that. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support-ish - While long overdue...the boxcutter jibes were getting a bit overdone and tiring...perhaps there is wiggle room here. Perhaps a length reduction pending agreement of a topic-ban from all Wikipediaocracy/Wikipedia Review related discussions, broadly construed? Tarc (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • How about that? A Wikipediocracy contributor trying to silence someone from talking about the major issue here by proposing (implied) a topic ban? That's a great tactic, but everyone can see through it. Nice try. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

gwickwire, you're doing yourself and others no favors here. Wikipedia is not the "Internet Police Task Force". If you have a problem with WO, then take it up with them. Quite frankly, with all the fuss you've been making about this - I think that they (WO) could not have held a better membership drive if they had tried. Nobody here cares where Tarc spends his time on the internet (no offense Tarc), as long as he abides by the rules here when he is here. If you feel that WO is doing something shady, have your parents contact a local law enforcement agency - or do so yourself if you are of age. We are simply not equipped to take the kind of action you're looking for. — Ched :  ?  21:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that users are not abiding by our rules regarding editor conduct, and it's okay because they're not strictly on Wikipedia. We are equipped to stop this by blocking editors who choose to violate our rules, here or elsewhere. If you don't remember, I specifically said this would only apply to a Wikipedia editor who violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor. Regardless, this is not the place to have that discussion. I was only pointing out that this editor is a bit too COIy to be trusted with a neutral opinion on Wikipediocracy and Demiurge. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Saying "they're not strictly on Wikipedia" implies that they are in some way on Wikipedia. They are not. Twitter is not Wikipedia, Amazon is not Wikipedia, IMDB is not Wikipedia, and Wikipediocracy is not Wikipedia. For someone who claims not to like Wikipediocracy, you seem to be doing a great job of advertising that site here. I'm sure many people have gone there just to see what all the fuss is about. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I clearly don't hang out in the right places and am always the last to know. Until these last few comments, I had no idea the background of this was another website. I just assumed that wikipediocracy was a coined word to refer to the bureaucracy at Wikipedia, i.e., 28bytes being a 'crat and all. Obviously, I spend too much time in my own little admin hole.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

gwickwire, we do not block people who "violate our rules...elsewhere". That's elsewhere, and has precisely bupkis to do whether they get blocked here. Criminal conduct excepted in some cases, I believe. If somebody "violates our rules against another Wikipedia editor" somewhere that isn't Wikipedia, but remains within policy on Wikipedia itself, any block would be strictly punitive, and blocks like that go over like lead balloons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Question for gwickwire (or anyone else): You claim that 28bytes said something along the lines of " I am not allowed to say fuck on wiki in any circumstances," - could someone please provide a diff for that? I know some people get rattled when people use "big boy" words, but I can't find where he's made that requirement of you. — Ched :  ?  01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still on my talkpage, he told me I was being incivil somehow, the only thing I came close with was saying fuck, I guess I assumed. If he meant something else, fine. Regardless, Demiurge has apologized and has said they won't use the (imo not that bad compared to some other peoples words recently) word they used which got them blocked. Unblock is fine now. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fully support unblock per Demiurge's comments and AutomaticStrikeout. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 01:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per Demiurge's promise to not do it again on their talkpage. gwickwire^talk_editing 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per AutomaticStrikeout and Demigure. I am open to another chance in this case, anyways. TBrandley ^(review) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• 1 month is excessive. Reduce duration or unblock, as the duration set is definitely not in line with escalation. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I and another editor have suggested it be reduced to one week. My belief is that unblocking at this stage would just allow more unneeded drama if Demiurge's commentary on his talk page is any indication.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Reduce duration or unblock. Shearonink (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock until there is a policy requiring editors to be nice to WO. I do not see a problem that requires a block of any length in what appear to be the important diffs from the OP ("after making another such comment yesterday" ∙ "I left a note" ∙ "He responded by falsely accusing me of making personal attacks" ∙ "he then followed by trolling my talk page"). The boxcutter reference is to an extremely offensive remark made at WO, and presumably "boxcutter crew" refers to the people who encourage such offensiveness by making participation at WO appear to be a normal procedure. Has Demiurge1000 made a personal attack against a specific editor? The "trolling my talk page" remark was certainly aggressive, but an admin should not block someone for a pointed yet civil rejoinder. If Demiurge1000 had violated a policy like WP:BLP and followed a warning with that rejoinder, a long block would be very appropriate as the rejoinder would show a disregard for the policy. However, I see no policy breaches. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock or reduction So, the drama-inducing external website (WP:DIEW?) rears its ugly head once again. As much poison as that website creates, one would think we as editors would learn just to ignore what appears to be just a gigantic a) timesink and b) trolling board. Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia. Here's the real reality: with sock accusations, either file the SPI or STFU; period - it's uncivil otherwise. Also, any further reference to boxcutters should be met with instant and final site ban; again period. As Demi has said it won't recur, this should not be an issue. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I presume the comment about sock accusations is for my benefit, but it is mistaken. At no point did I accuse anyone of being a sock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world would you assume that it applied to you? Part of the original complaint against Demi related to sock claims (see the words "falsely and repeatedly accusing an editor of creating malicious sockpuppets"), so it was adminishing Demi for doing so ... I really cannot fathom why you would consider this to be about you at all when it's my specific judgement on the editor in question (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, given the recent situation and your statements about WO I thought that part of your comments was directed at me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reduced to 1 week

There seems to be a fair amount of support for (at least) a reduction in the block length, and I take Demiurge1000's and others' point that going from a 1 day block to 1 month isn't the usual block escalation pattern, so I've dropped it down to 1 week. And as I said at the top of this thread, if any admin is convinced that Demiurge1000 is going to cease making false or unsubstantiated accusations, they have my blessing to unblock. Judging from what I've read on Demiurge1000's talk page, I don't (yet) see such a commitment; instead, I mostly see defenses of why it's necessary for him to keep stoking the flames of the us vs. them battle. So the options now, I suppose, are for him to:

1. make an honest commitment to avoid making stuff up about people, and get unblocked immediately,
2. wait it out for a week, or
3. hope someone unblocks him without any commitment to stop the problematic behavior.

I sincerely hope he will come to realize why making false statements about other people is such a corrosive thing to do in a collaborate environment and make a sincere commitment to stop doing that, but judging from the comments here so far, I think there's a decent chance he'll get unblocked without making such a commitment, in which case I suppose we'll be back here soon enough. 28bytes (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Demiurge1000

I'm creating a subsection for any comments Demiurge wants to make here. This is the first:

I'd like to make anyone who's not seen it aware that I've posted an explanation in this section of why I (and another editor) initially perceived 28bytes' comments as a personal attack.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather ridiculous

I feel like no one was paying attention at all. First off, i'll start with Gwickwire, since that will be shorter. They were blocked by saying that personal attacks had been made against them by Kevin. This is true, I saw them too before they were oversighted (they were oversighted for several reasons, really). So, it's kind of ridiculous to say that the claims are unfounded and ask for evidence when the evidence has been oversighted.

Onto Demiurge, let's start with the warning. Now, I don't know who it was they accused of contributing to the outing of a minor. Sure, User:Vigilant was the one who very clearly did the outing on the site, but there were indeed several other editors that were involved in the berating of Gwickwire and contributing to the general attacks on them that led to Vigilant doing that. Now, whether that's considered contributing to the outing directly or not, I don't know. That's rather subjective.

Next, the "boxcutter" comment. This is a jab at Ericbarbour, who used that comment to refer to Wikipedians in the past. Sure, not a nice thing to say, but if you're just quoting the terms they used, essentially, it seems silly to get that upset over it.

Last is 28bytes' comments. I don't know about any of you, but being accussed of "constant sniping" sounds like a personal attack to me. Also, isn't saying "egging on other folks to taunt them" an unfounded attack? Demiurge had nothing to do with Gwickwire and 28bytes was accusing him of egging them on.

So, please, do tell me why blocks were handed out for both of them here? If it's based on the recent 28bytes stuff, it seems to me that they are the one in the wrong, not Demiurge. Silverseren^C 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care about 28bytes, I just think that unblocking Demiurge and Gwickwire is appropriate. Silverseren^C 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, if you think that my comment was in any way, shape or form a personal attack, then your understanding of our policy on personal attacks is so poor that you really have no business commenting in a discussion about personal attacks until you gain a better understanding of what one is. 28bytes (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• It wasn't a large one, but it is quite easy to see how someone could consider being accused of "constant sniping" would consider that a personal attack. Furthermore, why did you accuse Demiurge of "egging on" Gwickwire to "taunt them"? Silverseren^C 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I have to agree with 28bytes on this one. I really do not see how a reasonable person could consider that a personal attack. That was clearly and obviously a comment about 28bytes' perception of Demiurge's actions not their person. Resolute 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's just that sniping is a negative term. Besides, is him calling it a personal attack in an edit summary really that big of a deal? Certainly not worthy of a block. Silverseren^C 20:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Negative actions are hard to describe accurately with positive terms. And it was apparently big enough of a deal for you to bring it up, so... Resolute 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The whole point is that seeing "sniping" as negative is subjective and fully understandable to be taken as a personal attack. So, holding it against Demiurge at calling that a personal attack (in an edit summary, no less) seems patently ridiculous. Silverseren^C 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Support block of 28bytes for abuse of admin tools in violating WP:INVOLVED by blocking Gwickwire (his block of D1000 might also have violated said policy, making the second block even worse). I'm very disappointed, as I previously had a lot of respect for 28bytes. Otherwise, I would probably say he should be desysoped. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? In what way am I "involved" with Gwickwire? Prior to blocking this editor, my only edits having anything to do with this person were to [ask another editor not to pester them and to warn them for repeatedly making stuff up about people, which they continued to do, which is why they are now blocked. Are you seeing some other edits I am not aware of? 28bytes (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

28, may I ask if you consulted an OS before blocking Gwick? He claims that the comments in question have been oversighted. Considering that this whole mess started with an admin using their tools in a situation where they didn't have access to all the information, I think this would be a logical thing to do. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi PinkAmpersand. That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad you asked it. The answer is this: I didn't need to ask oversight about them because Kevin's statements are still right on the page; it was other editors' comments that were removed, not his. When I said I'd read all of his contributions since February, I was including the contributions that appear to have been oversighted. If you look in Kevin's contribution history, you will see four oversighted edits, all make to Cla's talk page. However, the oversighting was done to remove other people's contributions; it just so happens that when you oversight someone's edits, other editors' contributions will not be viewable if they happened to post after the oversighted material was added to the page, but before the oversighter removed it. I will post the content of those edits here shortly (again, these are still visible on the talk page - it was other editors' content that was oversighted.) I believe you will agree that they come absolutely nowhere close to personal attacks. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, 28bytes. If only 4 edits have been OS'ed, I agree that it's almost certain that none of them had anything removed from them. However, Gwickwire seems to believe that Kevin did in fact make personal attacks that were OS'ed. I'll ask him what he thinks about your comment (which I fully believe, of course), then. I'd like to note, though, that this could somewhat explain the disagreement here about whether or not Kevin made PAs; Wikipedians often rely heavily on page histories, and without them they can become somewhat more confused than usual about what was or was not said by different users. But anyways, yeah, I'll ask Gwick if he can explain this. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 06:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As one of the two editors (the first was Enric Naval) in contact with OS about User talk:Cla68, a full explanation of what was removed was provided on WP:AN recently. There was an external link to one posting on wikipediocracy (a message that Cla68 wished to be added on to his user talk page). That link was removed by Enric Naval with a note. I later removed that note and that was the state in which OS left the page after suppression. No content added by Kevin was changed. Gwickwire's memory is not correct. There was nothing between my two edits by Kevin beyond the 4 statements listed below by 28bytes. There seems to be no point in making any further comments about Kevin or personal attacks. Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The claims about off-wiki personal attacks are also quite absurd. Best I can tell the only comment being called a personal attack is Kevin's talk about Demiurge "making it up as he goes along." Given that Demiurge openly speculated at RFAR without a shred of evidence or any reasonable basis that Kevin was using his administrator privileges to funnel private information about a minor to someone else in order to facilitate malicious harassment of said minor, I think Kevin's comment was well within reason.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support block of 28bytes for abuse of administrator tools per WP:INVOLVED and WP:COI I suppose, per AutomaticStrikeout. TBrandley ^(review) 20:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I remain neutral upon further investigation. TBrandley ^(review) 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Just an observation, but this continuing to encourage each other down a path of flouting policy and generally accepted practices is likely to not end well. — Ched :  ?  20:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comments: 28bytes cannot be considered an involved admin since his only involvement with these two users has been to issue warnings and take administrative actions. -- Dianna (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Gwickwire has asked me to clarify that he feels 28bytes was involved since he (Gwickwire) had previously expressed discontent with 28bytes's block of Demiurge. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• That in itself is not enough to make 28bytes involved. Writ Keeper (t + c) 20:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Nope. NE Ent 20:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Uhh, yeah, no. "I don't like the admin action you took" does not make an admin involved in this context. Resolute 13:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is really a strange section to read. No, warning an editor does not make an admin involved, and even if it did, the response to that would not be to block the admin in retaliation. I see that PinkAmpersand has said he's in communication with Gwickwire - can I ask that if anyone else is here because they were asked to comment or urged toward a particular position, they say so here? The level of vitriol being directed at 28bytes here seems disproportionate for uninvolved users to be putting out, and I know gwickwire was expressing his distaste for the block on IRC earlier today, though he says he has not asked anyone to comment here besides PA (as PA discloses above). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think the vitriol is also distracting from the simple fact that I don't think all the facts were properly explained in Demiurge and Gwickwire's blocks and that, with this information, it shows that they shouldn't have been blocked. It really has little to do with 28bytes beyond the fact that he introduced the section in the first place. Silverseren^C 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I'd like to thank you, Fluff, for not jumping to any conclusions about my motives outside of what I've already said. To be clear, anything I say for Gwickwire is his opinion, and anything else I say is mine. I consider him a good friend, but I think that in times like this Wikipedians have a habit to rally around users who they've had positive past experiences with, without considering the circumstances. I'm not fully informed about everything that's happened here, and I wouldn't pretend to be. That's why I asked 28bytes the question about Oversight – I legitimately want to know who's in the right here, and to me that seemed a crucial question. If I feel confident that I fully understand the situation, I'll voice my opinion then, but I, for one, definitely don't plan on being part of any IRCCabal plot to sway opinion one way or the other. (I don't think such a plot exists, of course.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• I have been in contact with Gwickwire through IRC, in what I'm trying to make a helpful and friendly conversation (but YMMV), but I am not here as a result of his request, and in fact have a substantially different opinion about this from his. Writ Keeper (t + c) 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)On Wikipedia, civility is ... some vague notion that we seem to be unable to come to agreement on. Last year's arbcom and over a hundred editors spent months on it to come up with the not very helpful:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Demiurge and gwickwire have legitimate concerns about websites outside Wikipedia; although a significant number of Wikipedia editors believe that participation on such sites is inconsistent with collaborative editing here. They are entitled to that opinion but it is not policy and not the consensus viewpoint, and it does not entitle them to attack other editors. 28bytes, doing the job the community elected him to do, made a judgement that they had crossed that nebulous line. It's okay to disagree with that, it's okay to ask him to reconsider, but it's not okay to turn around and attack him or make ridiculous comments about desysoping and the like. NE Ent 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I do not think 28 was involved on this matter. Admins occasionally warn people in a less than genteel manner, but I do not think this necessarily makes them involved. Demiurge was "egging on" gwick, by saying things to him such as "The small but very important mistake the boxcutter people made, is that they didn't realise that you aren't ever going to give in to harassment." He was certainly engaged in "constant sniping" during this dispute. Gwick has also been unnecessarily combative towards numerous users, such as in the VPP discussion where he is posting links to some blogposts of his that simply list alleged "personal attacks" by editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Are they not personal attacks by other editors? Yours wasn't, admittedly, but I remember most of the others and they certainly were. Silverseren^C 21:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked over every last incident, but many were being presented out of a context or otherwise misquoted. For instance, another quote is presented with "He's being . . . a douche". Those dots are called an ellipsis for those not in the now and indicate excised material. In this case the full comment was "He's being a bit of a douche now, yea, but meh" and the comment in the post was preceded with "Btw, I'm not sure I buy the 'returning editor' idea. Yea he was a bit familiar with the syntax out of the gate, but the editing history is just so terribly milquetoast that I cannot imagine this person ever being in a confrontational/adversarial situation that would warrant a ban or a need to invoke right-to-vanish." Hardly as bad when presented in full and in context right? The references to "lying" noted in gwick's blog were because of comments gwick made such as "A majority of the users on Wikipediocracy seem to have a view that is on one side of the Eastern Europe issue, and one side of the Arbitration decision there. This commonality allows them to effectively coordinate and perform harassment and outing." Another comment cited was "scumbag keed", which was in response to gwick's claim: "The site moderators, some of which hold advanced permissions with access to private information here on Wikipedia, fail to do anything to stop this outing/doxing and harassment, when it is obviously in their power to remove the posts and reprimand the users posting the material." The "scumbag keed" comment was made by Zoloft/Stanistani because he had actually removed the comments Vigilant made about gwick after gwick asked and was thus annoyed. It was redacted when gwick clarified that he had not been referring to Zoloft. Gwick made this blog post after that comment had been redacted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• FYI I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by repeating your claims about Gwickwire being a returning editor. Believe it or not, as much as some of our help pages suck here, it's possible to figure out things pretty fast. The epitome of driving editors away is thinking that all new users must be completely clueless, and therefore any user who isn't a bumbling idiot their first few weeks here must in fact be up to no good. Basically, we'll force you off Wikipedia for not getting our arcane policies, and if you do get them, you're obviously a troll. In my opinion, it should be a blockable offense to accuse an editor of lying about their past once they've answered your questions satisfactorily; here, of course, you're just quoting yourself, but it seems like a rather gratuitous reference to an unhelpful accusation you made in the past. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Those are quotes in my previous comment and are are not from me, but other posters. Also, I never made any such claims, but instead only asked gwick if he had edited before he created the account he is using now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Diff of a PA needed Demiurge was blocked "for making personal attacks". Would someone please supply two diffs showing personal attacks. The diffs provided by 28bytes do not show a personal attack—while referring to unspecified participants at WO as being the boxcutter crew may be irritating, but it is not covered by WP:NPA. A community discussion could require Demiurge to not use that term because it is inflammatory, but I have not seen a comment directed at another editor that is a personal attack. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it is covered by WP:NPA as it would be "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" and one should also note that the policy says "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Referring to a group of editors as being part of a "boxcutter crew" or as being "boxcutter people" because they post on a forum is using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem in an attempt to disparage and discredit them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• And who exactly is this NPA directed at? What user is being accused of this and was mentioned by Demiurge? Silverseren^C 04:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• He used that term several times during a conversation where it was just me, him, and gwick, and was clearly labeling me as part of the "boxcutter crew" due to me posting at WO.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Diffs then that show that he was clearly referring to you and not just WO? Silverseren^C 05:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Here and here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So the term was used in response to you pestering Gwickwire about whether they have had previous accounts, which Gwickwire then noted that if you have anything to go on, then take him to ANI because otherwise its just dirt-slinging (my paraphrasing), and then Demiurge noted that the attempts aren't going to stop . You then continued to respond and pester. I see...

Furthermore, what does boxcutter crew even mean and how is it all that derogatory? My first thought is that it's meant to mean cookie-cutter people, meaning WO is all the same and everyone from it acts the same and is the same. Or I guess it could mean that a box-cutter is an ineffectual threat? Has Demiurge's even been asked and explained what he meant? Oh wait, nevermind I found it. Right here. Demiurge's was specifically quoting EricBarbour and just throwing his own terminology back at him. That seems appropriate. So, again, what's the issue here? Silverseren^C 15:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I asked him quite nicely if he had edited previously, which can only be pestering because it is not like that is some sort of normal question to ask (we certainly don't ask that of prolific content-creators looking to become admins or long-time admins looking to become Arbitrators because that would just be disrespectful!), and therefore it is ok to talk about me as though I am part of some gang of murderous violent thugs. How lofty are your morals!--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Gwickwire

I'm creating a subsection for any comments Gwickwire wants to make here. This is the first:

First of all, I've promised multiple times to not do this again without evidence. That means that now this block is punitive, as it's not preventing anything (except my opinion) bad. Second of all, I feel that since there was an ongoing discussion about the validity of 28bytes' block of Demiurge1000, which I expressed my extreme dissatisfaction with, he was too involved in that matter to use the block tool on me at the time. Thirdly, when responding to my unblock request, he acknowledged that "I have no intention of lifting this block early.", which means he isn't going to lift it after all standard unblock conditions are met. This is an issue, that's happened twice now in the past 24 hours. Something needs to be done about the two blocks in place, which are hampering the discussions at ANI and VPP, possibly unintentionally. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

-- Cheers, Riley 21:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@TDA:

Even in context, the comments I've compiled are still rude and incivil. The reason I removed some context is to make it less tl;dr for those who don't have 10 hours a day to spend on this.

—gwickwire^talk_editing, as communicated on IRC to PinkAmpersand (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that blocking means you get to post to your talk page but nowhere else. Why then does Gwickwire seem to have special license to comment here through proxy editors? — Hex (❝?!❞) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not uncommon that when a blocked editor is being discussed at a noticeboard (here, sockpuppet investigation, etc.) that their comments are allowed to be entered into the record, so to speak, of the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That's always how it's been done, because otherwise the discussion is completely one-sided. The only exception is if someone abuses their talk page privileges and gets them revoked, though I suppose they could always email a user and get a comment added by someone else that way. Silverseren^C 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey SilverSeren, I see that you also have a list of my attacks on other editors. Perhaps you might post the diffs here so everyone can see. We should probably ask an oversighter to give us the gist of any diffs that were suppressed. How about it? Kevin (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin for suggesting we contact an OSer for the diffs of your personal attacks. I'm wondering why 28bytes didn't do this before blocking me. Also, a good point is made above that Demiurge never attacked a specific Wikipedia editor at all, and therefore was not making a blockable personal attack under WP:NPA. Maybe you should all rethink your opinions on my and Silver seren's proposals now, because that would be blockable under my proposals. Secondly, I feel this block no longer has a purpose as a preventative block, as both me and Demiurge1000 have expressed many many times onwiki that we will not repeat the actions that made us blocked. If 28bytes doesn't unblock at this time, both of us, I hope that another administrator will see that these blocks have become punitive and are not helping anything anymore. Thanks.

-- Posted for User:gwickwire via request on IRC. _nonsense ferret 02:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I should note for those playing along at home that I actually haven't made any personal attack, and that this post was a gentle reminder that when you accuse a user of such a thing, evidence is nice. A requirement even. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So Gwickwire actually just repeated the allegation that Kevin made personal attacks ("contact an OSer for the diffs of your personal attacks") even while he is saying that he will not repeat that allegation ("we will not repeat the actions that made us blocked")...? Wow. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If by "special license" you mean "right extended to every user whose block is discussed at ANI", then yes, it's a special license. IMHO it's a software flaw that admins don't have the option to selectively unblock users for specific pages. King of Hearts sometimes does this thing where he effectively does it with an edit filter, but that's been controversial. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 07:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay. That fact would benefit from being documented, even if only as a note in a block template, for those of us who don't hang around here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop posting comments from IRC into this thread. If gwickwire wants comments posted into this thread, he may make an edit at his talkpage specifying the text he wants copied, and use the {{helpme}} template. This will allow us to verify that it was, indeed, him who is making the comments. Posting from IRC is not nor shall it ever be appropriate - in part because we cannot verify attribution (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Kevin's "oversighted" edits

PinkAmpersand asked an excellent question above, which Gwickwire and others have brought up as well: what about Kevin's oversighted edits? Did they contain personal attacks? That's actually an excellent question, and I'm glad PinkAmpersand asked it. The answer is this: I didn't need to ask oversight about these edits because Kevin's statements are still right on the page; it was other editors' comments that were removed, not his. When I said I'd read all of his contributions since February, I was including the contributions that appear to have been oversighted. If you look in Kevin's contribution history, you will see four oversighted edits, all make to Cla68's talk page. However, the oversighting was done to remove other people's contributions; it just so happens that when you oversight someone's edits, other editors' contributions will not be "diffable" if they happened to post after the oversighted material was added to the page, but before the oversighter removed it. Below are the four "oversighted" edits that were made by Kevin to Cla68's talk page. Again, these edits themselves were not oversighted and are still present on the talk page. It was only the fact that other editors' comments were oversighted that non-oversighters are not able to view these four posts of Kevin's as diffs.

I have unblocked the account. As I said earlier, now that Cla68 has agreed not to repeat the connecting of Russavia with his real name, or to post any links to the blog entry, the reason for the block is moot. I take note of the post Cla68 made not agreeing to NYB's request, however I feel that as this block was for a specific incident, and the threat of recurrence has been removed, an agreement to cease a wider range of activities is not required, particularly given that this is not a long term course of conduct. Should editors feel that some kind of restriction is required, of course that may be taken up at the appropriate venue. Kevin (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cla68 is talking about the all too familiar situation where an editor is discussed on their talk page, whilst being unable to participate due to being blocked. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Further to my post above, obviously there are wildly differing opinions on what should be done in the longer term, however the emergency, if it can be called that, has passed, and any future action can be debated calmly, and without a rush to judgement. Kevin (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No, what I have done is taken the view that Cla68 is unlikely to repeat those comments and posts re Russavia. I take no stand on whether Cla68 was right, wrong or whatever. That issue can now be debated in the full light of day. Kevin (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As you can see, these four edits were nowhere close to being personal attacks. Kevin has, in all the edits both "oversighted" and "diffable" done nothing on Wikipedia to attack, insult or lie about any other editors. Gwickwire has repeatedly claimed otherwise – after both Floquenbeam and I specifically warned Gwickwire to stop making false or unsubstantiated allegations about other editors or be blocked – which is why Gwickwire is now blocked. As you can see, Kevin's edits speak for themselves, and I stand by my block of Gwickwire 100%.

With that, I'm going to bow out of this thread, and let the community decide who should be blocked, unblocked, desysopped, or what have you. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - no personal attacks here. Can someone convincingly back up claim that there was still some on-wiki personal attack by Kevin that 28bytes has missed? If not, then Gwickwire's claims about OS personal attacks are simply continued WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior even after getting blocked.--Staberinde (talk) 07:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• The notion that 28bytes was involved because Gwickwire had voiced disapproval about another block he made is hopelessly unsustainable. If it were true then every vandal could show up and proudly proclaim on their talk pages "all admins are wankers and all their decisions are bad" and then wreck the place, with no one being allowed to do anything about it. I can't see anything even approaching what one might describe as a personal attack from 28bytes here, either. I think some of the people here calling for blocks and de-sysopings need to get a little perspective. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've just read through this little saga. Whilst 28bytes may or may not have been a bit too trigger-happy, some of the things here levied against them are surreal - especially the allegations about them being involved. If that's an involved user, then 90% of admins can't do anything... I've not seen any "blatant" personal attacks, what I have seen is a truckload of WP:BATTLEGROUND-esque behaviour, particularly on gwickwire's side, and their absurd allegation about 28bytes being involved only backs that up. I can't evaluate the warning message by 28bytes, as it doesn't appear to be visible on the talk page any longer, nor does the diff work, but I'm inclined to take their side on this. I think the one-week blocks are bang-on - one month would be too long, that I agree with, at least for Demiurge1000 - gwickwire seems to have tried hard to get their ban extended again. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of Demiurge

I am formally requesting an unblock of Demiurge, as the "evidence" brought against him was not properly presented. His block, as I can see it, is two-fold. The first is his use of the term "box-cutter" as a jab at WO. As he explains here, he was specifically quoting Wikipediocracy global moderator EricBarbour, who has used that term in the past toward Wikipedians.

Specifically, EricBarbour stated,

"I gotta stop reading this thread. It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats. These bastards simply aren't worth the effort."

So, yeah. I don't really see throwing the term back at him being much of an issue, considering the original statement made by Barbour. Basically, he's stating that WO members are a "boxcutter crew" or, otherwise, a group of people that make threats such as that. Sadly, you can't look up the statement directly, as they redacted it. Just as sad...i've seen even worse threats than that on WO.

Secondly, the discussion above involved Demiurge's calling 28bytes' comment on his page a personal attack in his edit summary. That comment is here. Demiurge took offense at his comments being called "sniping" and at being accussed of "egging on" Gwickwire. So, he considered it a personal attack and removed the comment. He then left this comment explaining that he considered it a personal attack.

This is definitely subjective and neither side looks good in the outcome, but the sum total is remarkably minor and irrelevant and should have nothing to do with any block discussion ever. Ultimately, there seems to be no case whatsoever for the block, if you're basing the block on something as minor as these two things. Silverseren^C 15:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver seren, the problem with "he's stating that WO members are a 'boxcutter crew' or, otherwise, a group of people that make threats such as that" is that anyone who has any association with that site becomes associated with a comment made by an individual poster. If Eric Barbout said it, why should an ArbCom member posting on Wikipediocracy be associated with and held responsible for Barbour's remark? This is simply setting up a battleground mentality. I understand why it is appealing -- one can simply dismiss criticism as being from "the boxcutter crew" instead of looking at what is being said -- but ultimately it just creates an artificial polarity which breeds an unhealthy cycle of attack/revenge-attack. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

When members of the site come out en masse whenever there is a thread about them or that has a thread on WO, I think it's relevant to consider those members to be a part of the group. Aka, all the members who have posted in this thread. It's those members that Demiurge was referring too and it was quite clear that TDA was pestering Gwickwire because of it being brought up at WO. Even 28bytes noted on the talk page that TDA was pestering. It's not a battleground mentality when WO members are actually creating the battleground by group canvassing. Silverseren^C 16:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you think is going to happen when you start your silly threads about blacklisting the site and applying WP policies on actions made off-wiki? Of course people from that site are going to be attracted to those threads. It's not at all the same thing as someone attracting voters to an AfD by posting on Reddit. Silver seren, if Wikipediocracy isn't paying you for driving traffic from WP to their site, they should be. Just like you and other did with Wikipedia Review, you are turning what is really a very small forum into some kind of scary bogeyman, which only fuels the battle (and interest in the site). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, the members of Wikipediocracy are at least as diverse a bunch as the editors here, running the gamut from crazies to very sensible and respected commentators. When Demiurge threw the "boxcutter" epithet at someone who wasn't EricBarbour, he was effectively suggesting that they shared the crazy notion of slitting throats with a utility knife (and mine was one of the throats in question, so I feel entitled to comment). That is a personal attack, and seems to me to be sufficient cause for 28bytes to warn and then block. Demiurge has now understood the other connotations of "boxcutter" and the degree of offence that others may take from it, and has very sensibly promised not to use the phrase again. If he can now convince an uninvolved admin that he knows it's best to step away from this sort of conflict and try to avoid it in future, then I can see him being unblocked before the week is up. I'd recommend the same to Gwickwire as anybody who knows 28bytes will see that is all he wants from this episode. 28bytes is a reasonable person and took reasonable actions. I'm quick enough to criticise admins who act improperly; it is sensible to commend those like 28bytes who do act in the best interests of the project. --RexxS (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I certainly have not made any fucking death threats and I'm nobody's fucking slave. When I asked gwickwire about his early editing history it is because his conduct at VPP was becoming so confrontational that it made me wonder and his early contributions seemed to me to be atypical for someone who was just starting out. I didn't presume that meant he was doing anything untoward as there are many good reasons for someone to show proficiency in editing at an early stage (previously editing from an IP or being a legitimate clean start account for instance). Look up the term "pestering" for a moment. It doesn't mean "asking a question that someone takes badly" but refers to persistent annoyance of someone. Making two civil comments on someone's talk page does not qualify. Having to deal with Demiurge's "boxcutter" snipes there would have dissuaded me from any further discussion on its own honestly, because it is quite troubling for me to be treated like some sort of vile, murderous individual, just because I post on a discussion forum.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite. About Gwickwire: I can say after having an extended conversation with them on IRC yesterday that they are very very sensitive; much too much so, I would say. They were taking offense to things that, to my eyes, were unimpeachably polite and civil, in both word and intent. In that context, I can quite easily see Gwickwire taking offense to your comments, TDA (though they shouldn't have). The only thing I can say is that Gwickwire needs some serious reflection and insight about their standards and expectations. What's happening is that they admit that their interpretations of things like INVOLVED and CIVIL are very very strict, but don't realize that our behavioral norms are based on the community's interpretation of such policies, not their own. (Indeed, the fact that there is no communnity-wide interpretation of civility is the reason why we have such a problem with it.) Basically, Gwickwire is acting (or demanding action, as the case may be) based on their own interpretation of the policies, and they need to realize that that's not how it works. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we not make this about Gwickwire? That's why I made this a separate section in the first place, to discuss Demiurge and Demiurge only. Silverseren^C 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sorry. Just had some musings after reading TDA's post that I was moved to write down. Writ Keeper (t + c) 18:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, no one has accused you of making death threats. However, by posting on WO, you are associating with people who do make threats like that. And considering you started commenting to Gwickwire about previous accounts right after this was raised on WO, is it all that surprising that one would assume that's where you're coming from? If you came to it independently, then fine, but you can't blame others for taking the logical assumption that you weren't because of the timing. Silverseren^C 18:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You (and Demiurge1000, based on his remarks on this wiki) are pre-judging people based on their participation on that website. That's a battleground mentality, one that apparently makes the assumption that anyone who posts on WO is okay with what Mr Barbour said. People who participate there are not "associating" with that WO user any more than I can be considered "associating" with any given Wikipedia user just because I participate on this wiki. For What It's Worth. -- Dianna (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's right if everybody's wrong? Eh, I prefer CSNY. Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Love the one you're with, baby. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I, at least, am judging people on their statements and actions. And that includes statements made on that website. There are plenty of people that are members of the site that I don't include when I say "Wikipediocracy members". That includes a number of Arbs and admins and other editors. But the moment someone becomes involved in the site in the sense that they start verbally abusing other editors...yeah, I guess I pre-judge based on that. Silverseren^C 21:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Should you think I have "verbally abused" anyone then I would love to see your evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And I haven't considered you to really be a member as of now. Though...you've been heavily involved in discussion threads that are all about abusing other people, so it's kind of on the line. :/ The whole thing about showing up in the spots wherever it gets canvassed over there is also a problem. Silverseren^C 22:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet you still seem to have no problem with someone labeling me as a member of "the boxcutter crew" in spite of that.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't get that Demiurge was referring to WO in general. Sure, he may have been mentally including you in those ranks because of your questioning of Gwickwire and the timing, but he was also commenting against several other WO members within the same time period. So it was meant to be a general thing. And, seriously, EricBarbour's comment is one of the worst things ever and it deserves to be thrown in his face as often as possible. Silverseren^C 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

By posting on Wikipedia, Silver seren, you are associating with pseudoscience cranks, corrupt politicians, racists, propagandists, revisionists, and liars of every stripe. Are you prepared to be labeled as a supporter of any of those? Because that's exactly what your logic leads to. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness

Please investigate this "project" which seems to be extremely dubious and has attracted several devotees with redlink usernames and few contributions. One of them has already made inroads into a cricket article with out of context stuff based on questionable sources. Could be some kind of hoax being perpetrated. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 16:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It's members of a college course. The instructor has just misunderstood the purpose of WikiProjects.  davidiad { t } 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Simon1252 (talk · contribs) is the course instructor, so I suppose the "WikiProject" should be moved into his user space. Am I wrong in remembering that we have people or some task force for working with these class groups?  davidiad { t } 18:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

 – There is already a WikiProject Cricket.

--Auric talk 03:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:ExclusiveAgent

Ted Cruz Talk Page-- I posted a comment on the Ted Cruz article talk page earlier today calling into question an view that was being presented. I only did so to raise the point that the issue is not clear cut. One of the editors User:ExclusiveAgent immediately attacked me, suggesting that I was attempting to insert POV into the article. I only raised a question, never inserting the questioned material in the actual article. Since then he has continued to hurl accusations at me and other editors accusing me of vandalism. He is clearly confusing my posts with those of an IP editor, yet he won't take the time to review the posts. I invite an Admin to read the history at Talk:Ted Cruz, User talk:ExclusiveAgent and User talk:Revmqo to see the history of comments. I have asked User:ExclusiveAgent to take a step back, but he continues to post accusations of vandalism and other offenses. I bring the issue here because he has a clear history of failing to assume good faith. Revmqo (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Revmqo has been vandalizing my talk page. So let's begin there. He has become upset that I have asked him to provide a reliable source to support his wild speculations about what will happen if Ted Cruz someday might run for President. I stated over and over again that he needed to provide a reliable source. He did not like that apparently, so he started to vandalize my talk page. Now, he is bring the topic here. I have not attacked him. That is a falsehood. Please ask him to provide an example of where I attacked him. I have only asked him, repeatedly, to provide a reliable source for his wild speculation. I invite an admin to tell him to stop vandalizing my talk page and I would invite an admin to ask him provide a reliable source for his wild speculation about a situation that has not happened yet and might not even happen.--ExclusiveAgent (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Immediately after my first post, I provided a source. And yet ExclusiveAgent replied with a personal attack saying that I was introducing POV and "unsupported wild speculation." I placed a good faith warning on his page and asked him to reread my posts. It seems that he is upset with IP User 197.136.42.3, but is replying to me. When I attempted to calmly discuss this with him via his talk page rather than in the open space, he is now making the claim that I am vandalizing him. If you read his history of interactions with 197.136.42.3 and now with me, he is bullying rather than attempting to build consensus. He is arguably exhibiting ownership of the Ted Cruz page, and seems to be interested in pushing his own political agenda. He has been challenged on this before, as evidenced on his talk page. I have asked him to stop, take a deep breath and re-read my comments. If he does, then he will see that his issues were with 197.136.42.3 not me. Revmqo (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@ ExclusiveAgent: There's been no WP:vandalism of your talk page. Here on Wikipedia vandalism has a specific meaning, and these posts do not meet the definition. The point at which the talk page discussion started to deteriorate is when the phrase "wild speculation" was used. Revmqo replied with an assertion that perhaps you did not know how to do a simple Google search, and things deteriorated from there. Here's some suggestions:

• tone down the language a bit, even when talking about the content. For example, instead of saying "you have not provided a reliable source for any of your wild speculation" just say simply "you have not provided a reliable source".
• Keep the discussion on the talk page of the article and keep it focused on the content, not on your assumptions of the motives or intelligence level of any other editors on the page.
• Quit throwing templated warnings on one another's talk pages; that's not helping the discussion move forward in a civil collegial manner. You've both been editing here long enough not to need the information contained in a templated warning.
• @ Revmqo: If someone removes a post from their own user talk post, please don't re-post it. People can manage their own talk page however they see fit. If a post has been removed, we assume it has been read, and it is always available in the page history for future reference if it's needed later. -- Dianna (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protecting user talk pages

I am not sure whether or not this is a problem, so please consider this to be raising a question, not making a complaint.

I was under the impression that semi-protection of user talk pages is used only in cases of ongoing vandalism by IP editors, and even then usually not indefinitely. I noticed that User talk:Yworo is semi-protected with the stated purpose of not allowing any IP editors to post just because they are IP editors. User:Yworo is not protected, which seems unusual. Also, I am having trouble finding any significant IP vandalism in the period leading up to either of the semis. Is any of this a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a word with the responsible admin? He will presumably be able to throw some light on his decision. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just a quirk of mine, but when I have no idea whether something is a problem or not, confronting the person who made the decision seems really premature, and asking him whether the decision was a problem is also problematical; of course he will say it was a good decision. Otherwise he wouldn't have made it. I realize that nobody wants to step on another admin's toes, but this has to be balanced against the many times where the answer is telling me "Guy, you misunderstood the policy" without any unneeded drama or confrontation. I was going to say "maybe I am weird", but of course we all know that I am weird... --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to encounter an admin who would take issue with a polite inquiry about a page protection over a year old. The question isn't whether it was a good decision, the question is whether protection is still necessary. In fact, I can't recall any polite statement I've made inquiring about an admin's action that received a "confrontational" response. NE Ent 00:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The claim in the log is persistent vandalism. That is acceptable. Not allowing IP editors to comment because they're IP editors is, in my opinion, not acceptable--but I'm willing to bet that the protection preceded the particular phrasing of that notification on the top of Yworo's talk page. I think Guy Macon has a valid point here, but let's wait and see what HJMitchell has to say--have they been invited to comment? Drmies (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Notified they are. NE Ent 22:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a long-term IP stalker who has been banned, but kept harassing me nonetheless. It didn't mess with my user page. The comment was specifically intended to speak to that dynamic IP user without mentioning it by IP(s), though it does seem to be a generally applicable observation about IPs who abuse the fact that their IP is dynamic. Okay? Yworo (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like you really got put through the wringer. You have my sympathy; that shouldn't happen to anyone. Is the abuse still going on, or would lifting the semiprotection be appropriate? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the protection on my user talk page, but I'd be willing to make a subpage for IPs to comment on. Would that be satisfactory? I've seen other editors do it that way. Yworo (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Has the harassment continued since it was protected? NE Ent 00:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd assume not, as the protection had a reason... The real question is: Is there still a risk of the harassment resuming if protection is lifted? gwickwire^talk_editing 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's seems possible that the harassment could have continued on other pages that Yworo edited, which is why I'm asking. NE Ent 00:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not in any obvious way lately, though my watchlist changes a lot, and I'm no longer watching a lot of the articles on which it occurred. Having my talk page protected diminished it quite a bit, I feel that unprotecting it would likely make me a target again. Yworo (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the difficulties newbies have in getting around the site -- they're lucky to find an editor's talk page, let alone understand semi protection, I'd encourage you to support trying unprotection -- I'm sure a friendly neighborhood admin would instantly put it back to semi if the harassment resumed. NE Ent 00:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

IP editors != newbies in my experience. At least the ones likely to post on my talk page have a much higher probability of being IP socks or banned users, or both. Yworo (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Having a separate, non-protected page is the way to go. In fact, it might be a rule, or at least a recommendation, if your regular talk page is protected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's right there in WP:PP#User talk pages: "Users whose talk page regularly must be semi-protected should have an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Gutting an article while AfD is underway

Article in question: Bush Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Question: is it okay for people !voting delete to gut the article while an AfD is in progress? I'm not asking for anyone to be sanctioned or reprimanded. But it seems at least potentially like an inappropriate tactic designed to slant the AfD: someone looking at the article in its current state might think, hmm not many references there, only a brief paragraph or two, doesn't look all that notable, think I'll !vote delete. The editors doing the deletion of text no doubt think their editing is proper -- but there is room for good faith disagreement on that, and it just seems wrong to have an article chopped down like that (with a whole host of references removed) during an AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If there's massive problems with NPOV/Copyvio/advertising that are the reason that it's up for AfD, then I'm all for (and the template says) they may edit it while it's in progress. If it slants it to keep, then maybe it should've been kept, just gutted, even before the gutting. If it's not notable, go ahead and still !vote delete, but imo there's nothing wrong with making an article fit policy before it's deleted, as it's more work to go through DelRev to get it undeleted than it is to just gut it and build it up after an AfD. gwickwire^talk_editing 22:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• Compare this to this -- the latter version resulting from cuts by an editor who wants the article itself deleted. Removal of sources from the "Derivatives" section (and addition of CN tags) then led another editor to delete that section for being "unreferenced". This sort of editing during an AfD seems shady to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
• Meh. Those edits are perfectly alright. If an article will be kept on the basis of a list of fairly trivial mentions of when the term was applied, whether in earnest or not, that's a pretty sad situation. There is nothing wrong with normal editing while an AfD is going on and Yworo notes on the talk page, "it's a coatrack for political name-calling and mudslinging"--I think they're right. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the particulars of this specific article, I've seen lots of articles at AFD where they appear at first glance to be extensively sourced and thus notable because there is an extensive list of footnotes. Then, you look at what the footnotes actually consist of and they turn out to be exclusively self-published sources, blogs, internet forums, newsgroups, wikis and the like. I've got no problem whatsoever with someone commenting at the AFD that none of the sources qualify as Reliable Sources and then demonstrating the pitiful unsourced and unsourceable excuse for an article is left when you remove the non-compliant references. It actually tends to focus the discussion, and makes the process cleaner and faster, in my opinion. Fladrif (talk) 00:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixing WP:BOMBARDMENT is always a good thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• If there's junk in an article, it can go at any time. If people wanna go back and see what junk used to be in an article, they can do that with relative ease pbp 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Is the contrary, true, then, that if someone is removing "non-junk" from an article during an AfD, then that is inherently disruptive, perhaps WP:TE or WP:BATTLEGROUND, behavior? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The exception proves the rule there. Obviously blanking of valid content is not in the interests of the encyclopedia whether there is an ongoing AfD or not. But this comes up far more often in the form of Deletionist Boogeyman strawmen than in practice. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I would say that most, perhaps all, of the deleted stuff was compliant with Wikipedia rules and useful in explaining the topic. (See the talk page for one possible exception.) Could editors have behaved better? Yes (as always). Has anyone done anything worth formal disciplinary procedures? Not as far as I can see. CWC 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC) who has more to say immediately below
• A little investigation before opining is always a good idea. IIRC, the article did get "bombarded" several years ago, but I fixed that ... as anyone who bothered to look at the talk page archive would know. The recently-deleted "junk" was picked with the aim of both illustrating the meaning of the term and linking to prominent usages of it. For instance, the fact that the term is used on both sides of politics says something important about it.
  In fact, I say the article no longer provides enough context for new readers to understand the meaning or significance of the term (as can be seen in many of the recent on-WP comments about the article.)
  Yworo's complaint about "name-calling and mudslinging" is deeply, sadly ironic: BDS is precisely about over-the-top name-calling and mudslinging. (The term is in fact a tongue-in-cheek explanation of that over-the-top stuff). Nevertheless, the article was not a coatrack for "mudslinging": it simply reported a few uses of the term by prominent journalists on both sides of US politics.
  PS: I have been very disappointed to see so many people editing and/or criticising the article without bothering to understand what it is about. CWC 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Collingwood26: concerns about POV-driven editing and extreme talk page posts

Collingwood26 (talk · contribs) has a long history of editing motivated by an extreme Australian nationalist POV, including some occasional edit warring. They were blocked last September for this extreme talk page comment and were blocked earlier in the year for similar abuse of myself ([13]), but this conduct continues to occur in articles concerning Australian history or race and religion. Post-block examples include:

• Sustained edit warring to include a special claim that 15,000 Australian soldiers were "enslaved" following the Battle of Singapore (in January: [14] (edit summary of "How dare you try to erase it from history, you seem to be extremely anti-Australian Nick-D!"; I'm actually Australian), [15] (edit summary includes "over 15 thousand of us were enslaved, people like you just want to cover it up"), [16]) and this has just re-started without any talk page discussion [17]. Almost all the 80,000 Allied soldiers captured at Singapore were used as forced labourers by the Japanese, with Australians not relieving different treatment to the other national groups.
• Accusations of Anti-Australian 'racism' when criticised: [18] ("Your going to have me banned just because I write articles about Australian battles? Racist much?" in response to a well-founded complaint about a clear copyright violation),
• A claim that Asians somehow can't be Australian at Talk:Asian Australian as only people descended from the original fleet of British convicts are 'Australian': [19]
• An obviously related removal of old talk page posts discussing the claimed presence of black convicts in the First Fleet [20]
• Clearly anti-semitic trolling [21]

Overall, it seems to me that Collingwood26 is mainly here to push his views and the blocks imposed last year have not been successful in getting him to change his ways. Can an univolved admin please look into this? Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Collingwood26 does seem to be pushing a nationalistic POV. The talk page trolling and personal attacks are completely unacceptable. They have made a number of good contributions though, so perhaps they just need a serious attitude adjustment. I would be interested hearing how they explain these interactions. - MrX 02:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What a load of bull I have been nothing but harrassed on this site by Nick D and his cohort who want nothing more than to remove Australia's roles in wars from the history books.--Collingwood26 (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are those not your diffs up ^ there? Did you not write "White Race / Why do the Jews want to exterminate the White Race? Aren't they white themselves?" What harassment have you received that you thinks justifies this? - MrX 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

...or this?

No comment on anything else, but this last link would be reasonable if there weren't sub-articles such as the ones linked in the response. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Harrassment? NickD has continually denied the truth throughout Australian military history articles. He has deleted articles in which I have said "15,000 Australians were enslaved", BUT if you look at the REAL history 15,000 Australians WERE enslaved. NickD is nothing more than a conartist, a lier, and a manipulative theif who seeks to impose his own viewpoints abusing the authority he has.--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is nothing more than blatent discrimination of Australian wikipedia members. This witchhunt you seem so keen on to ban any Australian members is outrageous!--Collingwood26 (talk) 04:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks. They're a violation of our policies and they're not helping your argument. Content issues can be resolved by discussion on article talk pages, starting with reliable sources and calm, rational arguments. - MrX 05:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The funny side of this is that I'm Australian and have written about a dozen FAs on Australian military history. But this illustrates how Collingwood operates. Nick-D (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Nick-D (an Australian) raises some, in my opinion, very legitimate concerns about Collingwood (also Australian) and Collingwood's response is that it is a witchhunt to "ban any" Australian member? Sorry, what did i miss? I (also an Australian) am suggesting a chill pill needs to be taken. --Merbabu (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but even if NickD is Australian then why does he revert my edit about 15 thousand Australians being enslaved? Do you dispute these facts because I can show you reliable sources for these!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Mate, then show him those sources and have a civilised chat on the talk page, rather than suggesting there's some giant conspiracy theory about censoring the figures you've found. He saw a problem and reverted the edit - that's pretty stock-standard stuff. The next step is to talk about it, not to accuse someone of censorship or a "cover-up". My suggestion - say you're sorry, start a discussion on the talk page and move the f**k on. (By the way; also Australian). Stalwart111 08:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if 15,000 Australians were "enslaved", I'd want that noted somewhere too. But the way to do that is to present such a claim in a reasonable manner, with sources, and discuss it if someone disputes it (it's a big claim, so expect there to be some questions at least). But trying to spam it into articles then screaming CENSORSHIP! when someone removes it is about the worst possible way of trying to get that done. Stalwart111 08:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have read some of the books by/about those POWs, albeit decades ago. The POWs were treated very badly, but not enslaved. Another Australian -- CWC 10:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I’m the editor (NOT Nick-D) who reverted the most recent of Collingwood26s “enslaved” edits, with a repeated request that the author take their ideas to the talk page. They failed to do this. The hysterical response that accompanies these edits is so irrational I have occasionally wondered if it’s genuine. However, other editors probably choose to ignore these outbursts, as I generally do. In my opinion there is no doubt they breach WP standards and at best they are tiresome and disruptive. (Yet another Aussie)Nickm57 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well he can show you, I don't really care as long as he shows someone instead of claiming "racism" or "censorship" when someone reverts an edit. Nobody should have to put up with that sort of crap. Stalwart111 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns raised by Nick-D here (and others). Like several other Australian editors I have also found cause to revert some of his recent edits at Battle of Singapore. Whilst Collingwood26 has made some valuable contributions in the past, more recently his behaviour has only been disruptive. When he first appeared I had hoped that with some help from more experienced editors he might develop into a valuable contributor but this doesn't seem to have occurred. Claims of conspiracies against Australian editors are nothing short of embarrassing, and accusations that Nick-D is somehow trying to lessen recognition of Australian wartime involvement ignore his numerous high quality articles in this area. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the observation above, I've interacted with Collingwood26 on more than one occasion in the past and found him to be quite polite and understanding of the decisions reached by others, however his recent comments are quite provocative in nature, not only do the comments violate WP:AGF, they also breach WP:NPA and obviously WP:CIVIL. I suggest he take a short Wikibreak to calm his nerves. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 10:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well there is not much point in me arguing with all of you, do what you want whether you ban me or not.Nothing I say cn change your minds anyhow.--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

True, continued arguing is counterproductive. The question is whether Collingwood is willing to commit forgoing the comments about other editors and disruptive behavior, such as removing sections of talk pages. If they believe being right about Australian history justifies behavior contrary to Wikipedians practices and norms they are not going to find Wikipedia enjoyable and should find another pastime. NE Ent 11:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Collingwood? Drmies (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet: Silviabe333 / Topfin

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

---

• Silviabe333 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Topfin (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Hi, I think these 2 users might be the same person. He/she is making changes against consensus to articles such as Thomas Aquinas and Ignatius of Loyola. Would you please be able to take a look? Thanks, Azylber (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The accounts were both recently created, edit the same articles, with very similar edit summaries and are engaged in edit-warring. Why not make a report at WP:SPI for the first created account (Silviabe333), setting "yes" for checkuser? Mathsci (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Done. I've reported it there. But I'm also worried about the articles - what's going to happen with all the articles that this person is modifying? Azylber (talk) 08:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles like Cuthbert, Guthlac of Crowland, do not have "Saint" in the bolded title. Their editing is purely disruptive. More detail is required when making an WP:SPI report and I will provide it. Wait until there is a response at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for your help! Azylber (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Aeusetereleiea

Would like to report a case of constant disruptive editing and vandalism against Aeusetereleiea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has constantly added unsourced material to The Mentalist (season 5) page (as can be seen in their history) and has launched several personal attacks against myself when I reverted the edits. The user has demonstrated on several occasions that they are unable (or unwilling) to learn the rules and work alongside editors and now seems to just want to cause trouble. Their latest edits here and here demonstrate that this user has now taken to vandalising both my user page and talk page. I'm not sure exactly what steps should be taken, but I have a feeling that this is the kind of user who is just going to keep on going and going with their disruptions. Thank you. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have protected the article from editing, as there was a clear edit war going on there. Please be aware that this is not the only course of action to be justified by the editing history, see WP:BOOMERANG. Remember that next time, you should not get drawn into an edit war, even if you believe you are in the right. Remember, the other person believes that too, and you can both be blocked even if you believe you are correct. You both could have been blocked here, but I think this is the best way to handle this. Discuss the matter civilly on the article talk page, and when consensus develops, protection can be lifted. --Jayron32 05:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's what I am trying to say, there is no way to discuss the matter civilly with this editor. I have tried a number of times to discuss the addition of unsourced material to the page but have gotten no response and they simply continue to add it. This has been going on for months. The editor blatantly and knowingly flaunts the rules, having said that learning them is a waste of time and has on numerous occasions verbally abused me, having called me retarded, a fucker, a loser, a control freak and once asked if I was being medicated. I take responsibility for being drawn into an edit war this time, but only because I have had enough dealing with an arrogant, self-righteous editor who flat-out refuses to co-operate or even consider familiarising themselves with the rules. That is what I am hoping to have some help with, because this is just going to go on and on. When you un-protect the page, they'll start up again with exactly the same disruptive edits. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(uninvolved, unsolicited, non-admin opinion) An admin should take a closer look at the subject user's contrib history. If nothing else, they need to be made aware that what SchrutedIt08 is trying to tell them is correct, since they don't seem to want to hear it or co-operate. An incivility cool-off for some of the personal crap wouldn't be at all out of line. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Canoe1967

After a string of personal attacks and incivility Canoe1967 was blocked by Riana. He proceeded to edit war to call her a cunt history revdelete log. His talk page access was revoked, so he chose to continue slinging personal attacks at her from a different project where he stated that "she acted like a total cunt". This is completely unacceptable, and I would like to see Canoe banned from this project, but am willing to take suggestions. Ryan Vesey 06:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support indef community ban for continued incivility, rudeness, and revert wars of block notices (!!). More to follow in the morning maybe. gwickwire^talk_editing 06:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Commons is commons not enwiki, and we cannot use actions outside of enwiki to enforce anything. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment says "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning." --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh - there are good arguments on both side of that coin. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 16:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, my talkpage protection seems to have been somewhat controversial. Old habits die hard and I wasn't aware of the blocking with talkpage access removed option, it wasn't around when I was last here. I'm absolutely fine with anyone who wants to reblock with talkpage access removed instead of the full prot I've placed, although it seems much of a muchness to me. For what it's worth, the talkpage prot is 3 days long and the block is 1 week, so he'll be able to edit again once he's in a calmer frame of mind (one hopes).
• No comment as to the above proposal from me as of yet, I haven't reviewed the user's contributions sufficiently to make a judgement call - I was blocking based on most immediate recent behaviour.
• Any admin should feel free to undo my protection/block for a different duration/unblock if deemed necessary. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  I see Jayron32 has changed the terms of the block anyway, so I'm cool with that. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

  Protecting the page instead of following current practice of removing talk page access due to being a bit admin rusty isn't a big deal, but there's no legitimate reason for keeping it protected now, so Riana should remove the protection. NE Ent 8:01 am, Today (UTC−4)

  Fair call. Unprotected [22] ~ Riana ⁂ 13:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Extend block to indef. Need a commitment from editor not to repeat this behavior (personal attacks on other editors). NE Ent 12:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - this editor has been brought to ANI (at least) three times before - in July 2012 for disruptive editing; in February 2013 for incivilty, which resulted in a block; and later in February 2013, again for incivility. I have had my own interactions with this editor, both positive and negative, and feel that it is time the Wikipedia community started taking incivility seriously. "They do good work" is never an excuse for a crummy attitude and attacking other editors. I would therefore support an indefinite block. GiantSnowman 12:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with indefinite. As I noted at the time, my own 48hr block was lenient in the extreme (especially for me), and Canoe was extremely fortunate not to have had it extended for his response at the time (messing with the block notice). I've pinged Jayron with a note to this thread. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not ban or indef. I don't like how little groups here permaban people. It is railroading with less time and consideration than an RFC. And with a pretty self-selected (and odd) group of people. So he sounded off. Big deal. He's firey. But he also does a lot to help people. Give him a week or two off and then move on. That is what normal places do and it works way better than this nest of intrigue.TCO (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The legendary hypothetical beachside pub aside, "normal places" would have readily instituted a lifetime ban over Canoe over his post-block actions. Contrary to the assertions of some ANI bleeding hearts, there is no statutory immunity afforded editors for post-block meltdowns, especially repeat events. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling other editors bleeding hearts isn't appropriate, either. NE Ent 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The consequences at many of the normal places I've observed over the years for calling someone a cunt would range to firing to more immediate, physical feedback. NE Ent 17:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite block for personal attacks, harassment, and disruptive editing in the past as well. TBrandley ^(review) 16:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment In regards to the other actions of this user, in my experience I've found a majority of his helpful edits at least mildly disruptive. I've also seen him go on a number of these tirades, but you'd have to take my word for it or limit yourself to the three ANI incidents because I can't remember them. Even for those who do take a stance that people who do good work are allowed to repeatedly call other editors a cunt, Canoe couldn't possibly be in that category of editors. In addition, the action preceeding the most recent block was certainly inappropriate. He created User:Gwickwire, threatened to have Gwickwire put into a "deep, brown hole", called him a "gutless, whining piece of shit" while pretending that he wasn't by stating that he new better, called him a coward, asked "why the fuck can't you clue in", and said "Clue in before your balls are in a place where you can't extract them". This is all at User talk:Canoe1967#Warning. Examining the rest of his talk page in its current state shows a lot of battleground behavior. Ryan Vesey 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block. This isn't the first time he's been blocked for this, and if he's going to act like this any time he doesn't get his way, then he shouldn't be welcome here. Wizardman 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose After his last outburst, Canoe did express a desire to play by the rules: [23]. Clearly he's having trouble with that. He does seem to be drawn to controversy, and not able to comport himself very well once he's found it. This is pretty much his third strike, but - let's give him one last chance to repent. I'm biased here, indeffing him would reduce the editors in my subject area by about one third ;(. And I think we should discuss these behavioural indefs with the user a bit before dropping the guillotine, isn't his talk page blocked? The Interior (Talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps an RFC/U would be a better alternative here? I don't have the time to open it or collect all of the necessary evidence or anything. Ryan Vesey 18:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe an RFC/U was the missing element in the case of our other famous resident C-word aficionado. We chose not to indef that editor until that step had been taken. The Interior (Talk) 18:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a rush to judgment. Give him a day or two to settle down. It's almost like you all are trying to speed things up so you can get your way. First you take a short ban, then the guy mouths off and then you spin it into forever. Seen this done to other people. Nasty, nasty business. Before you know it, you can delete his talk page and just flush him like a turd. Chill out and see how he does after the week sabbatical. He's not posting on Wiki right now, so you have nothing to complain about.TCO (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• A rush to judgement? He was calling an editor a cunt and continued doing it after his talk page access was revoked. (He eventually had to be blocked without talk page access on commons as well). Ryan Vesey 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rush. The fellow is not even a couple days into his original week long timeout and you all are trying to spin it into an indef (with a very tiny group of self selected people who would even want to be at this board...blech...and the criminal not being able to defend himself). OK, so he mouthed off after getting the block...but is that really so uncommon? And his talk page access is removed so there is no imminent danger. The Commons stuff happened in the same time as the immediate reaction to the block and besides has been handled and besides is not our concern. There is no preventative reason for making an indef out of a week and for having to decide all that after a fellow got mad at the block in the first day or so.TCO (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Having made a review of Canoe1967's contributions, I am uncomfortable with the idea of an indefinite block at this stage. It seems he is given to largely productive editing, with the occasional lapse into mouthing off when stressed. I would at least like him to be able to return to plead his case, make amends if necessary, and let the current block (much longer than any of his previous blocks) act as a reasonable cooling-off period for him to consider the consequences of failing to play well with others. An indefinite block will only serve to embitter someone who has been mostly helpful. I would seriously caution him to watch his language; the knee-jerk reaction of any admin would be to block for a long period. I'm really not bothered by his comments directed at me as I'm sure they were delivered in the heat of the moment, but he needs to be able to get along with people he's editing alongside. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• For info, I note he has been blocked for 24hrs at Commons [24], and has announced his intention to retire. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• @Riana: Unblock then. Since comments before your block did not merit indef and you've admitted it is now serving solely as a cool-down block. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi Nathan, I knew the moment I used the words "cooling-off" that someone would say that. I don't think this is a cool-down block, as his behaviour that led up to the block was incredibly disruptive - it was definitely a disruption-minimising block. I have no evidence that he will not continue to be disruptive if I (or anyone else) unblocks him at this moment in time, so I have no inclination to immediately unblock. I do not support indefinitely blocking him without some sort of input from him, but that's not the same thing as wanting him back as soon as possible to rage and devour. If he signals his contrition and intent to act appropriately (via WP:UTRS or email to me or another admin) then I'm happy to unblock. Until that time, this remains a preventative block, not for cooling down. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite does not reduce the number of editors because it's, you know, for an unspecified length of time. It's until the editor makes a commitment to stop the behavior they were blocked for. 01:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A fair point, but semantic given the current length of my block, I think. A block that holds for one week (and isn't removed) is enough time to serve as a warning, a disruption management tactic, and an indication that the community does not approve of his actions. Can't see how changing this to an indefinite block and possibly lifting it in 5 days is any different. But we may agree to disagree here. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

shhhhhh .... you're not supposed to give away secrets like that. — Ched :  ?  05:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep to the unwrritten incremental block policy Other than in exceptional circumstances, an established editor should be given blocks lasting 1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 4 months, 1 year, and 5 years, in that order. This maximizes the chances that the editor will stop the behavior that is leading to the blocks. It also minimizes the chances that another editor will reverse the block. There is nothing about this case that makes it special. The above sequence should be used. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a day or two, and it just feels too soon for an indef. If he keeps getting blocks for his behavior, then it would be time, but it doesn't seem like he's been given enough chances compared to other editors. --Rschen7754 09:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The solution to uneven enforcement of the civility policy is not to reduce it to the lowest common denominator. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, what I'm getting at is that escalating from 1 week to indef seems a bit much. --Rschen7754 10:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • In isolation of any facts about the behaviour, perhaps. When examining the history, one could notice that a) Canoe's recent 48hr block was long overdue, b) it was noted at the time that it was very lenient, c) there was misbehaviour during the block which could very well have gotten it extended, and d) the recent behaviour was a series of heinous and deeply offensive attacks which warranted both summary blanking and a week's block on a sister project. Treating this as if it were another couple of points on one's driving license sends out absolutely the wrong message. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The problem with Canoe1967 is that while he generally makes good edits and has a passion about making BLPs conform to policy, his downfall is he doesn't seem to be able to strongly disagree with someone without it getting abusive. The blocks so far seem to be of the pattern : "Fuck, you're an asshole." "Don't call me an asshole." "Fuck it, you are one." "Call me an asshole again and I'll block you". "Fuck you, asshole." And block. Mind you, I would consider this edit to be borderline vandalism, though given it's in direct response to all this Wikipediocracy dramah, I can assume it was made with a good faith (but futile) attempt to knock the back and forth on the head. I wouldn't support an indef at this stage, but I would support increasing the blocks each time as has already happened, making it as clear and polite as possible that he needs to comment on what people are doing and why it's (in his view) wrong without it going to name calling. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is about more than just incivility; see the evidence at the ANI discussion I started in February 2013. Canoe also has a nasty habit of editing the comments of editors he is in conflict with, and he also POINTily edited the block notice that was issued at this time. GiantSnowman 13:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• An indef or community ban may be premature, but the fact that Canoe1967 continued on with the attacks until their talk access was removed then went to Commons to continue there indicates that extending the block beyond one week may have been an appropriate action at the time. Resolute 13:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure I commented on the previous ANI, or one of them, but I would support an indef - cross-wiki hounding is absolutely inexcusable and if that doesn't warrant an indef, what does? Indef is not infinite, if they convince people they have changed, a couple of months down the line, then they're more than welcome to come back - right now, no. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Before we add cross-wiki hounding to his rap sheet, is there something I'm missing? Did he follow the blocking admin, or anyone else, across wikis? Yes, he spouted off about the admin on his own talkpage on another project, but hounding is another level. I'll support indef too if that's the case, but I haven't seen evidence of this yet. The Interior (Talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would count the spouting off about the admin at another project as hounding, although it's probably not the common definition of the term. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably disruptive RfC behavior on Talk:Rape culture

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

---

Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asked me to look at the behavior of Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on Talk:Rape culture. In short, there was an RfC about including some material in early February, which resulted in a non-"closed" but pretty clear consensus that the material should not be included. On February 27, Darkness Shines opened a new RfC, which basically just re-asked the same question as RfC #1. Involved editors attempted to close that, which they probably shouldn't have done, and eventually DS closed it her/himself and then reopened a third RfC with the same question. To me, this looks like WP:DEADHORSE behavior, and I very nearly closed the third RfC as being an abuse of process. While consensus can change, it doesn't magically change in a few days, and opening a new RfC weeks after the last one in an attempt to luckily get a different result is not an appropriate step forward. Then I decided that the matter isn't absolutely clear cut, and that it would help to have other's input. So, should the RfC be closed? Additionally, Mrt3366 and some of the other editors have stated or implied that is part of a larger pattern of poor behavior on DS's part, but I don't recall interacting with him much except for recently on one article, so I can't comment on whether or not that is the case. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment This was the wording of the first RFC "I would like to file an official Request for comment on this section. There is a great deal of material that has primarily been edited by User:Media-hound- thethird[1], an obvious political activist who has now been indef-banned for POV-pushing and WP:BATTLE [2]. The section focusses exclusively on three countries, India,South Africa and the United States, which, to my reading, seems like WP:UNDUE, as well as a WP:SYN implication that rape is exclusive to these countries. Furthermore, the sections are essentially a POV fork of three other wikipedia articles, Rape in India, Sexual violence in South Africa, and Rape in the United States, violating WP:POVSPLIT. It seems to me that an article on rape culture should focus on general discussions on the subject, rather than become a list of specific countries and instances cherry-picked to advance a POV. Handyunits (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013" Hardly a neutral way to set one out is it? Also the first RFC dealt with their being sections for different countries, the one I started is over a small paragraph. It was closed disruptively three times, once by APL[25] and twice[26][27] by Mrt who was warned by an admin over this disruptive behaviour. I has little option after this highly disruptive behaviour but to reboot the RFC. I have never pretended to be an admin, and Mrt really should stop with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

General Behaviour

• Caveat Lector: editors whose quotes are presented here may not retain/endorse the same views now. This is not to indicate the current pattern but an overall impression of his general modus operandi. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)}

I thank you Qwyrxian for this effort. Like I have told Qwyrxian I have interacted with him for quite some time (sometimes productively and other times just wasted my time) and I can tell everyone reading this that DS is very passionate (often a good thing) but his passion borders on dogmatism. He also has a habit of harassing his opponents (others also, not just me) with needless discretionary sanctions notice (while pretending to be an uninvolved administrator) as well as redundant and occasionally invalid warnings (he landed one just recently). He has huge issues coping with any degree of opposition. FWIW, also see

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Top Gun & Darkness_Shines.
2. User_talk:Crtew#DarknessShines
3. User_talk:Crtew#Notification
4. User_talk:CarrieVS#Thank_you
5. last ANI comments
6. DS might be heading towards an indef block

Thank you all.

P.S. I didn't even begin to talk about his not-so-polite way of asserting his views. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I informed APL and Handyunits. And DS, you may frame it as a "warning" against me. I think it was an advise (I don't know how valid or useful it was though). Besides I don't see you complain about the RFC1 when it first started nor did you attempt to strive against the early closure when a pretty clear consensus was reached. You're making issues up as you go along.

You closed one RFC merely to start another, others should take a note of that. Your current RFC wants to assert that Indian culture is a "rape culture". That too based not on peer-reviewed sociology articles, but very personal opinions (perhaps with a COI). I will let others respond as they deem fit.

P.S. the issue about your general mode of operating is larger than just this RFC-episode (this is just one in the series of various episodes with numerous well-meaning editors). We must put it in correct perspective. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• There's an awful lot here to look at so I'm not going to give a view on the totality yet. But I did notice one complaint that seems justified: this edit from DS used a template which includes the words "This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system." I'm willing to believe this was unintentional and that it has not been repeated. But it does amount to DS placing a notice describing him/herself as an uninvolved administrator. If DS would acknowledge this and assure us the mistake won't be repeated, that would be one complaint dealt with. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blow me, I've just found another one. I strike my assumption of a single, good faith mistake. This had better stop DS, is that clear? If I find a third I'll formally warn you on your talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What you?!?!  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That probably has a different meaning the the UK than in the US. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whoa Full stop, DS has been already told to NOT use admin warnings, nor to add to the ArbCom enforcement lists. Unfortunately, this appears to have continued. Any reason not to indef? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No I have not, this was discussed and no arbitration warnings have been given by myself since, so indef yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"...warnings have been given by myself since, so indef yourself." ← (emphasis my own) This is exactly the sort of tone I am fed up with. He is talking to an Admin on ANI (highly exposed page) after being accused of some serious contravention and notice his acrimonious tone. He doesn't have any interest in being polite. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Another thing, the issue is not when he was told what. The issues are

1. his battleground mentality, vindictive and dogmatic behavior. (see "last ANI comments" link I posted above)
2. his proneness to edit-war over things he doesn't like (I too have been dragged into some of them but it's not just me)
3. a perennial disregard towards what others are requesting him to do.

..to name a few.

Please understand the issue. It's not just about the RFC episode here. His long-term pattern of incivility and disruption should be taken into account also. Let RFC run but stop this person at least. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian states the issue clearly and accurately. I did attempt to close RFCII, because I felt it was an obvious abuse of process. If that was improper I apologize. (Afterwards, Darkness Shines reverted not only my closure, but my comment explaining why I had done it. I'm certain that's also improper.)

Darkness Shines is one of two editors (The other is now perma-suspended.) who have repeatedly attempted to add large amounts of India related content to the article despite other editors explaining why the content wasn't appropriate.

His current RFC is pertaining to only a single paragraph, if that represents a desire for compromise, then it's a good sign.

As it's now clear that the RFC will continue, I hope that it can be expanded to decide the issue in a way that doesn't leave it open for other closely related content to be immediately debated, RFCed, or forum-shopped. (By either 'side'.) APL (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe he has quite understood his contravention. See this conversation. Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case against me and then he will use the travesty of a 'sanction warning' he gave me (the warning he gave me while being involved in an issue and pretending to be an uninvolved administrator without clearly explaining to me the reason for leaving the warning). Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks, you know full well that I asked Sal, an admin, which template was to be used in the topic area, that was the one he said to use. So stop misrepresenting what I did OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"you know full well that I asked Sal" — another allegation. You know that I know it full well? Your truculent attitude is the major problem. Who is Sal? Stop throwing names around! I don't need to be dictated by you when to stop. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Edjohnston explained to him why the sanction was not properly given and why being involved he is not in the best position to judge his opponent. He told he will "leave it off for a bit" (notice the tentativeness of the claim) then just four hours later on the same page he indicates to RegentsPark (in clear terms) that the sanction warning he gave me was enough to next time directly file an AE case against me. I think this is the typical mindset of a recidivist. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes you know, [28] you commented in the thread when I mentioned that an admin told me to use that template. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen such blatant misreprestnation in my fucking life. I have never filed an AE against you, so how could there be a "next time"? I never said I was going to file an AE agaisnt you, anyone can read the fucking diff and see that. I am done with this waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

DS, did you give me diff here or there or anywhere about Sal? And who cares if you think I know? I never saw that page where an Admin gave you the impression to pretend to be an administrator and that too an uninvolved one. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Another allegation rudely delivered. Keep going. Did I say you have filed an AE against me? Kindly read. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Note: there is currently some ambiguity in placement of discretionary sanction notices (should non-admins place them, are they appealable, et. al.) and at least part of the arbitration committee is working on clarifying that for us. Therefore I suggest we put aside discussions of the appropriateness of Darkness Shine's use of the template and focus on the remaining issues. Sorry for not linking to the discussion, can't locate it right now but I'm pretty sure it was on AE recently. NE Ent 13:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about the pretense of being an uninvolved administrator and the COI DS likely had while doling out sanction warnings. Is it also confusing? I don't think so. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I habe never pretended to be a fucking admin so stop saying I did OK. Per your "Did I say you have filed an AE against me?" Yes you did Darkness Shines says that next time he is going to file an AE case against me Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Never? DS pretended to be uninvolved admin :[29], [30], [31], [32], [33], etc.
Should Do I need to give more?

But notice that, instead of apologizing for his pretentious behavior he is claiming that he never pretended to be uninvolved admin. Now what to call that? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, did not see this earlier. What response has been given to this set of accusations? If none has been forthcoming, what is the appropriate administrative action to be taken against these repeated violations? Lostromantic (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• See [34], edit summary indicates a motion on the topic is to be forthcoming. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This is not about the Arbitration motion. It is about the misleading language he repeatedly used while warning his opponents (which is all the more reason to think he might have had COI). What's worse is he is still defending that. The template is clear enough. And one-time mistake would have been tolerable but he did it over and over again. He didn't even try to explain to me that he is not giving this as an administrator. He could have waited. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If a non-admin can issue the warning, and at least some of the arbs appear to think they can, and the there is no separate warning for non-admins to use, and your supposed to use the "official" version of the warning I can totally see why someone would use the approved warning that misidentified them as an admin. Thus the confusion over the issue is relevant. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"I can totally see why someone would use the approved warning that misidentified them as an admin." — I don't see how it is so obvious all of a sudden. Please read what I wrote below. .....{{Uw-sanctions}} also clearly says: "If this template is used by an editor who is not an 'uninvolved administrator', include the parameter |admin=no in the template to individualise 'This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be...'." ..Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment would an administrator please advise me of the scope of this ANI (since some material involving DS's interaction with me has come up in quotes -- see above). Is it just about the rape culture article that I never contributed to, is it about DS's behavior in general, or both. Crtew (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• When under scrutiny here it's not advisable to respond with "fucking this" and "fucking that" comments. Blocked 1 week for disruption. And that's before we consider any of the main issues at hand here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a terrible justification for a block. Regardless of the underlying merits of the case, getting dragged to AN/I can be rather stressful for editors. Blocking them for a minor expression of frustration, just because they said "fucking" is totally lacking in compassion, and is exactly the sort of thing that leads editors to despise AN/I. Its not preventative, and will just inflame the situation, certainly its not disruptive enough to justify a block. Monty (Public) (talk) (main account) 14:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't think you're seeing the issue in right perspective here. His pattern shows he has problems on multiple level(ie. incivility, edit-warring, obduracy, etc), and in multiple places, instead of accepting his flaws he aggressively defends them. Don't know about what a 'right reason' might be but a block was required, I guess. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Now he might pretend that he was out of options but he had a lot of options. He could have asked an Admin to do sanction me and others.
  He could have added "additional text" to explain he is not an admin.
  The page also clearly says: "If this template is used by an editor who is not an 'uninvolved administrator', include the parameter |admin=no in the template to individualise 'This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be...'."
  He went right ahead and gave the sanctions anyway. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect to Kim, I essentially agree with Monty. I believe the block should be lifted and allow DS to continue to participate in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So, should we just bend the definition of WP:CIVIL / WP:ETIQUETTE as we see convenient? Should I start expressing my frustration in vulgar language too? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

MrT, can I suggest that you step back a bit and resist the urge to comment on every single contribution here? It's beginning to feel like badgering and to be quite honest, both you and DS are very poor advocates of your own case. DS can make a case on his/her talk page which can be pasted here and the delay and cooling off this brings about will be no bad thing. I'd suggest MrT that you drop back as well and let some previously uninvolved editors review the situation without being egged on by you. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

DS has appealed the block (with the edit summary "more bollocks"). I have replied to say that I'll unblock if s/he is willing to discuss here more calmly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a fan of the language DS has used in this thread. However, its use doesn't warrant a block. As MrT said somewhere above, DS is passionate and he is prone to strong language. I don't think saying "fuck this" and "fuck that" is constructive or helpful to his position, but he shouldn't have been blocked, and he shouldn't need to change his unblock request to be unblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If any other admin feels my original block was unjustified, please do unblock them. I don't feel strongly attached to the block although on balance I think it was justified. But I certainly won't argue with anyone who undoes it. I'm AFK for a few hours anyway now so am happy to leave this in the hands of others. I'll check in later. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kim. Unfortunately, I consider myself WP:INVOLVED, not based on this thread, but on previous interaction with DS. Therefore, much as I'd like to unblock, I don't feel comfortable doing so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked. While I advised DS that using strong language like that is probably a bad idea, I don't think it's inherently disruptive, and certainly not enough to be immediately block-worthy. Basically, I read it as a (good-faith) cooldown block, which, for better or worse, we don't do. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, this unblock was without prejudice towards the problem being reported or the outcome of any discussion in this thread, just as the block was. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Block is good DS has been impersonating an admin in order to create a chilling effect. As noted, he's been told before to stop. This really cannot be permitted to continue (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Instead of admitting his incivility, he says: "So no. If I want to swear I will, there are no policy against it. You have made a bad block and are now trying to get me to agree to something "you want" and only you before unblocking me. I will not be blackmailed." - Is this the sort of behavior you guys think will help this discussion? He starts derogating the admin who blocked simply because he blocked him. This always happens with DS. That is another issue with DS he never accepts he was at fault. And never moves on. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

ANd he is unblocked. WoW! Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

MrT, Kim's advice to you was excellent. You should heed it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I see now that this section is clearly about general behavior (above). I only intend to make one comment here and that's all.

1) I applaud Kim Dent-Brown for blocking DS for his foul language. I've regularly told him and complained to others that this language is unnecessary and unacceptable and he continues to spout this type of language without any self-control. DS's editing history is chockfull of rudeness, cuss words, and other comments that go against WP:Civil. And he does it with the same hot-tempered attitude that Kim Dent-Brown identified. Moreover, somebody always (in the instances where I have been involved) comes along to say he shouldn't be told that he can't act this way. Finally, somebody did the right thing and right off the bat, too! Bravo.

2) More serious is the issue about the warnings DS issued to me and others: DS issued me a warning on my talk page that looked very official like it came from an admin, it said I had already been disruptive (I paraphrase) and I'll be blocked if I do whatever I did again, and he put me on a warning list in the process. I felt and still do that he was trying to intimidate me and move me away from his area of interest, which is Bangladesh. I was editing in that area on the David Bergman (journalist) article, on my interest in journalists/people who were involved in the Skype scandal that brought charges against The Economist and Amar Desh, and on a married journalist couple who were murdered, and so I had entered into his terrain. From what everybody told the admins, and I agree, he did this to get back at people. So what did I do to deserve a warning? I had copyedited an article (commas and such) and made no content changes whatsoever. For that I was warned! The preposterous nature of this warning led me to investigate, find out that others were involved like I was (we all had somehow created content that went against DS's POV). I only found out later that DS didn't like Bergman because the journalist had made statements that were negative about Bangladesh's International Criminal Court, which I didn't know at the time that I saved it from AfD last year (DS's nomination) and started editing it. And when I popped up again, I was warned! That shouldn't happen on Wikipedia. I will admit that I went on a mission to get my name off this list and to tell any other person on that list what had happened to me, which led to a mini-revolt of sorts and also several admins telling DS to cease warning people and many names being removed. DS was coding the warning template incorrectly to make it look as if he was an administrator and he was issuing it as an involved editor. So he was told to back off. Now people in Abitration are currently looking at the wisdom of giving people like this this kind of power (See User:Sandstein's work there). Just like Mr T said, he threatening to use it again even after he was warned and was told again that he couldn't.

3) Since I've started editing on Bangladesh-related articles (not my area of specialty but intersects with a number of journalists I'm looking at), I've had nothing but grief from DS. He's regularly accused me of stalking him at User:RegentsPark because I have made edits in this area where he overlaps with me. He seems to want to know what is on my watchlist. This is uncivil and aggressive behavior.

4) From what I've seen, DS has a POV (pro-Awami League and pro-ICT as far as I can tell) and he will use any strategy available from a misuse of policy (AfD, merge, revert, limiting reverts on articles, BLP, warnings, false charges of sock puppetry, etc.) , and if that doesn't work, to just burying your edits later as a rewrite or for some other unnamed reason, in order to get content to skew toward his POV. It's almost impossible to add fairness and balance to articles where he is working with others who share his POV. (I won't make the case of Tag Teaming here because it's difficult to prove as the intent of multiple people are involved.) None of the policies I mentioned above are wrong when used for the purposes of improvement (whatever that may or may not mean for people), but when used for the purpose of inserting POV as a regular pattern of behavior, it violates the spirit of WP. For me should be the ultimate issue here in this AN/I. It's a pattern of behavior to misuse policy, intimidate others, and to insert POV that runs all the way through his editing history. And, I would suggest, it's at the very top of this AN/I in the RFC issue that started this process.Crtew (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. (That may have only "one comment", Chad, but it was longer than ten.) I'm getting lost in all the issues here (not unusual for me). I'll address just the issue of DS issuing warnings of discretionary sanctions. There are really two subissues. The first is whether only an admin can issue the warning. To me and to others, that is unclear, so it seems to me that DS can't be faulted for "violating" an unclear policy. Second is whether DS should use the template. In my view, he should not. If he wants to issue a warning, he should personalize it so he doesn't represent that he's an admin. See, e.g., WP:ARBPIA ("For convenience, the template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information."). Unfortunately, I think the original basis of Qwyxrian's post here is being lost in what is transforming itself into an RfC/U. This is the wrong forum for a discussion of such breadth about a user's conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

View from uninvolved outsider I have been on discussion groups going back to FidoNet and USENET, including Reddit and Slashdot. Everywhere but Wikipedia, there is one unspoken rule: Figure out who is a Sysop/Moderator/Admin/Bohf, and don't disagree with him lest he LART you with a banhammer. On Wikipedia I know that even if I piss off Jimbo or Sue, it will be an uninvolved admin who looks at my behavior and blocks me, and I know that if I have a valid argument that the block was bogus, I can get another uninvolved admin to review the block. Any involved administrator making even veiled threats violates that trust. Any involved non-admin coming close to impersonating an admin and making veiled threats violates that trust. This needs to be stopped to protect the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved outsider I fail to see the issue. Darkness Shines has not pretended to be an admin, and no diff indicates he has. He did use templates which include that message; and that may have been accidental on his part. I'm willing to assume good faith there; I think a request that he doesn't use it again would be fine. I think the block by Kim was overzealous. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also bad block. What was highlighted by Kim for the block included this sentence by DS (presumably the one the block was over): "I habe never pretended to be a fucking admin so stop saying I did OK". DS is not attacking Mr T here. The underlying statement is; I have never pretended to be an admin, so do not say I did, but the language is more emotive, but not an attack. Let's not forget that the very next reply, by Mr T, to the message DS was blocked for, was to say he was acting pretentious; that is an attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"The underlying statement is; I have never pretended to be an admin, so do not say I did, but the language is more emotive," — nevertheless it is a lie he did pretend to be an admin several times and defended that behavior till it has drawn quite some attention. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], read the text of the template and also my reply to monty. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is that he may have simply been using the templates carelessly without reading them. (They are rather wordy.) The admin impersonation would, in that case, be accidental. He seemed to have stopped when it was pointed out to him. APL (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

No sir. Are you saying is not intelligent enough to admit the most blatant of the errors in time? You know, competence is required. Although I would love to believe your case, I don't believe, not after all this, that he has quite understood his contravention yet. He just recently gave me a warning right after he and I were in the middle of a dispute in the talk of Rape Culture. He gave me a warning that made it seem like I was editing the article not the talk. He again defended his behavior. Now we may all split hairs about this and that, but the fact is he has issues all around him. Everything cannot be just accident, you see!
About sanctions, he did it multiple times what explanation is needed, it ought to be apparent enough. He is here for quite some time and he knows better. He even defended that sort of contravention. He is still claiming that he has not posed as an uninvolved admin and quite aggressively too. (above) Please see my reply above (what he did after it was explained to him by Edjohnston).
"He seemed to have stopped" - after sanctioning 5-6 editors (mostly his opponents). I am not talking about the technicalities but the COI-ridden vindictive attitude which led him to issue sanctions against multiple opponents. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to be stupid to be careless.

It's entirely possible he placed those templates without actually reading them, and afterwards was too stubborn to apologize for having used the wrong ones. APL (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If his stubbornness were only in the "past" (as in "was stubborn") I wouldn't have minded that much. But he is still harshly reiterating that he wasn't pretending to be an admin even when he knows, intentionally or not, he was posing like one and besides that his COI is also a problem as Edjohnston explained to him. How can you justify this much obduracy? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was justifying anything. APL (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• BWilkins, what part of since it was discussed on my talk page no notifications have been given out by myself did you not understand? Useing the wrong template was a misunderstanding on my part, I was not pretendiong to be an admin, an admin told me that was the template to use, so no it was in fact a shite block. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this to administrative attention, but Darkness Shines has been engaged in a pretty extensive edit war at Hindu Taliban over what he perceives as content that should not belong in the article. For reference, here is the talk page section in question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hindu_Taliban#Failed_verification As you can see, the dispute started when Darkness Shines started removing content which he claimed failed verification. I pointed out that the links were, in fact, valid, which he disagreed with prima facie since they did not specifically mention the phrase "Hindu Taliban", and therefore the articles were not valid sources because Hindu Taliban was what he viewed as a 'neo'. At this point, Eduemoni stepped in later to address a potential 3RR by him and I, so I backed off and tried to set up a process by which we could reach consensus, but Darkness Shines deliberately flouted the process. He then resorted to foul language and personal attacks against Eduemoni and I on his own talk page and deleted Eduemoni's arguments off said talk page in an attempt to make himself seem more reasonable. I'm not sure which policy or set of policies such actions violate, but to me, they clearly seem to be an indication that some administrative action should be taken against Darkness Shines. Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind if Darkness Shine's overall behavior is evaluated here, but I would also appreciate discussion on the RfCs. I strongly believe this third RfC should be closed and DS should be admonished not to try to win a content dispute by simply repeating discussions until he gets the result he wants. Rather, he should avail himself of other aspects of dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If the RFC had not been closed disruptively three times then I would not have had to restart it would I? The bot which invites uninvolved editors would have missed it due to the closures. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur. An editor shouldn't "close" an RFC and then immediately start a new one. Recommend 30 day topic ban from article for Darkness Shines. NE Ent 23:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You recommend a 30 day topic ban on me because two other editors closed an RFC which I had started? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no say here whatsoever or any authority at all, but given the scope of what editors are saying here, wouldn't a topic wide ban on anything related to the subcontinent region be more appropriate? Crtew (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

What, the scope of all the editors who I have had editing conflicts with? Yep, I am sure they are real neutral. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

closure of second RFC by DS. opening of third RFC bys DS. NE Ent 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So you want him topic banned for closing the second RfC which had become instantly sidetracked by involved participants? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ent, the onus is on you to show that the DS is at fault here Restarting an RfC several times, to mitigate against disruption (the second RfC was sidetracked, see [40]), sounds potentially legitimate, and I fail to see why that would be the rationale for a topic ban for thirty days. The easiest thing to do would be to have an RfC and then have an admin close it and gauge the consensus. The first RfC apparently had an involved person gauge the consensus at the end (and asking if others agreed; obviously most people responding to an RfC don't hang around), which is inherently problematic. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really. I've give an opinion, and my reasoning for it. Folks can agree or disagree as they wish. I don't think "restarting" an RFC because an editor doesn't like the way it's going is a useful dispute resolution technique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but I came accross DS by vandalism patrol, he was engaging edit war in one article at that time Hindu Taliban, as a common procedure I did notify the involved parts (template) and proceeded to request page for protection because the edits violated the 3RR policy, I didn't issue (at that point) a warn on him for anything else other than the actual 3RR, but he was being rude so I mistakenly (or not) gave him a personal attack warn, I didn't even proceed to the 3RR noticeboard because someone else did. The other day I received a message regarding an advice ^[1], I responded to his concern, and then went all along to check the edit issues this other user (Crtcrew) has passing through only to notice he yet again violated 3RR, I issued another warn on him, but this time he came on a rampant against me ^[2], another user (SudoGhost) said I was being uncivil and didn't handle the situation properly by templateing him and compared both of us, however I talked very politely on his page, if you look on his dif pages and mine there are comments which are full of his bad words and some of them reveal his parapraxis. Anyway, I think that DS isn't a bad guy at all, however he is too willful and dogmatic, which may seem to be obnoxious to some. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, after reading through this thread and Wikipedia's internal policies, DS's deliberate attempt to hijack the RfC process in the Rape culture article seems to be part of a larger pattern of repeated violations of WP:OWN and WP:EQ, at the very least, and possibly violations of WP:NPA depending on how easily the editor in question is offended. It's clear from what Eduemoni described above that DS did violate those three policies in his interactions with him, and it's for those reasons that I believe DS deserves to be banned, or at least topic-banned from Indian articles, broadly construed, for a lengthy period of time. Also, since this thread is getting rather tendentious and tangential, I'd suggest that we wrap this up with a list of formal charges against DS and a quick vote on actions to take. Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 06:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

NE Ent the RFC was closed first by APL [41] and then twice by Mrt3366‎[42][43] which is why I archived the wrecked one ad restarted it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have closed the second time only if he didn't leave such an offensive and peremptory edit summary. I regret it now. But that doesn't discount what DS did and have always done (including but not limited to the RFC episode). See this post above. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You should not have closed it the first time, never mind the second. And did you perhaps think I would give you flowers & chocolate for disruptively closing an RFC which had already been closed by another involved editor and then you come along to do the same, get real FFS. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the edit summary before.

So let me get this straight, I remove a template and explain that it's because I believe you're editing in bad faith. And you respond by

1. Replacing the template with no answer to the concerns of myself and others.
2. Deleting my comments critical of your actions.
3. Leaving an edit summary that says "Do not fucking do that again."

I can't imagine why I thought you were editing in bad faith. APL (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that the summary with the "Fucking" was not when I was reverted as I imply above, but when MrT was reverted. I got the reverts confused. APL (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Incivility and impetuous truculence is so obvious to him:- "And did you perhaps think I would give you flowers & chocolate for disruptively closing an RFC"
  Why does nobody take a note of his battleground mentality? He is inherently predisposed to create disputes and hinder amicable resolution. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"You should not have closed it the first time, never mind the second." ——— I should have brought it to ANI. APL's and My closures gave you the right excuse to close RFC2 and open a new one. I still believe your 2nd RFC was not legitimate, albeit I needn't close it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The rationale for a topic wide is that what DS did with the RFC here is part of a general pattern of behavior that is pervasive throughout the subcontinent articles he edits. Perhaps if he were to edit "Top 40 singles" for a month (or something where he doesn't take on WP:OWN), he might begin to see that other Wikipedians are using civil behavior (WP:EQ). This environment seems to be toxic for him. Crtew (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually no, the rational is that it would get rid of someone you do not like. And if you are to make such wide sweeping statements how about some diffs to back up what you say? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Mrt, from the guy who has over the last few weeks told me STFU, and "shut up" and created a weeks long drama involving three admins cos you would not admit that India used child soldiers are in no position no censure my actions at all. Had you two not disruptively closed an RFC you were both involved in then this would not have happened at all, all this drama is down to you two, not me. And do not accuse me of editing in bad faith APL, it was you who stopped an RFC because you do not like the fucking content proposed. I have yet to hear from any of those objecting as to why it is OK to have content in that article which says India does not have a rape culture, but they are really really happy to have the opposing view excised from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

General comment: I'm a bit surprised to see Qwyrxian bring this up here. The repeated closure of the RfC was brought to my attention here and I warned Mrt3366 not to edit war on RfCs. Looking at RfC I and III, the questions are different enough (III is far more specific) that an additional RfC is not out of the question. Perhaps RfC II could have worked with the judicious collapsing of text, but it is not unusual to start a new RfC when an earlier one gets bogged down in extraneous squabbling. About behavior. None of these three are pure here. DarknessShines could do with a bit of a rethink on how he approaches issues because, whether or not he is violating the letter of policy, the overuse of the f-word is not going to buy him friends or help him influence people. And, it is never a good sign when controversy follows you everywhere. Mrt3366 has shown signs of extreme tendentiousness in the past (though he is learning to withdraw graciously, if not early enough!). And Crew has shown signs of a battleground mentality, including inflaming disputes by dragging other editors in, tag teaming, and making injudicious comments about other editors. I'm not a fan of interaction bans but it is beginning to look like we'll need something between Crtew and DarknessShines. --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I try to be extremely objective and meticulous while discussing about something, anything controversial. If that is what RP sees as tendentious editing then I am very disappointed. I don't know where have I evinced tendentious behavior whenever I realized that sources were against me I immediately withdrew. As for the allegations that I "created a weeks long drama involving three admins cos [I] would not admit that India used child soldiers" — it is totally false. I was the one who found and inputted the source that was clearly proving me wrong. See this. I was initially against the source which was implying what RP, DS were claiming. I couldn't accept that and then when I stumbled upon a source clear enough, I myself put it in the article and closed the debate. DS is impolite and has always been. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit taken back by what I see as RP's "injudicious" comment above. If anybody expected me not to tell other editors who were on a fake warning list, put there by someone who appeared to be impersonating an admin and for reasons that were entirely preposterous in my case (for copy editing?), then we have a different view of what fair play and justice means. Yes, I fully admit to telling others as I said above. Tag teaming? When? Where are the charges about this and when was I brought up for a dispute about this? (I didn't even know what it was until recently.) In fact, when have I ever been the target of a single noticeboard dispute or when have I ever been blocked? The answer is NEVER. Anybody can verify this. Please do. Crtew (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Always impolite? [44] An obviously contentious thread, show me were I am impolite, or even on the RFC thread which began this fiasco. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You have no clue, do you? This is the problem after all this you're still wondering. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You just do not get it do you? It was your actions which lead to this. Yet you seem to think it was my fault. I had already reverted APL over his closure of the RFC, yet you went right ahead and closed it two times more. In case you had not gotten why I pointed to those threads, it is because when people are polite, they get the same in return, as anyone can see in looking through my comments on them. You have to earn respect, and your actions here, and at the most recent articles we have worked on, garner none. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Denial at its best. You're using me as the scapegoat? Yeah, now I am not to blame for your general behavior. I will not accept that. I don't even know some of the guys that have come up with behavioral complains against you, my friend. So don't you blame me now for your misconduct. It has always been the case with you. Even now you're denying that you've been uncivil. Even here you've exhibited severe behavioral problems. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(xec) Crtew, regarding the inflaming disputes by dragging in other editors I'm referring to this post of yours that resulted in more, rather injudicious, unnecessary drama. About the injudicious comments, I can dig them up if you like but I hope you know what I mean. DarknessShines, your tendency to use the f-word and be unnecessarily dramatic is likely to get you tossed out of here one of these days. Mrt3366, in the source issue you quote above, you kept arguing your point about a source well after several neutral editors had determined that the source was being correctly represented in the article. I agree that you finally did end the discussion but it was after a lot of "where does the source say that" after many editors had pointed to where it did say that. Look, I don't think any of you are overly problematic editors but all three of you need to rethink the way you're approaching this project. I know two of you quite well as editors and think you're doing a valuable job adding content and, more importantly, most of what you add would probably not be here if you weren't here. I know less about Crtew but he seems to be adding useful content as well. All you need to do is to straighten out your egos a bit and stop running around reporting each other or edit warring at the drop of a hat. If other editors can recognize value in each one of you, why don't you try to recognize the same value in each other? --regentspark (comment) 16:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

/nowiki>1

• DS you are indeed perennially, compulsively and inappropriately rude, combative and abusive. You seem to find it extremely hard to interact with anyone who does not agree with you in a collegial and constructive way. If you want diffs I'll provide them but I know in advance that you'll see each of them as entirely justified behaviour on your part. MrT you have what appears to be an almost unhealthy obsession with getting some kind of sanction, any kind of sanction against DS. You have badgered almost all contributors here and repeated yourself ad nauseam, only weakening your case in the process. As far as I'm concerned you are both welcome to one another. Personally I think there is a case for a total interaction ban between the pair of you and quite possibly a topic ban from south Asian, Hindu and Muslim topics. I'm sure those areas would proceed more calmly without your scuffles. But there has been very little interest here in enacting anything against either of you so I suspect this thread will wither and die. If it does then please can I beg you both to consider not the other person's behaviour but your own. Neither of you has anything to be proud of here and this whole episode is likely to count against either of you next time your names are mentioned on this board. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and I value them, I have stayed away from the page but what do you expect me to do when DS is constantly misinforming others about me? He is even trying to make it seem that I made him uncivil, you expect me to sit here, fret and watch silently? I mean, what is this? What badgering? I am also a human.

I understand you're having problems wading through all this unnecessary squabbles. I thank you even more for that. But what can I do? It's how it is. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Neither of you has anything to be proud of here" - I know. And I hate my luck for it. Ban me, block me I don't know what is appropriate but don't tell me to just sit here and watch while DS is posting his inane garbles to frame himself as the victim here. That is the last thing I need. Don't be irascible please. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 16:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yet Another Comment - The Edit War on Hindu Taliban started 15 February 2013‎ and extended 10 days long, til 25 February 2013‎, three users were involved, I notified all them three (DS is included in that number), DS reverted (1R) the first time and made some rollbacks in his second, Lostromantic reverted, (2R) DS reverted once again citing failed verification, his following edit was template tag, Lostromating reverted, (3R) DS reverted, User:Scythian77 intervened strange revert, beyond this level is pure violation, DS reverted, Lostromantic undo, DS reverted, Scynthian undo, DS reverted, Lostromantic undo, DS tagged the page with some templates to sustain his 3rr violation, Scynthian thought it was a 3rr however the edit war was already taking place. Also the talk page was filled with uncivility, unnecessary jargon and offensive words. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 16:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Eduemoni, this is the second time you have stated here that I violated 3RR. Read WP:3RR then look at those diffs, I never violated 3RR at all. Please stop saying I did. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DS, this is the kind of behavior that people cited above, you are not right, but you refuse to accept it, 3RR critically consider a 24h period, however Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation., which you surely did, the diffs and logs show it, avoid telling the the others to stop saying something which you obviously had part in, you engaged into a edit war and violated 3RR in the last days of the "battle", sometimes I still think that you Wikipedia:Ignore all rules or that you pretend to know them. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Eduemoni, all I have to say is: Thank You. Lostromantic (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh, I did not violate 3RR. Again, read 3RR and you can see that I did not. I suspect you think adding something new counts as a revert, it does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Again "Any appearance of gaming the system...", DS, when I got in touch with you and your impetuous temper, I preferred to stay away because you didn't get exactly what you were touching, it is like you told me "Hey stop, that is a ball, don't touch it, it is going to explode and kill us all", when is exactly the opposite it is a square and it could be handled gently, this kind of behavior is going to get you blocked soon, listen to the majority of users in here, they are complaining about something, some may seem similar, some may not, but there is obviously an issue, listen to them and try to improve yourself, I may be right, but most of the times I'm wrong, think about that. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can an uninvolved admin close this section on "General Behaviour". It is outside of the remit of this board (should be RFCU), and it appears to be dominated by people who have an axe to grind, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I posted a comment over at Kim's talk page and they suggested I also post it over here. "Re your most recent comment at ANI, your absolutely correct with this statement "You seem to find it extremely hard to interact with anyone who does not agree with you in a collegial and constructive way". I do get very annoyed very quickly when I know I am correct regarding an issue and others just seem to want to make everything hard work, I simply have little patience for nationalists and POV pushers. You are also correct in that I swear far to much, so as a show of good faith henceforth I shall keep the cussing to my talk page. Should you see me cussing outside of it feel free to block me for having broken my word." Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

  You need to fix that DarknessShines because that's a problem for you. You have to do one of two things. Either assume that the other person is arguing their point in good faith or open an RfC/U with evidence that the other editor is a POV pusher. With the two editors here, crtew and mrt3366, it is hard to make a pov pushing case. With crtew you took an antagonistic tone in the David something (?) article and look how that's turned out - an all out war by the looks of it. Mrt3366 definitely has a defend India slant but there's nothing wrong with someone pushing back with that slant as long as they don't consistently push a pov and know when enough is enough (which he generally does know). Most editors are willing to listen to reason when it is reasonably presented and you'd go much further if you tried that approach. Just something to think about. --regentspark (comment) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As for me, I will believe DS's promise only when I see patience, thoughtfulness and civil language put into practice and months out from now and not in the moment when the spotlight shines on the darkness. Any message that apologizes but at the same time criticizes those of us who have complained to him by calling us "nationalist and POV pushers", deserves a healthy dose of skepticism. I for one am not an enabler, Crtew (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I said I wouldn't post again here but I think DS's post on my talk page, copied here, deserves a response. DS has acknowledged a problem with both collegiality and incivility. These two things are easy to maintain with our friends; it's with our opponents that the test really comes. The commitment to not swearing outside DS's own talk page is welcome and I for one believe it. The request to be blocked on breaking the promise is good enough for me. I will certainly act on it if anything is brought to my attention, but I don't think it will be. Now, antagonists of DS it's time to escalate or de-escalate. You can call DS's offer bad faith or you can accept it at face value in the knowledge that the next f-bomb on anyone else's talk page brings a block. If you'd like DS to be a more gracious opponent - model what graceful opposition means by accepting this offer with some style. I second the suggestion above that we close this section of the thread. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm as far as possible from skepticism here, I believe in DS words because I see his efforts, his harshness and his temper is what gets in his way, sometimes he may seem irreflexive, but I think that he made a commitment, we should trust him, otherwise a report in user noticeboard shall be created. I hope he doesn't take personal. I appreciate his anti-vandalism efforts, and his constructive edits. I think (even though I'm not a admin), it is pretty safe to close this section. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 00:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I again applaud Kim Dent Brown's stance for being fair to judge about this situation. I am more than willing to "de-escalate", as he calls it. But it would only be fair to User:Darkness Shines, if he were to know quite explicitly what any further negative action on his part would bring in terms of a future block(s). If the admins were to set a few boundaries or terms that any future uncivil language and behavior toward other users, any perception created about impersonating an admin or putting people on warning lists (even if he's uninvolved I might add), or for the misuse of WP policy to be overly aggressive against another editor(s), and to set those terms out clearly, then he would know and we would know and the matter could be settled. I for one would be more than fine with that and we could all of us leave this be without doubts of enabling.

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

Administrator Toddst1 refusing to deal with vandalism

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

---

Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

For whatever reason Kristijh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blanked this user page[45] three times[46][47][48] in less than one hour. Either using his main account, or from an IP with a long history[49] of edits that confirm that it is the same editor. Editor User:Anna Frodesiak posted warnings, here[50] and here[51], after both the first and second blankings of Renzoy16's user page. Kristijh then blanked[52] the Anna's two warnings BEFORE doing the third blanking[53] of Renzoy16's user page.

The IP of Kristijh has blanked a user page[54] in the past. So the behavior is not a one-time happening.

Anna Frodesiak made a report[55] to The Administrator intervention against vandalism board. Toddst1 responded[56] less than 1 hour later.

No vandalism since final warning. Re-report if this user resumes vandalising.

This is a clear cut case of vandalism and Toddst1 refusal to do anything in response to it I think is a serious violation of his duties as an administrator....William 15:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

So you are complaining that 5 days ago he didn't block someone who last blanked the page 5 days ago. Anna made the report to AIV at 13:46, 5 March 2013 and the last time anyone blanked that page was 13:35, 5 March 2013‎ or 11 minutes before Anna reported it. The person stopped before Anna reported it, how would blocking have protected the encyclopedia? GB fan 15:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who just came aware of this. AGF for a minute, ok?

Kristijh's third blanking came after two warnings had been issued by Anna. That's the important part, and Kristijh went ahead and did it a 3rd. Toddst1 couldn't be bothered to block Kristijh in response to his disruptive behavior. Editors have been blocked for past harm to the encyclopedia and based on the presumption they may do it again....William 15:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The important point is that the blanking stopped and 5 days later hasn't started back up. A block was not needed to stop the disruption from continuing. Toddst1 made the right call at the time. GB fan 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

No administrator is under any obligation to take any administrative or editorial action at any time.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Serisously a administrator can't be sanctioned[57] for serious violations and lesser problems see the posts closed almost immediately....William 16:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

William, no admin action was required to stop Kristijh's blanking of Renzoy16's user page, Kristijh did it all on their own. Toddst1 did nothing wrong at the time and you should assume good faith about that. GB fan 17:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

He did it 3 times, twice after warnings, and nothing is done and you're advocating that action was correct. Vandals can get away with the behavior without penalty in other words and doing nothing about it is ok. That's a fine and dandy policy but tell that the next time to a editor appeals a block for vandalism and why he shouldn't be unblocked when here a no block is fine....William 17:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dude. Chill out. Read this, the instructions of WP:AIV, and/or this page. The standard operating procedure for dealing with vandals is to give them a series of escalating warnings, one fore each time they vandalize. The warnings go from level 1 to level 4. If they vandalize after getting the 4th level warning, that's usually when blocks usually start happening. Yes, sometimes this sequence is overruled, but what Toddst1 decided was that this wasn't bad enough to warrant overruling the sequence. That was a perfectly reasonable decision to make, and nothing to take umbrage at. Writ Keeper (t + c) 17:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The goal is to build an encyclopedia, not run a justice system. (See no justice). Toddst1 made a decision that a block wasn't necessary -- history since that decision has validated it. Had he been "wrong" -- I'm sure he or another admin would have corrected the situation. NE Ent 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Is it just me?

For consistently being a prick, Toddst1 is severely admonished with 50 lashes of this stick. Have it at ya.

Since this isn't directly related, I'll break it off a bit from the above. Am I the only one that has been sensing a "youngish" sort of drama theme lately? From blinking sigs., to "I'm being harassed by xyz website", to "Admin. ABC won't block this guy". There just seems to be an awfully lot of "Everybody's just picking on me/him/her/us" with a side of WP:IDHT added in type of thing going on lately. Kinda smacks of some old 4chan style tactics, although I'd think by now that those particular ones would have outgrown this type of thing. I'm just asking - am I the only one seeing this? — Ched :  ?  18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be an acceleration lately, of that kind of stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just recently, I think two days ago, watchlisted this noticeboard and I've seen a lot of this childish drama you're talking about. –TCN7JM 18:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's just you. my sordid past indicates I've been around 7 years; (7??? How'd that happen?) outside of some statistical variation I think the level of nonsense is about constant. One difference is we used to have WP:WQA to act a drama sink (see heat sink) to suck some of the lower level stuff off ANI, but "the community" made the boneheaded move to shut that down because it "didn't work." NE Ent 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. It's always been like this! Deb (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes it has. But the crud-level has got slightly worse since WP:WQA closed. DeCausa (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

As a 7 years (I guess) non-admin, I must agree that admins are too much involved in doing "the right thing" and don't differentiate between the editor who is trying to disrupt the project and the editor who is trying to save the project just that he did it in an unlucky way. If you get my point... Debresser (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed an increase in strange behavior, too. New users showing up with weird questions and attitudes, existing users flaming out, even some strange stuff out there in the real world, and in my own head. Must be the spring thaw in the northern hemisphere, tax time approaching in the US, maybe radiation from the recent comets. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps time for a WP:AN\NAUGHTYCORNER? Blackmane (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's happening because Toddst1 is consistently such a prick. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Now there's a conundrum, should I template warn you for an NPA and that you should be nicer to yourself? Blackmane (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, it's happening because Wikipedia is the most dangerousist place like ever and deserves to be explodified. Or something. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by User:ConnorLax101

User:ConnorLax101 has a consistent pattern of disrupting airport articles, particularly Logan Airport and Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. Primarily, he has added KLM as an operator of flights between the two airports many times in a few different ways, despite being asked for sources many times. He has added references a few times, but the references have never actually stated that KLM serves Boston-Amsterdam (because they don't). He seemed to understand that this is a problem at one point (his talk page), but then resumed similar disruptive behaviour. He has added this similar content well more than 10 times, by my count. Here are a subset of the diffs:

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3
• diff 4
• diff 5
• diff 6 (added a source which doesn't support the claim made).

He has also been warned on his talk page to cease this pattern of behaviour several times and acknowledged the warnings both by responding at the talk page and by deleting them from his talk page (saying "stop trying to destroy my account").

• talk page version 1
• talk page version 2
• talk page version 3

He has also twice added copyrighted images, claiming they're in the public domain: File:Logan Airport Terminal E at night.jpg (talk page warning; I'll flag the image itself shortly if someone doesn't beat me to it) and File:Air France A380 Boston.jpg (talk page warning).

He is editing these pages, particularly Logan Airport, fast enough that it is quite difficult at times, including right now, to keep up with all of his unsourced and unencyclopedic edits.

—Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for distruptive editing. I was only trying to help. I'm sorry, ASHill. But, I am kind of new to Wikipedia and am not 100% aware of the guidelines.

-Connor (User:ConnorLax101) —Preceding undated comment added 20:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Connor, I'm going to WP:AGF here, based on your comment. I strongly recommend you read policies surrounding copyright before uploading any further files, or using any images in articles. Next, I would recommend that, if you're going to add information into articles, you make sure you have a reliable source to back up your edit, and that this source shows exactly what your edits say. If you would like a hand with your edits, or for someone to keep a metaphorical eye over your shoulder (assuming I'm online at any point), I would be willing to help you. Alternatively, you could find an editor whom runs adoption programs (like User:Go Phightins!, for example), to help you with your edits. A little off-topic, but it is a requirement to have a link to your talk page in your signature, and as you clearly have altered your signature, please re-add one. (also, you should sign your post with 4 tildes, not 3, to include the timestamp.) Lukeno94 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's those Armenians again"!

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

---

Can we stop the Armenian rampage of Special:Contributions/62.235.191.110 who is adding the same sentence to numerous articles without any regard for context (viz: "The Armenian Apostolic Church is the world's oldest and the most ancient Christian communities. Armenia was the world's first country to adopt Christianity as its official religion in AD 301.")? Paul B (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've rolled back several of the edits, as has User:Deor. I also gave him a 4im warning at his talk page; I'd let things go at that, and would suggest a block only if he starts up again within the next few hours. dci | TALK 20:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

He's still at it! [58] Paul B (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Some people just don't stop, do they? A block sounds fine given his persistence. dci | TALK 20:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate article feedback

• Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69291
• Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69292
• Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69293
• Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Nitrogen/69294

The feedback is unrelated to the article and may be an attack against a person. Normally, I would tag something like this with {{db-g10}}, but I don't know how to tag article feedback. Does anyone know of a way to tag it? Also, can someone remove the feedback? --Stefan2 (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can flag it and ask for oversight. I suppressed them all and gave the IP a level-3 warning for the stupid vandalism you just reverted. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert war, block/unblock, and all sorts of mess

Arts on the Line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen a revert war ongoing due to disagreements of whether NFCC applies to the 17 images it currently has/had in a table. There's ongoing discussions taking place on the article talk page. But Slowking4 (talk · contribs) and Werieth (talk · contribs) decide to have a rather large revert war, and the revert war basically short-circuited the discussion (somewhat). Foxj (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked both Slowking4 and Werieth for 60 hours, and Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) immediately granted an unblock, followed by a revert on the article. I am requesting more comments on this issue, as I do not feel that Kww's unblock reasoning is sound (the discussion on the article page, for me, doesn't feel that it's a clear NFCC violation). Thus I'm calling into question as to whether the 3RR exception applies here. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

both Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) clearly noted the violation on the talk page, both of those users have extensive histories with the non-free content policy. Werieth (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

They are clearly WP:NFCC violations, although there are editors on on Talk:Arts on the Line that don't appear to be particularly concerned about that. There's a pretty clear consensus among editors that are not specifically concerned with the article that the images are in violation. The images need to stay out until there is a consensus to include, and this kind of problem is specifically the reason we have that exemption in WP:3RR.—Kww(talk) 02:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I noticed people arguing re: #3, #8, NFLISTS/NFTABLE; I can only see #8 being the valid issue. NFLISTS - this isn't really a list article (and, frankly, we'd fall to bullet point 6 for this). NFTABLE - the current wording of NFCC allows consideration. #3a/b - 19/20 separate pieces of art laying across Boston demonstrates the impossibility of actually reducing it (unless, obviously, a blueprint or something exists). #8 is the only one that I would consider to be the valid challenge (and even then, this can be fixed by writing the appropriate paragraphs). I'm seeing the argument, but relevant bullet clearly indicates that this should have been discussed in other forums prior to the revert war; thus, I still believe Werieth has to shoulder part of the blame. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • NFCC problems clearly favor removal of material, and that's why the exemption is in WP:3RR, so that we will block the person adding the material and not the person removing it. Explaining an arts program doesn't require an illustration of each and every piece of art selected by the program, and "writing a few paragraphs" won't fix the #8 problem.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Involved editor here - contributed a couple of the files in question, and responsible for a lot of the talking on the talk page. Regardless of the final decision on this specific article, this should perhaps prompt a fresh look at the wording of the NFCC policy, and particularly at the validity of NFTABLE. Trying to word my arguments on the talk page was very difficult because so much of the disagreement here comes down to the semantics. NFTABLE was also (so far as I understand) written considering lists and tables of a) albums, b) TV episodes, and c) currency. Trying to apply it to a list of artworks has proven both difficult and polarizing - one very quickly either sees Arts on the Line as a giant NFCC violation or a perfectly reasonable application of it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I think that this looks like a clear violation of WP:NFTABLE. However, instead of engaging in an edit war, I think that it is better to discuss things like this at WP:NFCR or WP:FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear; the images were a violation of WP:NFC _GUIDELINE_ not WP:NFCC _POLICY_. WP:NFTABLE, a part of WP:NFC, is NOT policy. It is a guideline. This is an important distinction. WP:NOT3RR contains an exemption for blatant violations of NFCC policy, not guideline. The use of the images in the table is a judgment call, not a blatant violation. A blatant violation would be, for example, missing a rationale for the use. All the images had rationales for the use. Whether it violated NFC or not is irrelevant. There is nothing in NFCC POLICY which prohibits the use of non-free images in tables. If there were, we would not have articles displaying non-free images like History of British film certificates, Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) and South African Navy do in tables. This is a judgment call, one that was heavily disputed on the talk page. The appropriate action was not edit warring, and both User:Werieth and user:Slowking4 were blatantly out of line for the pointless dozens-of-reverts-long edit war conducted over the span of less than an hour. Additionally, administrator User:Kww was out of line for granting the unblock of Werieth and at a minimum should have discussed the issue with administrator User:Foxj before doing so, but this did not happen. Kww's actions effectively condoned User:Werieth, and this is utterly wrong. The edit war was clearly, blatantly disruptive and no exemption in 3RR trumps that. Had it been 4 or 5 times by Werieth, I could maybe..maybe...see it. 18 reverts in less than an hour by Werieth and Kww effectively condones Werieth's actions? Absolutely the wrong call. User:Slowking4 should be unblocked since the article can not be edited by non-admins for the next month, and an RfC should be initiated with Slowking4 as a participant. Kww should be admonished for undoing the block of another administrator in this case, and should be reminded of the importance of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing by editors, and the importance of following Wikipedia:BLOCK#Unblocking in so far as it says that an unblock should be performed when "the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake." That was not the case here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• The images violated WP:NFCC#8 as well, not just the guideline. The primary problem is that with a number of admins having commented on the talk (and presumably watching the article), no one moved to block User:Slowking4 earlier.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, the violation of WP:NFCC #8 or #3a is a judgment call. If it were not, then the articles I noted above would have had their images stripped already. That's why I noted those articles. A certain someone attempted to use the 3RR exemption for this same purpose. Their efforts were soundly rejected by the community. This exemption does NOT trump disruptive editing nor further discussion at an RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you can get consensus to change WP:3RR to specifically exclude #8 and #3a from the exemption, I'll behave accordingly in the future.—Kww(talk) 16:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Hammersoft. The existing 3rr text says: "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Non-free content review noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." (emphasis original). It's not clear to me how to improve that. (Adding Kww, this means you, stop acting like a doofus is prohibited per point.) NE Ent 16:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus that the quantity of images violated WP:NFCC as the article stands, so the "should be established as a violation first" standard had been met. The images had already been removed by Black Kite, who specifically stated that he felt the removal of the images was subject to the 3RR exemption, which Werieth says that he relied upon. There was considerable discussion about what could be modified to make the article compliant or whether there should be a specific exemption for arts projects, but there was no consensus about what degree of modification would be required or how sweeping of an exemption would be required.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There at no point was any consensus to remove the images. In this diff, Found5dollar established the basic arguments as to why the images are acceptable within the fair use guidelines - and neither Werieth nor Black Kite at any point could name why any of them were wrong. However, it's become very clear that the NFCC patrollers consider their opinions to be more important than any of those who dissent; note this diff where Werieth calls for myself and others to be "enlightened" as though we are children. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

With non-free material there must be consensus for inclusion, without that, removal is necessary until such time as consensus is reached. Werieth (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to the concerns about "endorsement" noted above, and have left this message.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I appreciate it. I think, given the fact that a concern is raised elsewhere re: this, it can continue elsewhere (unless anyone else have anything else to add?) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Can we seriously get this user banned from editing again. It seems all he is doing is trolling the Wikipedia for pages with images and removing them, there seems to be no pattern to the types of pages he is removing images from. I see he was blocked yesterday and then unblocked minutes later and basically back at it again. I see the user has removed all the warnings from his talk page and if I see today has received a warning for 3RR on the article FTSE 100 Index, so he hasn't learnt his lesson at all. All this user is doing is upsetting other users who have worked hard to contribute information to the Wikipedia. I do understand the users edits may be making pages comply to some standard but the amount of removing of images this user is doing is just insane. Bhowden (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• The images clearly and unequivocally failed WP:NFCC#3a (overuse) and WP:NFCC#8 (significance), which are policy. Therefore the 3RR exemption clearly applies, and Kww was correct to unblock Werieth. Regardless of whether they are in tabular form or not, 17 images which are purely decorative are a clear fail of our policies. As I pointed out on the talkpage, one or two may be admissible if they were clearly described in the text as representative and/or iconic, but the editors there appeared to believe that our policies did not apply here. They were incorrect. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Having said that, I'bve just seen the history; this all started after I was asleep (I'd removed the images earlier). Yes, that was a rather daft revert-war and Werieth should have stopped and simply reported Slowking to WP:AN3, he was already over 3RR before Werieth was. Ah well. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove "Fewer than 30 watchers" limit

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Remove "Fewer than 30 watchers" limit. — Dispenser 02:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Reporting myself, R-41, for extreme uncivil and vulgar personal attacks on N-HH

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

---

This is R-41, I am reporting myself for extremely uncivil and vulgar personal attacks against the N-HH. This is the last diff of editing addition where I deliberately stated such vulgar material here [59]. I was and remain extremely angry at N-HH for comments he has made involving me. I am not sure that I can apologize for what I said because I am extremely angry at N-HH and am still in an uncivil attitude towards him.

I am a veteran user on Wikipedia who has been here for many years, there is no excuse for my conduct on Wikipedia.

I am guilty of gross violation of WP:CIVIL. I am guilty of gross violation of WP:NPA.

Indefinate blocking of me for this behaviour would be a standard procedure. I would accept an administrator deciding to ban me from Wikipedia for this. I am not averse to this not only because what I did grossly violated Wikipedia's principles but also because I have been attempting to quit editing Wikipedia anyway, but I have found that it has become an addiction alike smoking to me that I am having difficulty quitting because of a habit of editing here.--R-41 (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Consider yourself warned. If you want one of those fancy template stop-sign thingies, let me know. — Ched :  ?  04:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but this is not resolved. It all derives from a kerfuffle over at Fascism and its talk page, where there's a dispute about the content of the lead (and where, broadly as it happens, R-41 find themselves pretty much alone). The attacks, which included describing me as "a jerk" an "asshole", a "disgrace and a coward" and a "hypocrite" etc – in edit summaries, on the fascism talk page and in posts to my own talk page – took place around a week ago now, spread over several days, and were said, seemingly, as some sort of retirement flame-out. I more or less brushed them off, and only raised them again when R-41 suddenly started editing, on the fascism page and elsewhere (they still are) as if nothing had happened and in particular when they suddenly declared that they would not talk to me about the issues there. Since then, they have left a huge screed on that talk page that had nothing to do with the topic but was a list of further accusations, eg that I had a "bloodthirsty urge for retribution" etc etc (despite having been remarkably equanimous, if I say so myself, in the face of increasingly bizarre and abusive behavior, which, furthermore, is totally distracting and diverting on a WP topic page that is, one would have thought, controversial and difficult enough as it is). It's got to the point where something a bit more concrete needs to be done. As anyone who can face perusing the talk page will also see, there's also a broader issue with R-41's looseness with sources, which could affect content in multiple WP pages (my pointing this out seems to one of the reasons for the flame-out, even though they have, eventually, accepted pretty much every example I have highlighted). N-HH talk/edits 09:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Obviously a clear-and-present danger warning has been issued. Based exactly on what you just posted above. So yes, this is resolved. There will be no additional action other than what can be considered to be a 4im warning. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I can abuse another editor over a course of days, call them an "asshole" and a "lying hypocrite" on multiple occasions. Then, to forestall any form of action against me, file an ANI complaint against myself, citing only one diff. A wiki-friend of mine can then come along, jokingly say, "OK, here's a warning notice on your talk page!" and mark the issue as closed (and here is that notice by the way, complimenting R-41 on their "great work" and saying how "impressed" they are with them). The actual target of the abuse then gets their first sight of the thread and their first chance to comment, adding more diffs of abuse – which are not exhaustive btw and which by definition were not considered by the first responder; so no, not "exactly what I just posted above" – as well as explaining the problematic context and how I am utterly disrupting an already difficult talk page. And that's it? I get off scot-free? Thanks for the explanation as to how to get away with shitty conduct and disrupting WP pages in future. It's also good to know how ANI works if a personally acquainted and sympathetic admin gets in with the first reaction. N-HH talk/edits 11:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you leave your WP:AGF at the door this morning? The warning is quite clearly in-view at ANI, and will be actioned by any administrator should it need to be escalated. This is especially true if you're suggesting that I am a "sympathetic admin" in this case. Tone down your rhetoric, and remember that acting like a WP:DICK merely minimizes both your argument AND the sympathy that admins will have towards your position. The editor apoliogized - they reported themself. They've been warned and WILL be blocked should it happen again. What the hell else did you want, other than the screed above which might actually serve to prove the terms that someone was using against you? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with AGF, in respect of R-41, Ched or yourself; I've never suggested any of you are acting in bad faith. However, pace your admonition above, no proper warning of any sort has been issued. In addition, R-41 explicitly says above that they will not apologise to me (did you miss that bit?). R-41 did not post all the diffs of their conduct, nor flagged up their explicit claim, days later, that they will ignore anything I say on a talk page in future and not discuss article content with me (even though I might be more entitled to take that stance against them), which still stands and is pretty manifest declaration of an intent to not edit collegially, which I always thought was a pretty basic principle at WP. And I'm acting the dick and getting slagged off by you for questioning the initial flippant reaction to that? WTF indeed. N-HH talk/edits 12:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

R-41 has admitted he was in the wrong, and his reason for not apologising is explained as a personal failing. Even editors who have been disruptive should be given a chance to change: in this case, an anti-burnout pep-talk may be better for the project in the long run. For now, if he's going to take some time off the project voluntarily (perhaps aided by the WikiBreak Enforcer, should he choose), then that stops the disruption just as effectively as any block would, and the incident has been recorded at both ANI and R-41's user talk so that if it happens again we can take it from there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not particularly demanding a block, or even an apology; I wasn't even that enthused about bringing the issue here (I had no intention of doing so when it first happened – not least because they made a break/retirement pledge then, which didn't last long – although I wavered a little once they returned to editing and came up with the "I'm not talking to you now" days later). All I was asking for is that now it is here, it is taken a bit more seriously than it seemed to have been, and an acknowledgement that the situation was a bit more expansive than the self-report indicated. N-HH talk/edits 13:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it is being taken seriously. It started with his admitting he screwed up, accepting responsibility, and Ched giving him a formal warning on his talk page. When someone admits they are in the wrong from the get-go, it pretty much removes all need for drama and finger wagging. Like others have said above, if he repeats, it will likely result in an insta-block. Bludgeoning him with admin threats or comments won't make him more sorry. Best to just let things cool down, maybe he will take a break, and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Page protection needed ASAP

At Douglas Adams. I don't know if this is being coordinated off-site or what, but it's been coming in non-stop for hours. RPP hasn't been in touched by anyone other than me in almost as long. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• PC applied, as this article doesn't get enough traffic to require semi. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm...check Google. Its his birthday. Gonna get a lot of traffic today but should slack off when the Google image changes.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

uncivility from ryulong

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

---

The uncivility is getting a little old in wikipedia as constant passive aggresive tone and actions are given and where editors can deny such incivility quite easily but with this situation, this is just wrong. Ryulong makes no effort in even hiding such incivility. You could see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&diff=543385091&oldid=543373029 (The edit difference is only a fraction of the whole conversation, so please read full discussion) and in my talkpage here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lucia_Black&diff=543343206&oldid=543342688. There is not even a little effort to keep conversation profesional. The worst part is most of the uncivility is uncalled for and i have not provoked Ryulong to be uncivil to that level.Lucia Black (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see much of anything in the differences you provided nor do I see any notification to Ryulong about this discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I see your notification here, which was deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I was notified. I just reverted it.

IP edits in December to an article and template put in what I believe is incorrect information and I remove it. Lucia Black says I am wrong and shows me one single source to back up her claim. I refute it (talk page). After some consideration, I compromise and believe that's it. Lucia Black mentions the self-imposed exile, which I saw on WT:ANIME as well, and I believe it's not necessary for her to bring it up, to which it is cited my "uncivility". After another response, I deem nothing else can be gained from the discussion and delete the thread from my user talk as Lucia has done on theirs. However, now we're here for reasons I don't understand other than more drama that Lucia Black was so wont to avoid.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that "fucking" and "dramamongering" aren't exactly the most civil terms, but that's not even worthy of a response, much less bringing to ANI for. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I merely stated why i wasnt going to be the to edit. Lets not forget the aggresive tone mixed with slurs. The differences are just to show you the conversations as they have been removed and the only way to show it by going through the revisions. He's clearly being uncivil even now as he says im "self-imposed exile" when i stated im taking a break.

Should we allow these acts unnotice just because the one being uncivil loses interest? Im reporting this because its obvious he meant harm and succeeded. Now you use this formal tone as if youre trying to game the system. Its not just the "word" in a sentence. Its the entire comment trying to fight and belittle me. Come on Jauerback, surely you read all of his comments within that revision. Its like if someone stepped on someones foot with high heels intentionally and the one suppose to keep track of that action lets it slip just because if it happened to they wont feel it.Lucia Black (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What slurs?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I did read the whole thing. If you took out the two words I mentioned above, then you probably wouldn't even be here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That was intemperate, but not actionably so. You weren't actually the target of the more colourful language, with the exception of "dramamongering", and we permit editors a degree of leeway on their own user talk pages. If you think that addressing Ryulong's professed lack of collegiality is worth pursuing in detail, start an RFC/U. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I also agree that, while not the nicest conversation, its certainly not actionable, or even worth bringing to ANI. From what I've experienced with Lucia, I believe she needs to re-draw her line for "unacceptable incivility". That really wasn't that bad... Sergecross73 msg me 12:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Any form of incivility should not be ignored especially when intended harm. "What slurs?" Seriously? Sergecross what are you talking about? Im not gonna redraw that. Theres a level of incivility where editors can get away and say "it wasnt my intent" but this right here is the type that cant be swept under the rug but this kind proves it will happen again. You are looking to much on the words in the sentence, not so much in the sentence. I got offended and no one can deny this without lying that the intention wasnt there. Ive seen one editor talk like that one time and get suspended for at least 2 weeks. Its definitely actionable. Ive seen another get suspended for 6 months and again for one comment (granted there was no ANI report on that editor because he was an admin).

I dont want anyone to talk to me like that and definitely not insult me when its none of his business. Yes, i brought it up, but not to talk about it. I merely tried to explain why i wasnt the one going to edit.Lucia Black (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, no one can force you to do anything, but if you don't "redraw your line", then you'll likely just be ignored when you take things like this to ANI. I've seen people get warnings on their talk pages for the way Ryulong has spoken to you, and I think that's fine, but I've never seen anyone get blocked for it. I'm guessing I'm not alone, considering there's three people now who have said no action is warranted at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 17:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Who says i want "block"? The least i expect is a warning and the most i expect is a 3 day suspension so that he actually knows he did was wrong. I just want action in any form that lets Ryulong know that behaviour in anyway. Otherwise if we ignore it, its like a get out of jail free card. He'll do it again next time a discussion comes up and he'll know when to get away with it. Serge if treated you that way i know youll go to ANI so my line was once where yours was serge, but you dont deal with difficult editors at a daily basis that constantly make things personal and make no effort to say constructive comments. I've ignored plenty in the past, and many stated just take it to ANI if the issue doesnt get resolved. Well in this case, if i dont bring it in ANI it wont get resolved. A warning, a small number (not even half a week) of suspension, something, anything that makes it clear he shouldnt treat editors like me in that manner. I see his other comments, they dont use slurs. So its not as if im taking those out of context. But its more about a word or two. Its how he treats me in a very acceptable discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What is this "supspension" you speak of? The closest thing there is to what you're describing, which sounds like you're requesting that he not be able edit for 3 days, would be a block. Perhaps you're confusing blocks with bans? Anyways, it doesn't matter, as said before, no action is warranted here. Sergecross73 msg me 19:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• I know Ryulong. He can tend to be agressive with his tone, but he certainly isn't here to do harm. He certainly doesn't attack editors and he comments on actions and edits and not the person in question. No action is necessary.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Like i said serge thats what i expect for the maximmum course of action, the minimum would be a serious warning in which you yourself said would be acceptable. Cyberpower you are dead wrong as he just did do harm and it was well intended. And im not letting incivility be unnoticed. Its one thing to have an aggressive tone (in which i know if an editor does it constantly even for the smallest things, its not just rough behaviour but a scare tactic) and its another to provoke another.

Its not acceptable in wikipedia and you all know it, but you continue to see it as a "minor" issue. But we all know full well if you were dealing with an aggressive, rude, uncivil editor, you're not going to allow that behaviour slide away. Ive seen other editors be blocked for alot less.Lucia Black (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, enough with the telling us what we know, or that we don't know what it's like dealing with difficult users. You're in no place to do either. (That's a rather ludicrous thing to say to Admin at ANI anyways.) Anyways, that's all I'll say on this, as I imagine this will be closed (or archived) before too long... Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Serge i feel your sympathetic for others except me. I feel admins are just seeing everything one point atg a time rather than all the points as a whole. Point being a warning (From an Admin) isnt too much to ask, is it? That aggressive rude behaviour is not acceptable. Do you agree or disagree?Lucia Black (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Turning Wikipedia into Spamapedia

User:Causeandedit seems to be misusing Wikipedia to promote numerous record labels, artists, and turning articles into link farms with bogus references, consistently ignoring polite requests to follow WP's rules. An occasional good reference is swamped by junk. It creates a huge amount of work for others here to undo; Hoopla Worldwide is just the tip of the iceberg.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. This user does not appear to be here to help the project; I support a block. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW, another editor started a discussion on the COI noticeboard, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jonathan_Hay_.28publicist.29. Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Block needed

Can I get an admin to block 71.135.171.193 (talk · contribs). The IP's been laying down some undirected insults on the Kim Jong-un talk page that I've reverted, and when I reverted and warned him, the IP promptly put attacks on my page (fortunately a few watchers dealt with that). I could block myself but I'm technically involved. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, blocked. Lectonar (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Back again at 71.135.172.66 (talk · contribs). --MASEM (t) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked again. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Both contributors are from the same range, so it is likely that all insults come from the same person and that the person is able to switch IP addresses. Would it be possible to semi-protect Talk:Kim Jong-un for a few days? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say no to semi-protection, and the editor hasn't come back (yet). But other admins might feel different: you could put a note up at WP:RFPP; I don't mind disagreement. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • He's back now: 71.135.173.215 (talk · contribs) this time. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah well. All this technology, all this progress, dinosaurs giving their lives to be turned into oil to power fans to cool down our massive servers, all for some semi-literate teenagers to have some fun. You know, when I was young we went outside and kicked lamp posts. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Men's rights movement (again)

Recently, there has been an influx of new editors. It appears that some of Reddit's men's rights activists were invited to edit the article which is on article probation. In this difficult editing environment, CSDarrow (talk · contribs) has repeatedly tried to remove sourced material, sometimes using questionable edit summaries suggesting that he "moved" something when in fact he deleted and rewrote, calling someone's edits disruptive or referring to prior discussions which did not yield support for his position [60][61][62][63][64]. There is no consensus for CSDarrow's edits, quite the opposite actually, see Talk:Men's rights movement#Removal of Williams.2C 1995 and the two subsections. Today, I left a reminder on CSDarrow's talk page that the article is on article probation and that he appears to be edit warring to remove sourced material against consensus. In response, he called me "ignorant peasant" and basically blamed me for everything that is wrong with the article. I consider this a pretty clear violation of the terms of the article probation.

I bring this here because KillerChihuahua seems to be absent. I hope that additional experienced editors can have an eye on the article as new Reddit users arrive or if those already arrived need further instructions. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• CSDarrow has been warned: any next battleground move or personal attack should be met with a block. That talk page situation is ridiculous, but I'm no expert in the history of the article and cannot act expeditiously. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Well, those arbitration guidelines indicate that any sufficiently uninvolved admin may et cetera. I am so sufficiently uninvolved that I had to read those guidelines. As it turns out, CSDarrow was made aware of them in September 2012 yet chose to edit war; I've listed four instances of edit-warring on their talk page, right above the standard block template. I've given them three days to read up; no verdict on other disruptive edits. It's time for my lunch break, as Sheriff Bart said--I hope KillerChihuahua will clock in soon to have a look. Drmies (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Continued conflict of interest at Waldorf education

I'm concerned because of what I see as continued controversial edits made by User:Hgilbert who was determined in 2006 to have a conflict of interest with regard to the Waldorf education article. At the 2006 ArbCom case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Conflict of interest, the committee affirmed unanimously that Wikipedia's WP:Conflict of interest guideline "applies to those persons associated either with the Waldorf schools or with PLANS, an anti-Waldorf organization, who are aggressively editing Waldorf school and related articles in a biased manner." Hgilbert is a teacher with Waldorf schools, but he continually adds positive and removes negative text at the article, for instance these two disputed changes from yesterday: this removal of negative points from the lead section even though the text was an appropriate summary of major points in the article section about "Reception", and this removal of the category "Pseudoscience", which he acknowledged in his edit summary as controversial.

I warned Hgilbert yesterday, asking him on the article talk page and his own talk page to revert himself with regard to the ArbCom 2006 ruling restricting his behavior. He replied that the old ArbCom finding has been replaced by a new one.

As far as I can tell, the conflict-of-interest determination remains in place with regard to the recent amendment by motion which passed on 30 January 2013. The amendment looks like it replaces only one section of the 2006 ArbCom case, changing "article probation" to "standard discretionary sanctions". I would like some clarification regarding whether Hgilbert is still constrained by WP:COI. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert may very well have a COI but so what? Our COI guidelines don't forbid editing due to a COI nor does the case appear to. Of course editing articles for which you have a COI is strongly discouraged for several reasons, one of them because it often leads to poor behaviour. And poor behaviour may be subject to discretionary sanctions as per the motion and this is even more likely if the editor has a history of poor behaviour on the article or in the subject. But if that's your concern, you should concentrate on the poor behaviour not the COI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This was previously raised here as a behavioral issue, but failed to attract any outside admins. a13ean (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I was editing the Waldorf education article several weeks ago, but took a Wikibreak to attend to some real life issues. Checking back recently I marveled at how the POV had been pushed there to render Waldorf education in a positive light and play-down/remove adverse commentary, with hgilbert as ever the principal force behind this. In my view this article is a copy-book example of how Wikipedia is powerless in the face of concerted civil POV-pushing. Any admin who bothers to take an interest is going to have to invest significant time in studying what's gone on, over several years. And that, I suspect, is the problem ... admins are too hard-pressed to be able to deal with these kind of problems, no matter how much they damage WP. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone concerned about Hgilbert's edits should consider filing at WP:Arbitration enforcement. I've had Waldorf education on my watchlist for some time (due to a prior sock case) and what I see going on there does not look to be a respectful consensus process. Hgilbert has reverted 20-40 times since February 1. It appears that some editors who appear to be insiders are consistently adding information favorable to Waldorf and removing stuff that makes it look bad. Unless Hgilbert and others will agree to follow Wikipedia-wide consensus a topic ban should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the guidance. I will file a report at Arb Enforcement. I agree with Alexbrn that this has gone on too long, and that Hgilbert is the problem. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to have this looked at. We could start with this diff of all the changes between Alexbrn's last contribution on Feb. 3rd, and the present state of the article as of March 11th. Could you please identify the massive removals of negative material and additions of positive material that have supposedly been made over this time frame? hgilbert (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I filed a report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Hgilbert. Editors are invited to voice their views. Binksternet (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

User:CSBulut14

Would someone mind indef'ing User:CSBulut14? They seem to be a so-called "sneaky" fact-changing vandal. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yes. They've been at it before, as 76.173.132.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 76.173.132.198 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)--something to keep an eye on. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • An admin has indefinitely blocked him. Keep an eye out for any new identities with the same behavior and file a case at WP:SPI if you see them. SPI cases are a good way to let future admins know the history of a vandal despite name changes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Eekster

Admins,

Please help. User:eeekster has set up an account to destroy the works of others. He "edit-wars" with others users and forces them to keep reverting their edits in order to keep them. Eekster does not obey the WP policies himself and routinely threatens to block people as if he was an admin. His reverts are purely POV.JaMikePA (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Moved here from WP:AN, since this is an incident report. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The reporter has persisted in removing delete templates without correcting the problems. Claims I can't add them because I'm not an admin. Already reported as vandalism before this incident was opened. Eeekster (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a 3RR warning for JaMikePA; he should be blocked if he continue anywhere else. Both parties have gone past 3RR on numerous files, but Eeekster has been doing it for the sake of enforcing our copyright policies, so he should be praised rather than sanctioned for it. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Eekster's modifications to File:LancasterBarnstormers.PNG seem to be unambiguous corrections of WP:NFCC#3b violations and thus seemingly covered by WP:NOT3RR. At File:Brooks Robinson Plaza.png, he has readded a template saying that there is no evidence of permission and that the source URL is insufficient. I agree that the templates should be there, but I would have used WP:PUF if templates are removed too many times. In a deletion discussion, it is easier to explain why there is a problem with the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And http://www.stadiumjourney.com/stadiums/sovereign-bank-stadium-s369/images (image #3) is the third of those images. It has no permissions statement, and the copyright statement unambiguously claims copyright for all content. He says at his talk that he's forwarded permissions emails to OTRS, so I'll not speedy-delete it, but I strongly doubt that we're going to get an {{attribution}} permission for images from this source. Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Cvpatel95

User:Cvpatel95 keeps placing spam links on Portal:Current events/2013 March 11, I have warned the user two times now (Which brings it to the user's 4th warning counting ones from others) but looking at the contribs it seems it is a vandal account. Thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, I have a thought on that, but it's really boring. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Threat to an editor by User:LarryTr7

LarryTr7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has made an apparent outing and implied legal threat against both myself and VanHarrisArt (talk · contribs) here. "your account at Amazon is being investigated for threatening others in public domain". I suspect that "Larry" is also operating as Richewald (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Yworo (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

LittleBenW, diacritics topic ban, and personal attacks (yet again)

LittleBenW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) violated his diacritics topic ban yet again, even after a block for it and further warnings as detailed below:

• Black Kite warning: "You are not allowed to edit or comment on anything diacritics-related anywhere on Wikipedia, except for appealing your ban", 2 March 2013
• LittleBenW posts combatively several times in a "diacritics in article titles" debate at WP:ANI that does not involve him, even un-hatting some else's attempt to stop his and others' "sideshow" of personal flaming, 8 March 2013
• LittleBenW again re-involves himself in diacritics, 10 March 2013, at a WP:AE case not involving him but another "diacritics in article titles" issue.
• Warned by Sandstein that this seemed to violate his topic ban and by Joy [shallot] that he was headed for a block, 10 March 2013
• I wasn't going to say anything about it, but he it again anyway, with defiant verbal fist-shaking against Joy [shallot], 11 March 2013, and then did it again, 11 March 2013, in trying to turn an AE request into a threaded discussion for a third time.
• Notification to LittleBenW by me of this ANI.

I'm sure he'll accuse me of "hounding" him, but the AE case involves me directly and his posts mostly consist of unprovable accusations against me personally ("fraudulent", etc.) which is also a violation of the WP:ARBATC "all parties reminded" discretionary sanctions against personalizing style/titles disputes, and of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL; meanwhile his participation in the aforementioned ANI case is clearly noted on his own talk page, and so is hard to miss. If he were actually a party to either of these disputes, I wouldn't consider his participation improper (even if much of its content is), but he's not; he's intentionally shoe-horning himself into diacritics discussions despite many warnings to avoid them. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 00:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Adam Ant - Edits since 8 March 2003 by User:Amadscientist

Since 8 March, user User:Amadscientist has been carrying out edits on the Adam Ant article. So far, this seems to primarily consist of (1)exiling to the talk page an "Upcoming Projects" section which he/she considers to be "promotional" (2)deleting section headers for most of the first half of the article so it becomes one extremely long single section (3)deleting content (some of it unreferenced, some of it referenced) in the name of "trimming excessive detail" (an objective I would strongly suggest is in disregard of WP:NOTPAPER and WP:N#NCONTENT)

More seriously, the user has left the article in a state of chaotic disrepair. As well as (2) above, sections of the article have been moved around clumsily - for example quotes from a 2000 interview with Ant's then manager Bryan Stanton regarding the then state of Ant's recording career have been moved to the Personal Life section. Also input in there is a section, unsourced and seemingly from a recent press interview, which repeatedly refers to Ant by his legal name Goddard, inconsistent with the use of "Ant" throughout the remainder of the article and indeed the article title. A section on the late 1980s and Ant's concentration on acting has been moved out of the main biography to the end. One edit removed under (3) above was the deletion of sections referring to Ant's lost album Persuasion all the remaining section headers up to the present day appear as subheaders of "Solo Career 1982-1985". Reference #161 was orphaned (although this has been resolved by AnimeBOT). A reference to Biography in a later section header has been deleted - this actually referred to Ant's autobiography, the publication of which is covered in the section.

I did offer a revised version taking in legitimate concerns raised by Amadscientist about certain section headers and other issues and adding sources and clarification, however this has been rejected out of hand by the user as "Unconstructive" who then reverted back to his/her last version. My revised version can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_Ant&oldid=543465969 . I also wrote on the user's talkpage offering constructive cooperation on improving the article - this appears to have been simply ignored. I still also wrote on the article talkpage suggesting that the user reinstate section headings - so far this too has been ignored, not even so much as an explanation why not to restore headings. The reversion by Amadscientist (edit 543468450) is the only work he/she has carried out on the article since 9 March except for an (acceptable) reversion of copyrighted material by another user (edit 543359890).

I do not think it is acceptable for Amadscientist to leave the article in this state, looking frankly like roadworks abandoned overnight. Since I do not wish to engage in a revert war with him/her, I would ask for a sufficiently privileged Administrator to intervene. I myself would recommend reversion back to edit 543465969. I would concede it is not perfect but it is considerably better than the state which Amadscientist has chosen to leave the article in. 95.144.236.108 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)