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

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

---

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)

What the fuck are you talking about?!?!? Jesus.... Carrite (talk)

• • • "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)
• Support reblock. There is absolutely no room for racism on this project, no matter how many "good" edits a person has made. I note that editors requested that Calton not use that particular term, requests that apparently fell on deaf ears. Especially given Calton's rather long history of incivility blocks, I think it's time that a clear message be sent. I would support an unblock if and only if a genuine statement of contrition is made and Calton apologises to editors who feel they've been racially vilified. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
• Bad reblock - Desysop for wheel-warring, anyone? Carrite (talk) 04:27, 12 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)
    • On the hypothetical quiz, probably not on 10 random routine edits. However I do remember several of the less routine edits including relatively serious conflicts such as an VFD kerfuffle with real-world political and religious implications. The exchange I had with Calton back in 2005 was not routine either and I remember quite well being taken aback by the denial and hostility. If that type of exchange was routine and forgettable for Calton, then there is a problem. Also, Calton did get a chance to present his side when Yworo asked him not to call him "buckwheat", and Calton chose to use that chance by accusing Yworo of spouting nonsense and looking ridiculous. If Calton thought that his "buckwheat" comment was innocent and that Yworo taking offense was based on a misunderstanding, his response to Yworo was completely out of line. I do agree with a part of what you have written when you say "he [Calton] should apologise for it, agree not to do it again, and everyone should move on"; however Calton has not apologised, and he only promised, in the rudest manner possible, to not use a single word again when the problem, among other things, is name-calling in general. If he had presented a better unblock request then the consensus here would probably have been for unblocking, and if he does so now he will probably be unblocked as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 12 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)

As I see it just because you are an experienced and/or prolific editor does not give you a free pass to be aggressive. He could have 1000k edits 90% to articles, makes no difference. Calton has been blocked at least 6 times in little more than 6 years for PAs and/or incivility towards other users. This time he called an editor what is considered by some a racial slur and instead of apologizing for it and acknowledging his mistake he escalated the issue calling the block "stupid" and "bullshit", something which would have had a relatively new editor (like myself) blocked indefinitely without a doubt. He's a long time editor which is all the more reason to expect certain levels of good behavior from him. For what I can see here he simply needs to agree to not incur in aggressive name-calling again and his block will be lifted. What is preventing him from doing so? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing is preventing it. Read his talk page. He did so. It's not good enough for some people, though. That's the procedural problem with this whole mess. Different people want different responses by Calton. He's entitled to be pissed. I am, of course, against incivility at WP, but the response to it should be consistent and proportional*. At the risk of offending marsupials, this particular "court" is about as "kangaroo" as it gets.
Several people have confirmed that the term that was used is not necessarily known to be racially offensive by everyone, and Calton's response makes it clear that he is among those. That issue needs to be taken out of the equation, and the offense treated the same way as calling someone "stupid" or an "asshole". If there's an appropriate punitive length for a block (the first in how long? 1842 months?!), then do it. If he commits to be civil in the future, do what you would for anyone else in such a case and lift the block, and let's all get back to editing.
*On this very page, in a different thread, another well-known admin used a direct, unambiguously offensive word in talking about another user. Nobody said a thing about it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original issue, let me say that I had no clue before reading the thread that "buckwheat" was a racial epithet. I thought it had connotations similar to "buster", e.g. You're in big trouble now buster. I would advocate leniency, and to drop the pitchforks... Tazerdadog (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose to unblock

• I think he has been blocked sufficiently long, friends, and needs to be unblocked. Several people, including myself, have shown were you can call someone Buckwheat without it being racially motivated, and it seems clear with the link above that it wasn't. Maybe not the smartest term to use, but we don't block for not being smart. I don't know him, so I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I don't see the point in dredging up diffs over a year old, including some that are eight years old. It makes it look like a witch hunt, after the fact. His last block was 3.5 years ago, for 72 hours. This block has been for most of a week and has served every purpose it can. Permanently maintaining the indef block for him isn't appropriate considering the circumstances, certainly not at ANI. Now is the time to move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support for "time served". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless and until there is a WP:GAB compliant unblock request from Calton. The last one was thumbing his nose at the concern. The unblock proposal here contains a number of strawmen. First, "Not being smart" was not the reason for the block. Second, if it were eight years of no problems since my warning to him, and this were an isolated incident, then I would understand the time aspect argument, but in between there have been numerous blocks and warnings for the behavior that culminated in this block. Finally, the block has not served its purpose if Calton is unblocked without having to commit to a more civil approach to other editors, and that includes avoiding responding to legitimate complaints with "Don't spout nonsense, Sport, it makes you look ridiculous". I am willing to entertain a sincere unblock request, but there hasn't been one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  He was blocked because of the term "Buckwheat" was erroneously assumed to be racially charged. While I don't question the sincerity of the initial block, I do question the wisdom on continuing it. Now that this is clear, making him "beg" for an unblock seems demeaning, and his previous request makes more sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  That "buckwheat" is racially charged was not erroneous (nor is it "bullshit" or "beyond stupid" as Calton claimed). There are numerous places where you can see that it is considered a derogatory term for black people [11] [12]. At the very best, we can take Calton on his word that he was referring to Wiseguy, although I have not seen any evidence that this context is any less obscure than the pejorative context. And even if that is the case he should have tried to clear up the misunderstanding, instead of compounding the (assuming good faith: inadvertant) injury by accusing Yworo of "spouting nonsense" and looking "ridiculous". Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  It might be racial if YOU say it, as you perceive it that way. As I have pointed out, and have others, WE grew up where it wasn't a racial comment. Calton has indicated that wasn't his motive either. Reading WP:BIAS, you don't push your interpretation on others. He needs to not use the term, simply because it causes these problems, but simply because it offends you isn't a reason to assume that everyone that says it means it was a racist comment. That is erroneous. Context and culture are a clear factor here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  The most charitable interpretation is that Calton didn't know that "buckwheat" could have a racially pejorative meaning, and I am willing to assume that. Yet, he was made aware that the "buckwheat" term was offensive when Yworo asked Calton not to use it against him. Calton could have tried to work out why such a term caused offense. Instead he lashed out by rudely telling Yworo that he was "spouting nonsense" and that he looked "ridiculous". (I have pointed out this diff several times already, yet none of those who are defending Calton have made any effort to address it.) That "buckwheat" has been used in a racially pejorative manner is a simple fact. Calton could have recognized that in the unblock request. Instead he chose to lash out again. If this is all a huge misunderstanding, Calton is not helping by calling the concern "beyond stupid" and "bullshit". Groveling is not needed. Begging is not needed. What is needed is a commitment to abide by the policies WP:CIVIL (e.g. "...avoid directing offensive language at other users") and WP:NPA. The unblock request was in itself a violation of WP:CIVIL. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  And there is no way I would have blocked him for the statement he made in his unblock request, taken alone. He called the situation stupid, and the complain "bullshit", he didn't make a personal attack, he commented on the merits of the actions in a colorful way. He was blocked, fine, but I'm saying we are better served not by reversing the block, but by ending it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per common sense. The term in question is NOT commonly understood to be racist, and nothing whatsoever in Calton's history then or now warrants a permanent block or even comes close. The more I read of this discussion, the more I think certain editors just want to see Calton grovel and beg to be unblocked, which frankly is a little sickening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock per Dennis Brown. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock. Unless I missed something blindingly obvious, there really isn't anything preventing disruption here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. As has been stated several times, it is not the main problem whether the namecalling was meant to be racist or not (although we have several comments on Caltons talk page, the first dating back to 2005, made by other users who clearly perceived "buckwheat" to have racist connotations). The main problem is the hostility and namecalling this editor constantly engages in. A problem that has been so persistent that it has resulted in numerous blocks in their long Wikicareer, yet it doesn't seem to have changed their behaviour in any way. The hostility of Calton is on such a level that it is not difficult to imagine it can have caused fledgling editors to flee the project, negative consequences which clearly outweighs any constructive edits made by this editor. Caltons unblock request (which is just the latest example of their hostile tone) cleary shows that this is not something which this editor has yet grasped. Perhaps they never will, but at least make an unblock subject to a reasonable unblock request which acknowledges the reasons for the block. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I guess per Dennis WP:DIGNITY or some WP:EDITORDIGNITY link, and WP:I'veSeenALotWorse. May see ya back here in a couple years, but meh. I pinged BHG — Ched :  ?  16:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  And to be sure, I'm not debating the block to begin with, even though I think there was a lot of genuine misunderstanding, I'm just saying that regardless, it has exhausted its usefulness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. You'll certainly get no argument from me on that Dennis. I'd even hazard a guess that this was partly a "in the wrong place at the wrong time" thing. Drama levels have been high, and some "WHAT did he just say" aspects to it. Hopefully we're working through the back end of much of that now, and with spring around the corner for some folks - maybe a bit less Cabin fever will be had. — Ched :  ?  17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) No disrespect intented, but this very long discussion seems to be more about a turf war between admins than anything else. Calton has not made any comment since his unblock request. I won't comment on the block, as that has been done to death already by others. Instead I'd simply advice you to end the discussion for now. If Calton makes an unblock request, then deal with request. Untill then, what is there to discuss?Jeppiz (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But that's just it, Calton actually did make an unblock request, and while it wasn't exactly the most eloquent thing heard 'round these parts, it was accepted and he was unblocked. After that he was then blocked again despite having done nothing else wrong. Sure, he can put up another request, but whatever he says will be pulled apart by the pitchfork gang as either insincere or insufficiently lowly and grovel-y enough, and the drama begins anew. That's exactly why we're trying to gain consensus to unblock and everyone, Calton included, moves on with their lives. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"...it wasn't exactly the most eloquent thing heard 'round these parts"? That's an understatement. It failed all points mentioned in Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and the unblock was revoked with good reason. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The statement that "the term 'Buckwheat' was erroneously assumed to be racially charged" is absurd. The term is racially charged. If you Google "Buckwheat + racist" you get over two million hits; "Buckwheat + Wiseguy" gets about 15% as money. A Gbooks search on "Buckwheat + racist" is even more telling. The blocking and reblocking admins both indicated they would unblock if Calton committed to stop directing derisive epithets at other editors, especially in edit summaries, which is a stronger condition than I originally requested, but a very reasonable one, and consistent with blocking policy and practice. He has declined to do so. Absent some good reason for refusing to comply with such a reasonable unblocking condition, there's no good reason to unblock. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose unblocking - the rationale for the (my) original block still stands; even the unblocking administrator admits that their actions were hasty at the least, and Calton has not provided a sufficient unblock request, nor attempted to deal with the issues at hand. Note that I am not opposed to an unblocking at some point in the future; simply not now. GiantSnowman 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock (by non-admin, non-previously-involved) per my and other supporting comments above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock until an adequate unblock request is made. Note that I have now hidden the offensive edit summary referred to in the original complaint. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - No valid unblock request filed, at ANY point. An unblock that was made in error, as consensus agrees with, is not a reason to re-unblock the user. Ask Calton to file an unblock request again, by all means, but I'm failing to see any reason for an unblock here, at the moment. I'm not fussed whether buckwheat was racially charged or not, as Calton's personal attacks over such a long period of time are enough to justify the block. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Suggestion. I was the re-blocking admin, and I think it's best to leave it to others to decide whether to unblock, so I'll remain neutral on the proposal, and support whatever consensus emerges.
  I see good points on each side here. The block/unblock/reblock cycle was a bit messy, and I can see a lot of merit in the case for an unblock based on time served. However, other editors are right to point out that Calton's unblock request was pretty awful. So how about an unblock accompanied by a clear warning that any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable enough to me. After all, nobody at all is saying insulting edit summaries are okay, just that this particular incident, buttressed with old business from literally years ago, has been blown way out of proportion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll go with that unblock, providing that he's watched like a hawk and any further personal attacks result in a hefty sanction (no pansying with 1 day blocks, those evidently don't work) Lukeno94 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, I am actually inclined to agree with BHG's wise proposal from BHG. Consider this one final chance, and we will need to be very, very strict. GiantSnowman 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose; I don't care whether buckwheat is a racist term or slang for stupid or what Calton called his BFF from grammar school; there's no need to address editors by other than their account name. If we unblock per the conditions suggested by BHG above we have a possibility of being back here haggling over some other term and whether or not it's racist / personal attack / disparaging / what have you. If ya'll proceed with this I encourage the unblocking admin to specify that any reference to editors by other than their account name or reasonable nickname / abbreviation (e.g. BHG) is grounds for reblocking. NE Ent 20:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I like that idea. "Refer to other editors only by their account name or reasonable nickname/abbreviation". It's clear and unambiguous, which avoids the risk of future wikilawyering over the just how bad any other term has to be to land Calton in trouble. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    • So in other words someone is going to block Calton if he refers to someone as "Bud" or "Mate" or any of hundreds of completely non-offensive name substitutes? We were doing well but I think we're drifting back into silliness territory here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
      • If you want to suggest a better form of words, please do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I think you yourself got it exactly right a couple of edits ago: "So how about an unblock accompanied by a clear warning that any further use of edit summaries to make any sort of disparaging comments about other editors will lead to another block?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agreed with the original block, and I accept that my unblock was hasty and against the consensus which emerged immediately thereafter. I would have been wiser to wait until the consensus became clearer one way or the other. However I think BHG's present proposal is a good one and actually I'd have no problem with her enacting it, provided that sufficient people here agree with this as the way forward. I don't in fact think that after this very high profile incident there is any chance of Calton using this particular term again. I suspect he's smart enough to know that other intemperate epithets are also off limits. And of course our insurance is that any of us with a block button will have no hesitation in intervening should something similar happen again. (ec) - no problem with NE Ent's addendum either. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support the unblock and everyone finding something better to talk about. The original block looks to have been justified, but I have the feeling the point has been gotten across. Our drama meter is going through the roof; time to move on. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock. It's not the job of admins to make editors sweet nor to make them humble. Strong support per Andrew Lenahan above, and per Wikipedia:Editors have pride and Wikipedia:Unblocks are cheap. Come on, N Ent, you wrote one of those suckers, and now you suggest a talking-down-to-a-naughty-child unblock condition like you do above? Were you abducted by aliens and replaced by a pod person recently? Bishonen | talk 21:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC).
• Oppose. Ent has stated the best way forward (again). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose. Younger users may not be aware of the connotations of the term used, but those of us who do know how vile it is. He was warned repeatedly that it was inappropriate and continued. He as a long-term history of anti-social behavior. He's made no effort to request a second unblock once more strenuous terms were laid down. This process is an attempt to side-step them by his devotees. Sorry, no dice. --Drmargi (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I remain wholly unconvinced that the term is actually offensive, at least not in the US. They made a Little Rascals movie in 1994, and the character was still called Buckwheat. The early 90s were pretty much ground zero for political correctness, so if buckwheat had been an offensive term at that time they would have just renamed the character. Buckwheat noodles are sold in every supermarket, and they don't euphamise the name on the packaging even though they could call them soba instead. I've also never heard it used as an insult, anywhere, not in person, not on TV, movies, or any book I've ever read. I'm not claiming to be a walking slang dictionary or anything, but if it is indeed a racial insult (which again, I doubt) then it's by no means a common one that we might expect the average editor to recognise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have no problems with BHG's terms and completely understand her desire to have assurances. As she is the blocking admin, it is within her power to implement this condition, which would allow everyone to just move forward with clarity. I will suggest that anyone that thinks a larger discussion should take place, that RFC/U, while flawed, is the appropriate venue after he is unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support unblock While it was certainly not nice, it wasn't necessarily racist. How many of you knew Eeny, meeny, miny, moe has racist undertones? Sheesh.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  22:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Question - does the phrasing in the terminology used indicate the reference is 100% definitely Eddie Murphy's Saturday Night Live sketch and not the Australian sci-fi show. If the User was resident in America it might be a reasonable assumption, but his User page indicates an American resident in Japan. He might have been mixing with Australians or seen the Australian show. Don't get me wrong, I don't approve any hint of racism, if anything en.wp is too lax. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • There doesn't appear to be anything in the phrasing or context to suggest what Calton meant, but he says he was referring to Wiseguy, a US cop show. The editor who he was addressing says on their user page that they're Native American, so comparing them to Eddie Murphy would be a bit of a non sequitur to say the least. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Then unblock - I have never seen of any of these TV shows bar an episode of Farscape, a quick check shows the episode "Hello Buckwheat" in the 1990 Wiseguy does not appear to be racist, but doesn't mean a time-served block wasn't justified for using any adhominems in summaries. (FWIW I have made a loosely related request at WT:NPA so I in no way support any unblock if a clearly and unambiguously intended ethnic/national slur was intended). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside, that Australian sci-fi show was pretty danged popular in the U.S. as well, enough to bring it back for a miniseries to close the arc after it was cancelled. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support unblock - I suppose asking for apologies from the original blocker and the reblocker in addition would be a bit much. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, absolutely not. No unblock request, for starters. If the user can't be bothered to commit to not attacking other users in their edit summaries, then they should not be welcome here, no matter how much other "good" work they do. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC).
• Strongly oppose unblock. Calton has long since proven himself incapable of working with other editors in a harmonious and constructive manner. Personal attacks characterize a ridiculously large portion of his interactions. This latest incident is just one more item in a long, long list. He is simply unwilling to abide by our civility policy, and therefore he has no place within our community. Everyking (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Third-party unblock requests almost never come to any good. Calton will come back when he's ready. And quite honestly, anyone who thinks the above discussion (a bunch of white guys pontificating on whether a given epithet sounds racist to them) reflects well on us probably needs to get some fresh air. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP cites "time served". IIRC the editor was blocked, unblocked and subsequently reblocked, the reblock being due to the unacceptable initial unblock request. The concept of "time served" cannot possibly apply in a situation where a properly formatted, acceptable unblock request has not been received. That would make the re-block look like a "time served" punishment, which it wasn't. Leaky Caldron 12:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Unblock an editor, they edit for a month, teach an editor not to get blocked, they edit indefinitely. Yes unblocks are cheap and editors have pride. I'm not advocating Calton be forced to apologize, admit wrongdoing, elocute their misdeeds or anything of the sort. Their unblock statement, however, is at best begrudging and too minimalistic -- the issue is broader than the use of a single word. I'm concerned the merely proceeding with an unblock will only end up with another visit to ANI when Calton uses another term for an editor which -- in some particular geolocality, age group, and cultural subgroup -- turns out to be offensive. In Wikipedia-as-it-should-be the block log length wouldn't matter, but in practice it becomes a weapon for other editors to attack Calton with. So I think it would be highly preferable if Calton simply agrees to address editors by the account names going forward, rather than continuing a destructive in the long term cycle of blocks, warnings, unblocks, ANI discussions etc. NE Ent 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • "Unblock an editor, they edit for a month", huh? You are aware the last time he was blocked was 4 years ago, right? I would hope so, since you linked to his block log and presumably actually looked at it. Again, this isn't the WikiBoogeyman. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. An indef block seems a bit excessive (I admit to never having heard the phrase could be racist before this discussion) and my personal experiences is that Calton is a valuable user. If a unblock request is made, I would hope it is granted.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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. Location (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So that's a request for 1RR at Progressive Utilization Theory, Ananda Marga, Neohumanism... anything else? Garamond Lethet
c 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

IMO, everything in Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, including the template itself, should be subject to 1RR. Location (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me ask a slightly different question then: which articles (other than the three I mentioned and the template) are so far outside policy that they need a full rewrite? I'd rather not preemptively apply 1RR to non-problematic articles. (I'm also wondering if a Sarkar wikiproject would be useful for coordination.) Garamond Lethet
c 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Those three articles appear to be the most problematic, but I think 1RR should apply to the entire "category". I'm happy to elaborate on this once we request Arbcom action on it. Location (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm hoping we can avoid arbcom but that's not necessarily a rational hope. Garamond Lethet
c 15:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Template:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar is the most ridiculous template I've seen (outside of J- and K-pop). Drmies (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Obdurate lack of cooperation from User:Abhidevananda

I did notify Abhidevananda of this discussion, and as you can see he hasn't responded. Instead, over at Talk:Progressive Utilization Theory he has simply been reduced to complaining about User:bobrayner's admittedly less-than-tactful edit summaries, as in these edits: [13] [14] [15]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [16], a proposal which the pro-Sarkar side utterly ignored. Instead, Abhidevananda dropped a huge and essentially irrelevant 8kbyte wall of text (including a gratuitous image) on us: [17]. In the period leading up to the article being locked, he made almost no forward edits, instead repeatedly reverting bobrayner's attempts to cull the article of primary-sourced material (too many examples to list them all, but for example there's [18]). I can only conclude that he is intent on protecting an advocacy-laiden version of the article against any attempt to force it to conform to policy, and will bury us in walls of platitudinous text and nuisance quibbles about the behavior of now-frustrated editors in order to delay the inevitable. He is absolutely uncooperative and shows all the signs of being an irredeemable POV-warrior. I ask therefore that he be topic-banned from anything having to do with Sarkar including all articles about PROUT and Ananda Marga. Mangoe (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have to concur with this. Although Abhidevananda has always been polite, he has never been willing to edit cooperatively, and has blocked essentially every attempt to compromise on a more reasonable article. Thinking correctly I would be sympathetic to anyone adding information about small religious or related groups, he asked for my assistance, but has not been willing to follow it--he has not yet seemed to realize I am sympathetic to reasonable articles about such groups, but only reasonable articles. Others here are also sympathetic, but not to the sort of redundant articles he insists on writing. I am always reluctant to remove the principal editor for a specialized topic, but in this case I think the rest of the editors involved can do it justice without him. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I also concur. After 20 AfDs I don't have any reason to think that Abhidevananda understands the notability guidelines, and after weeks of page protection I don't have any confidence he understand that articles need to be based on independent, reliable, secondary sources. The Sarkar-related articles might be improved despite him, but I think the question here is whether a topic ban will happen now or after another two months of obstruction. Garamond Lethet
c 21:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the above editors. Would the implementation of 1RR – rather than topic ban – bring this under control yet allow him to contribute to the subject matter? Location (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to saddle the subject area with such a provision if it turns out that a couple of problem editors get topic-banned anyway and the editing conflicts disappear. Also I gather that 1RR restrictions work more for situations where there are more sharply focused points of disagreement. Abhidevananda is essentially trying to keep any of us from doing any editing at all; I suspect that he would end up trying to game a 1RR limit and send us back here for another round. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Although I think a 1RR would be immediately beneficial, I do agree that there is no need for 1RR if a topic-ban is in place. What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 17:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The PROUT article has already been protected twice due to editwarring (and there has also been a little light editwarring on related articles); I don't see how 1RR would stop it getting locked up a third time, other than taking a few steps out of the revert-war. 1RR is not the answer because editors on both sides are still determined to revert edits that are "wrong". bobrayner (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And then there is canvassing etc. to consider, 1RR would be very easy to game. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What do you propose as the next step? Location (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Sarkar-promoters are outweighed by the neutral editors at this point. A revert-war would be very brief in that Sarkar-promoters will quickly find themselves blocked in violation of 1RR if the neutral editors collectively take steps to enforce the consensus that has formed. That's my take on what should specifically be done right now. Alternatively, shit or get off the pot... there is lot of bitching about the Sarkar-promoters' editing behaviors but no one wants to open a WP:RFC/U or take it to WP:ARB/R. I responded to your initial Rfc but I don't intent to muddle through this indefinitely. Location (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on numerical superiority of neutral editors. None of the SPIs about suspicious editing patterns have been conclusive, which means we can't rule out similar behaviour in the future. Besides, Abhidevananda's position regarding the use of primary sources hasn't changed much since last November. Note the similarities between this discussion with an editor who has a vast experience of cleaning up Indian related articles and the ongoing discussion at Progressive Utilization Theory. In all likelihood 1RR won't help, we can of course try it. Before deciding to file a WP:ARB/R, taking a look at WP:ARBIND might help. These issues are not new to India related articles and standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIND might be an effective tool to deal with them. I am not sure whether they would apply to all Sarkar related articles though. Only an Arb can answer that. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with WP:ARBIND, so thanks for pointing it out to me. Do we need to file at WP:ARCA to find out if it would apply? Location (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. An informal query on an Arbcom member's talk page would do. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 01:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Demiurge1000

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

---

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 [19] 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[20] 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)

• Support unblock I can't see what purpose is being served by continuing this block. Although I am familiar with some of the contributions that both demiurge1000 and gwickwire make in helping new users, during the many weeks I have been helping out on irc, I must stress that nobody has canvassed me to support them here. I am however quite shocked, and I must say disappointed, as a relative wikipedia newbie, of how unnecessarily punitive and confrontational the way of treating experienced editors seems to be in these circumstances where there is a reasonable substantive disagreement between editors. Additionally I think that the fact that both editors had to get other people to try and post their comments in this discussion involving them seems to me quite a significant departure from natural justice, and I would support sensible proposals for changes in this policy once the question in hand has been settled. --_nonsense ferret 22:04, 13 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)

I've avoided comment here up to now, as my reply on my own talk page gives a pretty good idea of what happened with this incident. However, there's a few points that have been made that do need addressing. I'll keep it brief Apologies for wall of text!

Above, Jayen466 defends the comment about "slitting some throats" of Wikimedia UK members by saying it was merely "a figure of speech". If it's merely a figure of speech, why's it supposedly so appalling for me to mention it? Some editors here are, rightly, "horrified" by it, and that's because it's an awful lot more than a "figure of speech". Jayen466 goes on to compare it to the Twitter joke trial. Now, that's an incident in which a man was convicted of a criminal offence after being arrested by anti-terror police, and his conviction was upheld by two appeal courts and only finally quashed by the third appeal court after a massive public campaign supported by more-than-notable figures. Did various authorities over-react to this joke bomb threat? Yes they did, but the airport staff who originally reported it to police did so because they are told, just like WMF are told by police forces in many countries, that even an apparently non-credible threat should be taken seriously. Likewise, here on Wikipedia, if someone makes a legal threat that's obviously aimed to have a chilling effect, that's blockworthy even if a sensible adult would be confident the threatener had no chance in hell of mounting a successful legal case (or potentially, even intending to try). Why? Because as well as sensible adults, Wikipedia editors include a great many young, naive, or just completely uninformed editors who do actually have the right to edit without worrying themselves about some supposed lawsuit from some angry guy with a COI.

Moving further down this page, The Devil's Advocate says "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". No, actually I did not say that. Some people may have thought I meant that; some people may indeed believe that, or have been led to believe it when they were prompted to consider the facts themselves. But I am not those people. I did not accuse, and am not accusing, Kevin of having done that. What I actually said can still be read in the history of the page concerned.

Now, Diannaa has said on this page that it's a problem that I'm "pre-judging people based on their participation on that website". That's a very interesting point, but no, no I'm not. I don't make any judgement about Floquenbeam based on their registering an account there in order to be able to complain about the outing of certain Wikipedia editors, nor do I make any judgement about the arbitrator who said he reads the site to give insights into whether disputants on Wikipedia are being genuine or not (he also comments there thoughtfully with his own opinions from time to time, and there's nothing wrong with that either).

What I do make a judgement about, and I expect many other people do also, is when editors who are banned or blocked on Wikipedia use Wikipediocracy to "out", harass, or attack in whatever other way their opponents, in a manner that would be totally unacceptable here, and then an editor like (for example) The Devil's Advocate proceeds to engage onwiki, in Fluffernutter's words, "writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do
... Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing".

So yes, we have a spectrum of users on Wikipediocracy; some of them make comments like the throat-slitting one, some of them collate private information about minors who edit Wikipedia and offer to give it out to other Wikipediocracy editors, some of them act in the manner Fluffernutter just described and then also turn up at the talk page of one of the people being harassed and oh-so-helpfully enquire as to whether they've had any other Wikipedia accounts. This while also engaging in the discussions on Wikipediocracy where all this harassment was being planned and discussed.

Let's look at one of those discussions a little bit deeper, because it shows just why I might think that's not reasonable behaviour. Earlier this evening, one of the "Global Moderators" on Wikipediocracy called "Cla68" (sounds familiar somehow) suggested that a forum member called "Lone Wolf" should "Email the kid and ask him for his parents' contact info and tell him why you want to know it", and then if the child refuses to hand over his parents' details, try and use that as a way to get him blocked (or, as he nicely newspeaked it, "follow Wikipedia's administrative guidance on dealing with minor contributors"). Doesn't sound very wise, does it? To me it sounds a bit like "better hand your details over to this anonymous stranger, kid, you don't wanna get blocked, do you?" And a Wikipediocracy user called The Devil's Advocate immediately joins the discussion talking about whether this would be effective or not. The individual who has been doing the "research" on the kid concerned helpfully pipes up "I have the snail mail address, email and phone contacts", and offers to supply them.

Now, maybe I should be so much more assuming of good faith, but when a person who acts as Fluffernutter has described above, and (apparently) participates in that manner in discussions of the nature I've just described on Wikipediocracy, is also the same person that turns up to the target's talkpage making these "polite" enquiries as to their past history, I think to myself that that is not appropriate. Not appropriate at all, nonono.

Apparently, my rather intemperate responses discouraged that person from carrying on with those "enquiries". Well, given the situation described, I don't think anyone could argue that's a bad thing.

BWilkins considers that "Reality appears to be that membership on the one is nearly incompatible with editing on Wikipedia", and Herostratus takes the view that "consorting with persons sworn to damage and destroy the Wikipedia is not consistent with being a Wikipedia editor", but I don't see anyone clamouring for either of them to be blocked for a month. Maybe they just have that little bit more self-restraint than me.

Screenshots of the Wikipediocracy comments I refer to, and any additional diffs that are needed, available to any oversighter on request. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment made in this edit. -- Cheers, Riley 02:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Response

People should look at Demiurge's original comment about Kevin at RFAR and judge for themselves whether my characterization was so unfair.

While Demiurge can certainly defend himself from accusations against him while blocked by getting his comments posted here, I am pretty sure it is not appropriate for him to be agitating for action against me with personal attacks in the process. Several of the claims he makes are, again, misrepresentations of the facts designed to present an unduly negative picture of other editors. Prior to my comment on gwick's talk page this is the only on-wiki interaction I had with him. I had earlier made a comment on WO similar to the last few sentences of the second paragraph in the above diff (noting that the only information revealed about gwick was what gwick had himself revealed on his user page), but that is all as best as I can recall. The other matters he refers to above either came after that discussion or concern completely different editors and so his attempt to tie those in with my commenting at gwick's talk page is deceitful. Demiurge also misrepresents the context of the more recent conversation on WO. As far as my comment goes, another poster said that Cla68's suggestion was "not a good idea" and I responded to that post by saying that I wasn't even sure what it would achieve. He presents it as though I was brainstorming with other posters about how to harass someone, when that is farrrrr from the truth.

Concerning the warning I got from Fluff, it was ridiculous then and is even more ridiculous now. For one, several editors had already said explicitly where the alleged outing occurred without any action and since then even more explicit references that allow for a simple one-two connection to identifying information via Google have been provided, in one instance by an Arbitrator. I am the only editor of those to have actually received a formal warning, for a statement that requires people put in some considerable elbow grease to scour over information in several unnamed places on-wiki before even having the chance of getting some off-wiki confirmation, while other people got away with all but linking to the original post that contained the alleged outing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:05, 12 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 made 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)

wow seren. another false claim from yet another editor claiming that Kevin made personal attacks. care to supply a diff, or a quote if the diff has been oversighted? 174.141.213.40 (talk) 06:44, 12 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)

• Gwickwire has a Wikipedia cloak, which requires onwiki verification. Unless you're worried that his IRC account might have been compromised (which I can vouch for it not having been, since we've talked about personal stuff), I don't really see any reason that this should be a problem. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it's not *just* that; it also allows us to confirm that his comments have been transcribed accurately. Not that you'd mess around with them on purpose, but errors happen sometimes, and other people might, so it's good practice. Writ Keeper (t + c) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Glad to know I can still be trusted, at least. :) If this shitstorm ever blows over, remind me to start an RFC on standard best practices for blocked users whose blocks are being discussed at a noticeboard. I seriously think a selective block/unblock tool would be useful, but since that requires developer resources, I'd also like to hear what the community thinks of using edit filters as a workaround. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

We tried that once, and it was a miserable failure IMHO (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:51, 13 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 made 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)

Never to forgive, never to forget? From Hell's heart I stab at thee? For Hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee? Is that the kind of wiki we want to be??? -- Dianna (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So you suggest that nothing is done about the harassment, outings/doxings, and threats? Silverseren^C 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What would you have us do? Are you suggesting that calling them names is of any use? Call them bad names and throw things in their faces? How is referring to a group of people as "the boxcutter crew" helpful in any way, shape or form, no matter who is included or what it's referencing? Does it keep people from being outed, or does it just ratchet up the tensions and dramah even more, so that such things are even more likely? Would you rather us ban any mention of them or linking to their site, stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes, and wish them away? That won't work. Or shall we anoint ourselves enforcers of the Internet? Not content with mere banning, are we now to declare people Untouchables, such that even a casual word exchanged with them or using the same website as them warrants a ban? That's an idiotically slippery slope if ever there was one. And what about legitimate criticism? There's quite a bit of that at Wikipediocracy, at least from my chair, even if it can take some wading to find it. Any reprisal against Wikipediocracy members on Wikipedia will accomplish nothing: any that care about Wikipedia and finding its flaws to make it better will be either muzzled or banished, and any that don't will be undeterred. Some might stop being the former and start being the latter.

I don't know what the answer is. I freely admit that. But maybe, just maybe, the answer is to actually listen to what they're saying. Not all of it, by any means, and not all of it that's worth listening to is worth carrying out, but there are things worth consideration. And not because they're threatening to out people if we don't (thought that's not what they are doing), but because they might be right. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and I would imagine those people are certainly smart enough to be better than that. Maybe if we didn't have such a knee-jerk reaction to them, they wouldn't have to turn up the volume so loud to get our attention. Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. All I can say is that I don't think that running around and saying "something must be done!" without actual workable suggestions while openly antagonizing a disparate group of editors under the umbrella of "THE ENEMY" is not likely to be helpful. Writ Keeper (t + c) 03:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

BING BING BING BING!!! — We have a winner. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Create an edit filter which blocks all contributions with the letters a c c d e i i i k o p r w y, in any order. NE Ent 17:42, 13 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)

Illogical folks, too. NE Ent 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Silver seren is topic banned from Wikipediocracy

Snow. Hatted to reduce drama (hopefully). -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This has gone beyond silly. Silver seren's comments have created a nasty WP:BATTLEGROUND here and he does not appear to be willing to give it up. He alternates between making blanket statements about "Wikipediocracy members" and then when confronted backs off with vague excuses that "of course he's not referring to everyone who's commented on that site" (leaving the choice of who gets to comment there without being slandered and who doesn't up to him alone). Enough is enough. This continued disruption is not serving the project, least not because this is something people WILL get defensive about. A topic ban would also not interfere with Silver seren contributing positively and constructively to the project in his usual way. Support as nom.Volunteer Marek 02:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) You're topic banning me from an off-wiki site...that i'm not a part of? How does that even work? SilverserenC 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I think he is proposing that you are not allowed to discuss Wikipieocracy on wiki-en.  little green rosetta(talk) central scrutinizer  03:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Yup.Volunteer Marek 03:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose He isn't causing any real harm. Causing drama on drama boards is pretty much expected and it is fairly limited in scope at this time.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Support - Disruptive ad hominem campaign that needs to stop now. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose. If you think that it's criticism of Wikipediocracy that creates the battleground mentality, I suggest you check... well, the homepage of Wikipediocracy. Look, if someone criticizes Wikipedians, I don't get personally offended, despite the fact that I do in fact consider myself a Wikipedian. So if you're actually so thin-skinned that you can't take some criticism of the highly critical site to which you contribute (regardless of whether your specific contributions are constructive are not), then I think the problem is on your end, not SS's. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 04:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not "thin skinned", I'm annoyed. There's a difference. This stuff just has become a totally unproductive waste of time. People who devote themselves to wasting others' time on dramaboards, and spreading the battleground across venues, after a certain point need to be asked to stop. Other ways haven't worked. This is a good way.Volunteer Marek 05:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC) To use an overused argument, we're all volunteers here. (No pun intended.) If you think Silver seren is wasting everyone's time, just unwatch the page and click Special:Random a few times. Unless I'm missing something, none of this directly effects you, so if you're annoyed, just walk away. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose, with the added observation that Volunteer Marek, as a participant on Wikipediocracy, has too insuperable a conflict of interest to make a nomination such as this. Any such recommendation should come from a non-participant able to view the issue objectively. --Drmargi (talk) 07:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Comment - can't we all just cut the crap and block the majority of mentions of this site (rather than blocking people)? All it seems to do is cause a thousand different punchups... Lukeno94 (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose per OTT at the present time. — Ched :  ?  10:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC) oppose TOo much drama. Can we just let this all die now? Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I want to expand my point. I think the majority of mentions of Wikipediocracy should be blocked: it's causing an enormous amount of problems between previously very sensible editors, admins, and crats. This is EXACTLY what the proponents of Wikipediocracy want, they're mostly not interested in exposing "truth", they just want to air their own grievances. Cut the mention of them, and they haven't won - they can spout their conspiracy theories all they want, but we at Wikipedia can just ignore them as you would ignore any crackpot theorist. Nothing against the users who contribute to both sites, and no reason why this should be prohibited - just these pointless discussions that get everyone's ire up. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Most governments feel that way.--v/r - TP 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose per PinkAmpers. "If you think that it's criticism of Wikipediocracy that creates the battleground mentality..." says it best.--v/r - TP 14:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Oppose - Even though I am uninvolved, I've got a feeling that this is way too much drama. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblock of Gwickwire

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

---

I've been in email contact with Gwickwire since my comment here. We've discussed the comments xe believed were personal attacks and the appropriateness of their comments. The comments xe highlighted did not meet our definition of personal attacks, though they could be read as uncivil. I genuinely believe that Gwickwire now gets why their comments were inappropriate, and given that xe has undertaken not to repeat allegations that they cannot show diffs for, I am willing to reduce the block to time served. Since 28bytes is taking a bit of a break, I thought I'd check for people's thoughts on the matter. I've informed Gwickwire of my thoughts and hopefully they will make a statement soon. Worm^TT(talk) 15:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• If you were trusted enough to get Arb position, I suspect the community trusts you enough to make this call. support — Ched :  ?  16:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Appreciate you not taking the unilateral approach as well — Ched :  ?  16:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• If he understands, go for it. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Seems reasonable if the confusion has been cleared up. Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm all for it if he understands. But be careful, you don't want to get desysop'd for it...friendly joke :) --v/r - TP 16:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Worm, did Gwickwire inform you of any plan he has for that blog he set up? Just wondering. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  No, I was keeping my attention focussed very much on-wiki. However, I will advise them to take the blog down. I've now unblocked. Worm^TT(talk) 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Final comments here

In the heat of the moment, I made accusations against User:Kevin that were inappropriate, and without any evidence to support them. I'd like to apologize to him for anything this may have caused, and also apologize to everyone else that I made these accusations. I understand that it was wrong to make these unfounded accusations. I was wrong here. gwickwire^talk_editing 19:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the blog, I've not heard of a real reason to take it down. I assume WTT is going to e-mail me with his opinion on that, and I will certainly read that e-mail and take it into consideration. As of now, I think the blog still serves to document some of the stuff that's been happening (from everyone BUT Kevin, in other words not from Kevin) in this whole mess. gwickwire^talk_editing 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Pinging any uninvolved

Someone want to close this now? Maybe clean like several mega-pixels of drama of the board? — Ched :  ?  20:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Does being generally disgusted count as uninvolved? Although I suspect it would be best if you could find an admin to close it. Intothatdarkness 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, an unblock of user:Demiurge1000 is still being discussed above. So a close would be premature. Cardamon (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly agree that, at the appropriate time, it should be an uninvolved admin that closes this, possibly the ugliest ANI thread I have ever had the sorrow to review. The original "boxcutter" comment, in my view, must be regarded as a real world death threat, and should be reported to legal authorities, if it has not been already. This is no joking matter. Jusdafax 03:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, if you spent any time at WO to observe the general tone of posts by EricBarbour, I can assure you that you would come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Some people need to get out more. John lilburne (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Off topic example per Hex: I remember back in school an experiment we did. The teacher whispered in the ear of the first student a sentence or two. That student then repeated the "whisper" to the following student. This continued through a room of maybe 20 or so students. By the time the last student got the information and repeated it out-loud, it was so outlandishly different from the original content that there was absolutely no way the two items could be reconciled. Moral: If you hear it from a friend of a friend of a friend - chances are astronomically good that you're not getting the original intent of the message. — Ched :  ?  09:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeffed

Demiurge1000's indefinite blocking was long overdue. He's been lying and manipulating others for years. (Look at his twisting of Black Kite and Carrite's statements in my RfC/U.) He still repeats his claims that he's a victory of McCarthyism. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket and Englishness

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

---

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)

At best this should be a subproject (task force?) of the existing WikiProject, but given that this appears related to a course, there is likely another venue for this. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

What on earth is wrong with setting up a course as a Wikiproject? This is precisely what I did with (for instance) WP:MMM. I see no cause for admin action here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Correct venue?

I'm quite dissappointed that none of the supposedly "highly experienced" admins who handle this page have ever heard of Wikipedia:School and university projects which is the correct venue for this matter. Roger (talk) 17:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the "correct venue" is probably the Education Noticeboard, and it was indeed brought up there, not once but twice, the second time by someone who read this thread (but not the noticeboard itself, it seems). Either way, it is at least courtesy to inform the people involved. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Also newbie biting and assuming bad faith by calling some of the contribution as "hoax". The editor in question was around for more than 6 years and should have known better than this. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• See below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

Schrutedit08 got the point, I think Aeusetereleiea should be block from editing, not the article of The Mentalist (season 5) itself. I think if we unblocked the article, Aeusetereleiea might continue what he was doing to the article. The admin should take a closer at the contributions and what he said in each of his edit summaries and then blocked him from editing and then unprotect The Mentalist (season 5). That would be fine by us. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You may have misunderstood me. That was what I said – that Aeusetereleiea needed to cool off and listen to what Schrutedit08 was telling them. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you, AlanM1. I was just pointing something out about what Aeusetereleiea has been doing and he be banned from anything related to the Mentalist or blocked from editing. not to mention that the article The Mentalist (season 5) should be unprotected. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Battleshipman. Hopefully Aeusetereleiea can be made to see reason, but the priority for me is to get the page unblocked (though I'm not exactly sure how to go about accompishing that) as a bunch of new episode and ratings information has become available and an edit request has already been made for the page. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no. You have it all wrong. If I were to launch attacks against any editor than a lot more people would be hearing about it. I vandalised no one page, I'd happyily show you how to do that if you want. If you just adopted the same editing skills as sites like The Mentalist Wiki and actually put up new episodes ect, then you'd actually have a successful page. Anyway, you're all wasting your time worrying over what I'll do next. Unless of course your computer geeks, then it's in your nature to spend your time fixing and editing and editing and fixing and doing something else that I won't mention (sensitive topic). But if you wanna waste your time, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeusetereleiea (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We put up new episodes all the time. Right now I'm waiting for the page to be unblocked so that I can put up more information on episodes 5x18 and 5x19. Specialized Wikis are often mismanaged and do not hold to the same standards as this site. What we are trying to impress upon you, Aeusetereleiea, is that the rules are what they are and they're not going to change just because you don't like them or can't be bothered learning them. If you want to add episode titles and air dates, that's fine, but you have to provide a reliable source to back-up your additions, otherwise it will just be removed. If you agree to do that, great. There's no reason we can't all get along and edit the page as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are being adhered to. If you're just going to keep doing what you've been doing, then this will just continue on and on. Do you really want to waste your time adding information, having it reverted and getting into situations like this? I've got better things to do (in spite of your delightfully condescending remarks above). So can we come to some understanding about this or do we just have to get you blocked from editing? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SchrutedIt08 got the point, Aeusetereleiea. What you been doing, adding future episode titles was premature and you didn't provide a reliable source to back up those claims, claims that requires to have them referenced. Because of the edit war between you and SchrutedIt08, you get the article The Mentalist (season 5) blocked by Wiki admin to where the administrators can only edit. You wasted your time with your feud with SchrutedIt08 on your edit war, forcing him to revert your unsourced edits and that forced Wiki admin to block that article only to admin access. I do hope you understand what you done to that article and learn from your mistakes. Specialized Wikis don't hold the same standards as this site does, like SchrutedIt08 said above. It's apparent to all of us that you're a disruptive editor. Therefore, you're out of line with your edits on The Mentalist (season 5) article and it has gone far enough to be blocked by admin of Wikipedia. So you have two choices, Aeusetereleiea. Be patient, read the Wikipedia guidelines, wait for a reliable source before you edit any future episode titles of The Mentalist, and, when you learn from those guidelines and find the reliable source, we will have a understanding between us. Because if you keep on doing what you've been doing on that article, you be blocked from editing this site. Think about that? BattleshipMan (talk) 08:27, 13 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)

Diff for that policy? NE Ent 02:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NFCC it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; ... see burden of proof Werieth (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That says a fair use rationale must be provided; one is provided here. Whether the rationale is sufficient or not is a matter for consensus discussion. NE Ent 14:00, 13 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)

• How is illustrating the primary subjects of an article "purely decorative"? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• In the same way as discographies don't have album cover images despite being the subjects of the article, or articles about lists of characters from TV shows don't have images of all but the most notable. Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves. That's why I said that a few (at most) representative images may be acceptable. There's also the issue of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability). Since the table already says (for example) "A large stained glass wall composed of mostly blue glass with the exception of a red band that runs the length of the work.", does that need an image as well for the reader to understand what it is? I'd say it doesn't. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Though here, the article is about the "Arts on the Line" initiative, not the artworks themselves." That makes sense, and I'll accept that as a reason for limited fair use in the article to one or two images. But that's the first time that's been said - at no point was that articulated previously. While a simple point, that's critical to this entire debacle. While I think the issue for this article has thus been settled, there needs to be a process for those points to be articulated sooner, as it appears that issues like this have come up previously in the removal of large numbers of non-free images for articles. I'll perhaps make an RFC on the NFCC talk page (I believe the rule is that I should wait for the ANI to be closed first?) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If a rational argument can be made for inclusion of something, the situation is not so obvious that any admin has the right to take action on the basis that something is "clear and unequivocal". If the community agrees, the material would very soon be removed and we wouldn't need this sort of conflict. (this is not an expression of any view on these particular images.) DGG ( talk ) 01

53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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)
• for what it's worth, they deny having a COI, and that they only write about stuff that happens in their town, but their contributions are laser-focused on two specific non-notable people as well as being unabashedly promotional, so it's kind of hard to take them at their word. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Would it not just be best to await the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Causeandedit? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't see why. Socking isn't the only issue, or even the primary issue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• That looks more like meatpuppets than anything else. But this is definitely a concerted and focused PR push. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice that User:Causeandedit is vengefully putting up a satisfactory Nat Gertler article for deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not anymore. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I think it's time some other admin has a look at this. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• Some interesting comments have been made at User talk:AGK#Harrasment By User and someone with time to work out what this all about should study the situation because it looks like it will get ugly quite soon. Johnuniq (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I see that in the history Causeandedit's interesting comments from 8:04 12 March are struck and not accessible yet they still appear at User_talk:AGK#Harrasment_By_User. Oversight gone not quite right? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • General comment. We are all volunteers. We help in various ways of our own choosing. Some fix typos. Some add content. Others delete content. Some fix grammar. Some add photos. Some settle disputes. The only way different agendas can cooperate is if we try to follow Wikipedia's self-made rules. The result is an incredible source of information, a powerful first for humankind, widely read, and has such a powerful web presence that it is highly tempting to misuse it for promotional purposes. Spam, advertising, and other promotional junk can undermine the entire project, reducing our encyclopedia into one big sales blurb, so the community has decided, wisely, to keep spam out. Most contributors who look into this matter will agree that User:Causeandedit is a prolific spammer who is bombarding "articles" with bogus references. When challenged, Causeandedit complains of harassment or strikes back; for example, a Wikipedian and notable author Nat Gertler voted to delete some of the spam, prompting User:Causeandedit to slap a spurious AfD tag on apparently from spite. In my view, Causeandedit is a nuisance to the community, is not following Wikipedia's rules, is not acting in good faith, is harming the project, and should be blocked, hopefully permanently.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Somebody had indeed tried to suppress that content but not quite did it right. I've fixed the mess. AGK [•] 14:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen that AfD, it's blatantly frivolous and is borderline an attack. The user also went back to edit it after the AfD was closed... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked Causeandedit indefinitely as an advertising-only account that is WP:NOTHERE to establish an encyclopedia. Now I'm going to check the recent AfDs for their merits. De728631 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I !voted "not sure yet" for Sabrina (pop singer) but I can assure I will shed no tears if you speedy delete it per WP:CSD#G11 right here and now if you so wish. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left that one sitting for now but !voted for speedy deletion. De728631 (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm speedying by G11 what I can find, except for some of the musicians , because I lack confidence in that area--I see they are now being taken care of also. It is conceivable that some might be notable, but it would be necessary to start over. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose formal ban of Causeandedit and any socks

Are there any objections to a formal ban of Causeandedit and his socks, if any? It looks at first glance like typical advertising activity but I totally lost any good faith in this user after they were called out on falsely claiming Sabrina had been certified gold in the United Kingdom and then, with all the eloquence of a toddler claiming Darth Vader had raided the cookie jar, they tried to claim that by UK they meant "University of Kentucky". If that isn't silly enough on the surface, the article said "United Kingdom" (not just UK), linked to the BPI site, and gold records are certified by industry groups like the RIAA and IFPI, not by colleges. But that's a once-in-a-lifetime wackiness, right? Wrong. He did it again on the Audio Stepchild AFD. Not acceptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The assertion of gold status in the UK by Causeandedit for Sabrina (pop singer) appears to be an obvious falsification. Perhaps the editor was hoping to benefit from the confusion with Sabrina Salerno, who does have a Silver certification in the UK and is a much better known performer. Sabrina Salerno has sold 10 million records worldwide. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have little objection with a community ban or whatever of this user, as they are very blatantly WP:NOTHERE. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd support a formal ban. Amongst so much deception the claim of accidently mistaking "United Kingdom" for "University of Kentucky" show that this editor has no respect for the truth, this project, everyone here. If claims of Mr Hay talking to this editor are to be believed (source redacted for other reasons) then Mr Hay should express issue with how bad CaE is making him look. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this a possible sock of User:Causeandedit here? Wondering.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Sockpuppeting and disruption make this a good call. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - He certainly was making no effort to understand the concept of "significant coverage" in my interactions with him. There's either serious promotional, or competence, problems with him. Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support Sockpuppetry and disruptive editing. TBrandley ^(review) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited lede 2

User:Bhaskarbhagawati (BB) had started a thread on this noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive787#Repeated_removal_of_cited_lede) about a dispute on the lede in Kamrup region. On the advice in that thread, a discussion was started in the talk page: (Talk:Kamrup_region#Lede_dispute_--_A_summary). Unfortunately, BB made no substantial contribution to the discussion, and soon left on a hiatus. He has since returned (diff, diff, diff), and has shown scant interest in moving the issue toward a resolution. Is it possible to bring this issue to some kind of closure? Thanks, Chaipau (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) has not edited again at Kamrup region since 24 February. However he did edit Assam on March 12. It is not easy to see whether this is the same dispute. The original disagreement was whether Kamrup region should be given a modern or an ancient definition. The discussion at Talk:Kamrup region#Lede dispute -- A summary is hard for outsiders to follow. Neither his position or yours is clear enough. Perhaps you could improve it by adding to that thread and providing references to support your view. If nothing else works consider asking for dispute resolution at WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, BB's edit on Assam (diff) is indeed related to this dispute. So instead of addressing the dispute resolution efforts, he has widened the scope of the dispute. This despite the note I left at his talk page asking him to contribute to the resolution process (which he has since acknowledged by blanking -- diff).

I shall flesh out the dispute resolution thread with references and shall announce it here when done. The main body of Kamrup region describes most of the historical regions named Kamrup with references. Chaipau (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually since mid last year i am involved in long disputes with user Chaipau on different articles like Assam dispute and many others. At the moment i am not in a position to devote time on Kamrup region lede text dispute, so i let user Chaipau's version hang there. I don't think my latest edit is related with Kamrup region lede dispute. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 08:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad that BB is refusing to participate in the process, that he himself has initiated, at WP:ANI itself. BB, nevertheless, continues to make controversial edits (diff). Chaipau (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Please check the date of above edit and by the way i have put some sources in Kamrup region talk page. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)comment removed by duffbeerforme; restored. Writ Keeper (t + c) 15:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/ExternalSites

An extended discussion; currently consists of:
1 Series of unilateral actions taken by AGK (currently closed)
1.1 Proposal to reduce MZ's block length
1.2 Proposal to restore the Status Que Ex Ante
1.3 Increasing drama
NE Ent 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Need admin help . . . Mangoeater1000 is vandalizing my user subpage

See here for vandalism by Mangoeater1000 sockpuppet. An SPI case is languishing at SPI due to backlog. Please block User:Slawtony vigorgusto and protect my user sub pages. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Account nuked and I protected your sandbox. Could you please list the other pages he's targeting? Elockid ^(Talk) 23:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a long list, Elockid. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tor Proxy

Resolved

— Ched :  ?  08:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a regular editor of Wikipedia. I am looking at Tor proxies and saw that this one is unblocked. Please block it as soon as possible. --188.95.52.40 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the proper place to request a tor proxy to be blocked is at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies.OakRunner (talk) 00:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This seems to turn up negative, but this seems to turn up positive. Huh. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 00:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Our editor, whoever it is, seems to have demonstrated that it's a proxy, so I've blocked it definitely. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone reblocked it to a year. It was more interesting the way you had it - 3 decades plus 1 year plus some fraction of a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

IP-based abuse

There has been a long-term IP-based abuser active on Syncopy Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for the past several months. The IPs include 98.67.161.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.67.168.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.81.14.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.67.162.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). This individual has been warned on multiple occasions, and has even been blocked at one point. Discussions about this user's edits, which are not always overtly vandalism, are nonetheless disruptive as they are constantly made despite objections by other editors and their good faith attempts at discussing the issue on the talk page. Such discussions go nowhere as the person behind the IPs resorts to ad hominem attacks, red herring arguments, baseless accusations, and other methods that fail to actually address the topic of discussion. I am not too sure what course of action should be taken, but I do believe some form of blocking and page protection are in order. – Zntrip 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The most recent thing is a somewhat ridiculous edit war. I've warned both participants; the IP is just as guilty there as their opponent. I will grant you that the IP's contributions appear to be much more combative than necessary, and their refusal to sign their messages is more than irritating. What helps is establishing a consensus on the talk page so there is something to fall back on. But that talk page, and the rest of the history, reveals that there is dispute among other editors as well, so I don't know how easy it is to come by consensus on individual issues. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Tell you one thing--this sort of stuff is just stupid and disruptive, and was warred over as well. It warrants semi-protection on the one hand and a block on the other, but blocking a changing IP is useless, and that particular idiocy was a few months ago, so semi-protection now isn't necessarily warranted. I don't see anything in the article history from those other two IPs, so I cannot argue there has been constant disruption over the last couple of months. If it continues, then semi-protection is warranted. Right now, I don't see what I could do. Is there an admin with a shorter fuse and bigger balls around, and does that admin disagree? Drmies (talk) 03:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In response, users such as Zntrip act as a pack of wolves whose only purpose on Wikipedia ppears to be to tear apart every common user on Wikipedia. Look at this horrible page and think about their behaviors. They play by rules they don't even keep themselves (calling people delusional then sending repeated warnings to the other users over lesser implied comments) and they repeatedly bully or group bully anyone they disagree with by abusing the warning mechanisms and admin mechanisms. I think if someone at Wikipedia looked at their behavior closely as shown on this page that any reasonable person would come to the same conclusion. They do not own Wikipedia and they discourage people from using Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.110.153 (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• This rant, left also on the article talk page (unsigned, of course), is sufficient indication of the editor's disruptive intentions and lack of good faith. I'll lock the article; that much seems fair now, and I've blocked the IP after also looking at User:98.67.162.21. Is the range too big for a range block? Drmies (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So speaking reasonable language is now a rant? Wow, do you make this stuff up as you go along? Obviously there is a group of regular users who now cyber bully common users, ban for rules they don't follow themselves and show absolutely zero good faith. Never seen anything like it. Shame on you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, IP User needs to back off. He raised his point/proposed addition. It was rejected due to lack of evidence/reliable sources supporting it and yet he still insists on beating the dead horse in the hopes it will come alive. Secondly, Drmies also needs to take a step back and perhaps should review his block decisions as he is an involved admin. I would also strongly suggest he stops feeding the troll. Forgive me I can't link the relevant humorous essay as I am on my mobile. MisterShiney ✉ 22:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I mean, disagree with Znip or Mister Shiney you get insulted, threatened, and reported. Neither user shows any ability to reason ans seems to be on self appointed admin power trips, they will cyber bully, and never treat a common user with any respect. If getting your way and insulting users is what Wikipedia is all about then Wikipedia should rethink these users who want to wield power instead of information. Is this what Wikipedia really is all about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.157.46 (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• MisterShiney, you should probably explain to the non-clairvoyant how I am involved, but I'm not really that interested since you are wrong. To the IP: nothing. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry I miss read who made the report. My mistake. So sorry. I withdraw my previous comment. Except for the IP user needing to drop the stick MisterShiney ✉ 06:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GAtechnical

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

---

This is my first time, and hopefully my last time, I have to report a user's actions to this noticeboard. User:GAtechnical has been creating disruptive edits in regards to a moving the page Julia Görges by erasing user's comments on the talk page Talk:Julia Görges (which is currently Talk:Julia Goerges since the editor seems to be moving the talk page by itself and I cannot move the page anymore until there is an Administrator involved due to this looking like an edit war), started a new move discussion prior to closing the last one, did not go through WP:RM guidelines to start a new discussion, has verbally attacked other editors by calling them names, and is masking comments on their own talk page to hide the evidence of this discussion. Here are the distructive diffs on the page Talk:Julia Görges:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

...and here is the edits that GAtechnical has performed on their own talk page to hide the fact that they were sent talk page vandalism warnings, as well as verbally attacking another editor with profanity:

1 2 3

As requested in the editnotice, I will also send these to the email address provided, as well as apply the proper template onto GAtechnical's talk page. Thank you for your time. Steel1943 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with deleting your own comments on ones own talk page. Where have I called anyone names, oh right on deleted comments how very sad you are steel to try and get another editor banned all because you don't agree, grow up, becuase ignorant is a fact not a childish name calling word. Also I moved the page as per wiki policy on WP:ENGLISH WP:NAME Wikipedia:COMMONNAME and the fact that is what the name is correctly translated to in English. Which Steel is citing as vandalism which is not. Secondly if you move it back then you might as well call this international wikipedia which it is not as it is the ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. And should follow it's own guidelines and policys correctly which others seem blatantly wanting to ignore citing WP:Diacritics and then going around saying that all UK press are unrelaibla as the don't use accents which is basically bollocks as they are then getting non English sources to support themselves which again is a violation of what is written in diacritics. GAtechnical (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record:

1. I am not stating that deleting information from a talk page is wrong. My point in bringing up this fact is the profanity that was used during this time on the talk page.
2. The move discussion was not closed properly, leading multiple editors who were involved on the Talk:Julia Goerges talk page who warned GAtechnical regarding their disruptive edits on the talk page, even if GAtechnical was the one who initiated the move request.
3. The move request was not closed properly after there had already been at least one editor involved in the discussion, as well as the fact that there are already two move discussions on Talk:Julia Goerges that did not result in a move, a bold move would have been controversial anyways (such is this case.)
4. Rather than discussion these actions with involved parties, GAtechnical disruptively moved the article/talk page, and said disparaging remarks to other editors. At the point where other editors are involved, they have to be involved in the final discussion/talk. Either that, or the discussion should have been formally closed by the submitter (GAtechincal), which resulted in sections on the Talk:Julia Goerges being blanked rather than the discussion being formally closed to retain attribution to all of the editors who were already involved in the discussion.

Steel1943 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not those users are not following wiki policy so it doesn't matter what they think. 2. one it's not controversial when following the policy properly so i'm entitled to move it and keep it at the proper English name as per the policy i cited. 3. your the one being a vandal and disruptive by undoing the move which in noway is controversial, but it is to move it back to Gorges as it is not English. 4. If you're bring me here for that do it yourself instead of being disruptive. 5.Yes you were stating that deleting stuff is wrong with your trying to mask it policy and no i'm not swearing at another editor since I've removed the comments so I have no idea why you're bring it up. Steel withdraw this request as you blatantly haven't grasped the rules. or how to use templates properly. GAtechnical (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• And now, GAtechnical is vandalizing my own talk page as shown in this diff: [21]. Steel1943 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not my fault steel can't use the template properly. Not vandalism. GAtechnical (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Refactoring or removing another editor's comments persistently is something you can be blocked for, GATechnical. Editing/deleting another editor's comments on that editor's talk page should not be done unless it is a direct violation of policy, e.g. WP:BLP WP:PA etc. Normally, per WP:COMMONNAME, an article should be titled based on their most commonly used spelling in reliable English sources, however as two RM's were raised and consensus to move was not reached the unilateral page move is controversial. GATechnical, you reverted an admin's reversion of your move with the edit summary "Doesn't matter policy trumps everytime". In this case, your move violated policy as you had no consensus to move. As a final point, your constant harping about another's English is entirely an attack made particularly ironic when your own posts are laden with spelling and grammatical errors. Blackmane (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked GATechnical for three days for edit-warring and removing comments from talk pages, moved that article back to Julia Görges, and move-protected it for a week. Two previous RMs decided on that title, and it should not be moved unless the currently open RM reaches a consensus to do so. I have no objection if any admin reading all the diffs above decides that GATechnical's conduct deserves a longer block; any resumption of edit-warring on this issue after his block expires will certainly incur one. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably would have blocked for longer - their multiple attempts at justifying their actions above by basically saying "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, fuck you" makes me believe that we will have future issues once this short block is over. However, I'd play it this way: when the block expires, if GATech a) performs one more controvertial move OR taunts/attacks Steel (or indeed, anyone who disagrees with a move) anywhere on the project, then it's an indef (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's done yet. I have reason to believe GAtechnical is now using their IP address as a sockpuppet to make edits to Julia Görges. If/when I have enough evidence, and I post enough disruptive edit notices on that IPs talk page, I'll probably have to start a new discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 11:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked, for edit warring and blatant block evasion. I was planning to second Bwilkins suggestion above (a short leash after a short block), but given these edits I'm inclined to propose an indef, at least until we can be sure that edit-warring and this sort of thing isn't going to be recurrent. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaand indefed for legal threats. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That was perhaps the most boneheaded suicide by admins ever. I actually supported his mere 3 day block, and clearly specified his method of proper behaviour in the future in order to avoid an indef, and I get accused of threats, then threatened a lawsuit, and now he's indeffed? When I say "WTF", does it clearly get my WTF-ist point across? 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, routine use of WTF makes an editor appear overreactive, and, in the transient, semi-anonymous Wikipedia environment would only be effective if used by an editor one was both familiar with and whom did not use it regularly. In that instance, I'd used the explicit "what the fuck" for maximimal impact. (Maybe italicized or bolded, depending on the context of the rest of the contribution.) NE Ent 12:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with BWilkins that a longer block was appropriate: my 3 days was just for edit warring, but having reviewed the whole story, including blanking an RM that was not going his way and calling people idiots, I went back to extend the block but found he had already been indeffed for legal threats. I have left a note for any reviewing admin that if the indef is lifted any substitute block should be longer than my 3 days, particularly as he has been socking with an IP (see below). JohnCD (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:92.18.27.197 ... possible sockpuppet

Well, it looks like there are issues with edits happening on the Julia Görges article once again. Seems like a user who uses the IP 92.18.27.197 has been making disruptive edits on Julia Görges, changing every mention of her last name's spelling from "Görges" to "Goerges". I've already had to revert three instances, and another user reverted another. Here are the diffs in question:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Due to the nature of the comments in these diffs, referring to one of my reverts as "vandalism", I have reason to suspect that this IP address is a sockpuppet of GAtechnical mentioned in the aforementioned section of this page. I cannot say that with 100% certainty, but someone with check user privileges might be able to find out. Steel1943 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• ...And never mind ... looks like administrator Yunshui already took care of business by blocking that IP. Steel1943 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• No need for checkuser, this is a WP:DUCK. I have semi-protected the article in case he finds another IP. JohnCD (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also socking as 92.22.82.168, now blocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made this a subsection to the original ANI on GATechnical. Blackmane (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Kwame Kilpatrick

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

---

Please review the content that I added to the page for Kwame Kilpatrick. It is being reverted. I say that the man was proven to have made millions in criminal activity and will now be known more for his criminal activity than his other professions like teacher or author. Everything was backed with citations, good citations. Thanks. 76.226.66.20 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a "criminal" is not a profession. If that is indicative of the type of crap you're trying to put in to the article then the reverts are proper. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

spam links to stores

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

---

Ive been trying to remove inappropiate link to shops from an article. Wikipedia is not here to promote stores. Any refrerence from a shop is not independent and is not a reliable source. My atempts have been me with abuse and claims of disrution (eg [22]). Are spam links from Itunes acceptible? Is it OK to harras editors who dont think promoting iTunes is OK? Is it OK to call an attmept to remove spam links to iTunes an act of vandalism? Am I misguided? duffbeerforme (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a case for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Itunes and Amazon has been discussed there before on several occasions, most recently in this discussion (which contains links to previous discussions). The conclusion about their reliability seems ambiguous though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme is apparently involved in a huge edit war at Pon de Replay and has received numerous warnings on their talk page. Regardless of whether s/he's right or not, edit-warring is definitely not the way to solve the dispute. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Editwaring is not the way to go. Thats why I've come here. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you know it's not the way to go, then why did you wait until after you received four warnings to bring it here? I'm sorry, but I doubt you'll get much sympathy here based on your inappropriate behavior. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that this question should first have been taken up on the talk page of the article in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Saddiyama is exactly right. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a look at Pon de Replay and noticed Duffbeerforme's reverting. Remember that it doesn't matter who's "right" and who's "wrong" in edit wars, and I think it would take a strong argument to convince somebody your removal of sources had some sort of BLP related exemption to get off WP:3RR. This all needs to go to Talk:Pon de Replay. For what it's worth, I think Amazon and iTunes are reliable sources that can be used to prove existence of something, but can't be used towards notability - since notability's not at stake here that's not relevant. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Not sure about iTunes, but a listing on Amazon proves nothing at all, not even existence. I'm an Amazon seller myself, so if I wanted to create a listing for an XBox 720 or a holographic PurpleRay disc of Toy Story 5, I could. Amazon's sales ranks and reviews are also commonly manipulated, and even their core catalog has plenty of errors. Generally speaking I would say that these aren't useful links. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking of basic information like ISBN codes for books, product IDs or otherwise uncontroversial and non-opinionated stuff, but nothing else - certainly not reviews. I notice discussion of this flavour turns up on WP:RSN every now and again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Wether you support me or not look at this [[23]]..l duffbeerforme (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, iTunes and Amazon (MP3) links were valid for sourcing release dates and track listings. That was at least how it went a couple of years ago when I got in a kerfluffle about using particular links as sources for such data. Additionally, WP:LINKSPAM and WP:ELNO mention nothing about stores. It would be wrong for someone to go to a page like tea kettle and post a link to their ebay or etsy page where they sell tea kettles, but in this digital era it should most definitely not be forbidden to give links to iTunes or Amazon or whatever artist websites that are out there that might happen to sell the CDs as well. It would only be spam in this case if it was someone with a financial stake in the matter, and I doubt that someone adding an iTunes Store link as a source to an article on Rihanna really has much of a financial gain to be had.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I don't think this content dispute should even be discussed here because it's essentially validating Duffbeerforme's very inappropriate behavior of getting into a major edit war and ignoring four warnings on his talk page, not to mention coming here without even attempting to discuss it on the article's talk page. Bypassing appropriate protocol after bad behavior should not be rewarded. And that's exactly what's being done here by discussing the content issue, rewarding Duffbeerforme. Therefore, I think this thread should be closed and that s/he should be told to stop edit-warring, stop ignoring warnings, and take it to the talk page. Perhaps s/he should even be blocked for a little bit for doing all these things. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Another valid point. Duffbeerforme's actions were way out of line here. He should not have edit warred and then brought this to ANI to make it appear he was without fault in the debate. So he is wrong in his actions on links and wrong on his actions on the page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong. And if it's a "spam link", then why is it not on the blacklist? I think we've already been through this.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's still a valid discussion, but definitely not here. This discussion should move on to the talk page of the article in question. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200

I had some discussions with Special:Contributions/216.238.225.200 (see his/hers recent contributions). It seems to me that he/she is a combination of WP:LISTEN with WP:COMPETENCE. It seems to me that he/she is a troll who wants to harass editors. He/she produces some preposterous arguments from the fringe of the fringe, like that there would be historical proof for Jesus's resurrection and in general that historians should seek to falsify supernatural causation. Such arguments should not be expected from anyone with a minimal scientific education, this is why I said he/she is a case of lacking editorial competence. I have explained what historians do and that history has a naturalistic methodology because historians of all faiths have consensually agreed upon it, but he/she refuses such arguments, which shows that he/she is a case of failing to get the point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That was a red herring, it was a distraction from my main point. While I know that you can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that Jesus resurrected, I was just explaining that some people like me believe that and thus "the strong scientific evidence" that is an exception in Wikipedia's FRINGE policy would be satisfied.

All I wanted to do was make some edits to the extremely biased material on the History and the Bible Wikipedia page as it exists right now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As long as we agree that proving miracles isn't, cannot be and will never be part of any empirical science, we can smoke the pipe of peace. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Google gives the definition of empirical as:

• Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

I think miracles fit this definition. We can observe things in the present that would have happened if a certain miracle occurred. The Shroud of Turin is a very interesting archaeological discovery that atheists aren't quite sure about.

Obviously we can't "prove" that something happened, supernatural or not.

So no, I disagree with you. While miracles themselves can't be explained by natural laws since some of them are temporarily withheld, the events that follow afterwards are definitely part of empirical science.

And that is still a distraction from my main point of removing the horrendously biased statements that are present on the article now. 216.238.225.200 (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

And now I have a username and have created an account! JasperTech (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I had already admitted that I got irritated by your claim that historians could prove the occurrence of miracles and that I was vitriolic about it. But please don't pour gas on the fire. You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever or you have unlearned what you learned in it, otherwise I see no possibility to deviate from the idea that empirical sciences are by definition naturalistic. E.g. name one science (but not a pseudoscience) which studies the supernatural. There is a contradiction between the idea of arbitrary divine intervention and the idea of empirical science. The Age of Enlightenment has taught us what is admissible as fact and what should be relegated to the realm of mere faith. It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia editors have respect for science and your mockery of the scientific method could irritate them. I hope you do understand that attempting to pass supernatural claims through peer-review is extremely ill-advised for anyone who wants his studies published in a respectable scientific journal. Wikipedia can only take the side of the reviewers, they are the gatekeepers who forbid the entrance of pseudoscience in respectable scientific publications. I don't attack your right to believe in miracles, I just say that by definition sciences could never attest the existence of miracles: physics has naturalistic methodology, chemistry has naturalistic methodology, biology has naturalistic methodology, psychology has naturalistic methodology, sociology has naturalistic methodology, anthropology has naturalistic methodology, history has naturalistic methodology, religious studies have naturalistic methodology and so on. I would advise you to watch the short movie at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cweYRarq664 , wherein Bart D. Ehrman makes it expressly clear that claims that miracles have really happened are not historical claims, but they are theological claims. Any historian worth his salt would agree with Ehrman, except practitioners of pseudoscience, who conflate history with theology. Historical facts should be valid for people regardless of their faith and of their theological persuasion. What you want is eat your cake and still have it. You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method. As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

OK sure, I won't pour any gas on the fire! I'm definitely hoping to get a consensus that everyone is happy with.

"You definitely have no scientific instruction whatsoever...."

You just finished speaking about not pouring gas on the fire, and then you say that. Very interesting. I'm just a high school student, and if you classify that as "no scientific instruction whatsoever" then, well, OK.

"It is a bad idea to push supernaturalist arguments posing as science on Wikipedia...."

Let's consider the scientific method. It's all about why does this happen? People try to explain things with laws. These laws are mostly consistent, but not always. For example, virtual particles pop in and out of existence without any cause. These are quantum fluctuations and the first law of thermodynamics is temporarily withheld. Are miracles any different?

I watched your recommended video and it is not "expressly clear" to me that a supernatural claim is not historical, but theological. I know it's theological, but how would it not be historical? It depends on what you define as historical, but I think that would be determined according to one's biases. I'll explain. Take the Shroud of Turin. Historians, like with all other archaeological discoveries, are interested in an explanation of how it got there. They want to know if it could have been forged, the person that rested inside the shroud if it wasn't forged, and so on. There is no consensus as to where it came from. Some Christians think that the Resurrection could explain how it came about. That's their hypothesis. It's definitely a theological claim, but since it's explaining archaeological evidence wouldn't it also be a historical one?

You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method.

You cannot prove the existence of miracles using the scientific method, but a miracle could be set forth as a hypothesis to explain some evidence. Whatever hypothesis best explains the evidence.

On the other hand, a miracle is by definition something that can't be explained by natural laws. But then again, virtual particles are one example of something that can't be explained either. It just "happens." In fact, since laws are immaterial, then you could say everything just "happens." How do we determine a scientific law? From things that consistently "happen." But then we could also define laws as things that we observe to happen, rather than the cause of why things happen. Some Christians argue that God is the basis for the scientific method and for natural laws.

"As long as you pretend that empirical science could prove miracles, you lack an understanding of what science is, of what science can do, of what is acceptable to peer-reviewers and of what gets published in serious scientific journals."

So to sum it up, I know that empirical science can't prove miracles, but a supernatural causation hypothesis could be used to explain some evidence. Obviously this shouldn't be overused like some Christians, but we also shouldn't avoid all the evidence if it points to this conclusion.

As for the "serious scientific journals," I noticed you used the word "serious." I guess that must be because I referenced some theological journals that are considered academic. But your word "serious" excludes these journals. Apparently they aren't "serious" journals. But you only determine that according to your bias, so it doesn't mean anything.

I guess now you might be really ticked off with me, but I was just saying what I think.

Oh, and why are you so against having other (i.e., Christian) opinions expressed on Wikipedia? Why are you so against a neutral point of view? It's not like any of the existing opinions will be removed. JasperTech (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This user abuses this encyclopedia in order to mock the scientific method, the academia and the system of peer-review through advocating pseudo-scientific (supernatural) explanations for historical events as if they would constitute science. I was inclined to believe that I was my mistake of being so harsh on him and recurring to vitriolic condemnations of pseudoscience, but this user simply refuses to get the point. As he persists in bashing whatever is relevant for the historical articles inside Wikipedia, he is a case of WP:COMPETENCE: he does not understand how history works, yet he pretends to correct bias in articles edited by many competent editors. He has to submit to the idea that history has a naturalistic methodology and that this is not something open for discussion. Even if the issue were open to discussion, Wikipedia would not be the place to discuss it, but such discussion would have to take place in peer-reviewed scientific journals, among the most prominent scholars in historical research. This user simply ignores Occam's razor and with it most of the scientific method. Furthermore, he does not admit that this is his problem, but has accused me of bias and violating WP:NPOV and attempting to silence Christians, and together with me he has accused the many editors of The Bible and history of having an anti-biblical bias. My sincere recommendation to him is to take science classes and come back an edit Wikipedia when he has at least basic understanding of how science works.

Since he is not able to understand abstract ideas, like having a scientific consensus upon methodology, I will give him an example of what historical research could establish in respect to relics. I saw a Discovery Channel show, advertised at http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/john-baptist-bones-120615.htm . Discovery has gathered a team of scientists who tried to establish if some bones (relics) found in Bulgaria would be the bones of John the Baptist.

"The result from the metacarpal hand bone is clearly consistent with someone who lived in the early first century AD," Oxford University professor Tom Higham said of the new study. "Whether that person is John the Baptist is a question that we cannot yet definitely answer and probably never will."

To the best ability of those scientists, it could not be proven that the bones belong to John the Baptist, since we don't have his DNA nor his dental X-Ray. It was not disproved either, since the data could not demonstrate that the relics were a forgery. So, the relics has been relegated to the limbo of neither proven genuine nor proven false. Remember that this does not mean falsifying a miracle, it simply means attempting to establish if some real bones belonged to a real person mentioned by the Bible. That's all history could do. It cannot be used to prove supernatural claims like the resurrection of Jesus and the divinity of Vespasian. I recommend him not to waste our time with such rubbish. He just takes for granted pseudohistory published in fringey fundamentalist magazines and conflates theological arguments with historical research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK I get it. Tgeorgescue is showing that I'm a fraud by letting me post all my "crazy ideas" over here. I know that I'm not supposed to fill the talk pages with debates about something, but about their content. I'm very sorry for getting off topic, but in the original "Bible and history" talk page was where it began. I recommend that any other person who is wondering about me look into that discussion over there and the points I raised about the bias of the article.

From now on I won't go into debates over beliefs in talk pages. But it seemed almost inevitable since Tgeorgescu was discussing the nature of pseudoscience and claiming that supernatural causation fits into that category. I know that many scientists consider supernatural explanations as pseudoscience, but according to WP:FRINGE the weight given to a certain view should be relevant to the number of people who hold it (it's acceptance). Since there is a large number of Christians who do not hold that view, and since the creation/evolution debate is one that is continuing today, I don't think Wikipedia should call miracles "pseudoscience," although it's perfectly fine to explain who believes that they are pseudoscience. I think all opinions should be allowed on Wikipedia (although we have to of course give them their due weight). Christianity seems to have a lot of weight to me.

Anyway, back to my main point. My main point was the bias in the Wikipedia page "The Bible and History." Tgeorgescue seems to think that the bias is perfectly acceptable, but to me it seems like an unambiguous contradiction of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

And just so all the viewers know, in response to the example provided by Tgeorgescue, I must say I absolutely agree. He seems to have set up a straw man argument against me, because I never said that miracles can be "proven" (actually, nothing can be proven with absolute confidence).

Looking forward to what others think! But I definitely want to comply with Wikipedia standards and I don't want to break the rules of competence. As for his charge that I refuse to get the point, I must ask, what point? The page he referenced talked about accepting the "consensus," although right now I see no consensus with just him arguing against me. There were in fact two other people who took my side who responded in the discussion on "The Bible and History," but that's not very many people. So I don't see how I broke that Wikipedia policy. JasperTech (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Both of you stop. This is not a forum for discussing scientific method versus religion. In fact, Wikipedia is not a forum for this sort of discussion. JasperTech, the first thing you should go do is read a veritable alphabet soup of policy pages. WP:V and WP:RS are the two most important ones. Also, consider WP:SOAP and WP:NOTFORUM. If you are seeking to discuss the merits of this versus that, then WP is not the place for you. We are not here to discuss validating one person's view over another, but to report the views of reliable sources. If you find that something is missing or slanted in the article, find a reliable source that says the contrary and most importantly discuss the source on the talk page not the material in the source. Whether you think Christianity has a lot of weight is irrelevant, since you are not a reliable source. Tgeorgescu, please refrain from dismissing a new editor's misunderstanding of how to edit here as rubbish as it's not civil. Blackmane (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Further comment. JasperTech, please also read WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Blackmane (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Blackmane! I think I remember reading those before, and yes, I do have a secondary source for my proposed change. What I would add would be based off of an Apologetics Press article, but since I'm not sure if those kinds of sources are allowed I would quote the first sources that the Apologetics Press article in turn cites. The paragraph or sentences I proposed adding onto the existing text to express a variety of opinions were cited from an academic journal called The Journal of Near Eastern Studies, and since Tgeorgescue said that it must be academic, I think this journal would qualify. But apparently he still doesn't think that the source qualifies because it's not a "serious" academic journal. But I don't know what that means since it seems to me he defines what a "serious" journal is according to his particular bias.

And yes, I promise I will no longer make Wikipedia into a forum. JasperTech (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange pattern detected at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

We are seeing an unusually large number of new accounts reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, all of which are of the pattern User:OfficialThusandso or User:ThusandsoOfficial. The account does not edit for a while, certainly does not edit the article Thusandso, and thus is not blocked by anybody at WP:UAA; and after a while the report drops off the UAA radar. Much as I prefer to AGF, I begin to worry whether somebody is attempting stealthily to set up a large batch of sleeper accounts which will quietly achieve autoconfirmed status, then sometime be used in a mass-attack scheme. Any comments? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As someone who tackles UAA often, the recent number of "OfficialThusandso"-type accounts doesn't seem unusually high to me. Even though those types of usernames are usually not blocked unless they engage in some type of promotional editing, I suppose soft-blocking them wouldn't be unreasonable. But it hardly seems worth the effort to do so in order to head off such an unlikely mass-attack scheme. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If they have the word "official" in their name, they'll b pretty easy to spot no matter how long they wait, yeah? :) Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's possible they're just registering the accounts with the view that, if they have then, no one can impersonate them at a later date. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket

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

---

I would like to ask why this "educational course" which has limited term is not confined to sandbox or userspace edits? It is not a wikiproject in the sense of permanent development of a subject's coverage. Why are the course members allowed to disrupt long-standing articles with uninformed (albeit good faith) edits based on dubious sources? The articles are there for the benefit of the readers and not for some educational joyride. Can this please be escalated as it is serious issue with the integrity and credibility of several articles at risk. Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• See above, by the same editor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Input needed regarding new "conflict resolution" project (and process?)

Input is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Conflict_Resolution#How_is_this_project_different_from_Dispute_Resolution_project to determine if a new project (and perhaps a new Dispute Resolution process) is needed. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

User:BlackJack: issues with WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF, among other things

Further I guess to this ANI report, in which User:BlackJack came to ANI declaring that an ongoing educational project was a "hoax," this editor has been increasingly problematic over the past few days. As I am now an involved admin (and fear I may have broken WP:3RR myself in the process), I'm reluctantly bringing this here. The last straw is User:BlackJack's moving the project page from Wikiproject Englishness and Cricket to Wikipedia:Englishness and Cricket, over two previous moves. I believe that this is the first time I've ever initiated a discussion in this venue.

Anyhow, here are some highlights. Plenty more diffs could be provided:

• Contravening WP:BITE: [24]
• Contravening WP:3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:BlackJack_reported_by_User:Jbmurray_.28Result:_.29
• Contravening WP:OWN: [25]
• Contravening WP:AGF: [26]

Beyond multiple discussions on the Education Noticeboard (also here), on the project talk page (also here and here), plus on the various article talk pages, I also opened up a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

User:BlackJack seems to think that the underlying problem is with the use of a source he regards as unreliable. But he hasn't bothered to comment at the relevant venue. Throughout, moreover, his tone has been unwelcoming and hostile.

Please note that I agree that User:BlackJack has raised some relevant issues of detail about the information that students have been adding to a number of pages dealing with cricket. But in my view the way he has been going about things is unhelpful and repeatedly contrary to due process.

Advice and thoughts most welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me say one more thing: I agree with many of BlackJack's specific points, and as I have said I think that (so far; the project is far from over) the students' contributions have had mixed results: some articles have definitely improved, in at least once case thanks to BlackJack's rewriting them in response to their interventions. At least one other has ended up rather askew, with undue weight put on (here) the importance of cricket on Englishness. But this is not a content dispute that I am raising here. The point is that Wikipedia articles improve thanks to good faith edits to which regular editors then respond with equal good faith, indeed correcting any errors that may have crept in, but taking into account new information, new sources, and so on. For a short while there may be some instability in an article before a new consensus is established. But this is the Wikipedia process. Sadly, User:BlackJack is not respecting it. I would have expected better of a long-term editor. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, responsibility for the 3RR rests with Murray who has repeatedly undone a bone fide reversion to remove false information introduced by the "Cricket and Englishness" group from the dubious source which he continues to defend. Please note that I am a subject expert re early cricket history and have written widely about it in and outside WP. Murray objects to the source being denounced (not only by me) and is intent on making a WP:POINT about the whole thing. During Murray's edit war, I twice spelled out to him that I am removing false information but he just ignores it so what can I do?

If there is one thing that is unwelcome and hostile it is Murray's attitude. I have the support of two other CRIC members at least and these two are both subject experts also. Murray arrogantly insists he is right about this source even though we have in numerous forums and citing the work of several recognised authorities proved that references taken from this book are false and misleading. No matter what we write, he ignores and reverts. By taking the view that we are attempting to subvert the work done by the students he is breaching WP:AGF because we have not removed anything done by them that is useful, only that which we as experts know to be false or misleading. Our view in CRIC is that our articles are there for the benefit of the readers and so must be credible and as accurate as possible. Murray just cannot see this and his behaviour throughout this dispute has been reprehensible. He simply will not communicate with anyone who doesn't agree with him. His attempts above and at the 3RR page to discredit are sad and pathetic.

The issue here is ensuring that long-standing articles, including one that is WP:GA remain credible and of use to the readers. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've seen the two ANI threads by BlackJack. I've not really understood his issue with this Wikiproject, and, having been told twice that this is not an appropriate venue for his complaints, and that there is no issue with this project, it is flat-out wrong of him to move it from the Wikiproject namespace. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. That is a separate issue and my contention is that an exercise of that kind should not intrude on established articles: they should use sandboxes. I repeat that the issue here is protecting the credibility and accuracy of long-standing articles by preventing addition of dubious or false information. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Completely relevant - this ANI thread mentions your moving of the Wikiproject, which is therefore not a separate issue. As is the fact you've opened two ANIs here - also relevant. Don't try and pawn it off as irrelevant. Lukeno94 (talk)

I would ask whether or not User:BlackJack has read Dominic Malcom's book Globalizing Cricket and, if not, under what grounds he is able to judge its credibility. I believe that he certainly had not read it upon the first reversion of contributions made citing Malcom, and therefore his stating of credibility as the main, principle issue seems rather strange. Furthermore, to echo others, why has he not expressed his proof of its lack of credibility on the reliable sources page? In addition, as a student in the Englishness and Cricket project, User:BlackJack began his comments and suggestions regarding our project in an incredibly rude and condescending manner. Although I realized that it is not the job of Wikipedia or its users to provide a pleasant experience for contributors, his reaction to our project has been completely anti-academic in its stifling of education/learning. While I understand that as a newcomer to WP, my input in this subject "may be disregarded" (as mentioned on this page), I just thought I'd share my opinion and experience. Aependleton29 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

As a Campus Ambassador involved in this project, I wanted to weigh in by saying that the last thing any of us want is controversy. We are simply trying to enrich the student experience by constructing knowledge and we fully expected push back and debate about student edits. The students are making every attempt to be conscientious. They are doing quality research, defending their facts with cited sources and behaving in a way that reflects well on our university, especially in the face of the enumerated violations of WP:BITE, WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Regardless of whether our project name was too similar to theirs, the hostility is uncalled for and violates the fundamental idea behind a wiki in general and Wikipedia specifically. I directly addressed this issue with BlackJack more than once in the last week, and as of our last exchange the WP:BITE issue hasn't resurfaced yet but the WP:OWN issue is unresolved. All we are asking is that our students are treated with civility and respect, as per the 5 pillars, and that our contributions are welcome even if they are removed after consensus has been reached through sourced evidence to the contrary. Discussion of sources should be a valuable learning experience and should improve the article for readers and project admins alike. Combative, insulting comments and misperceived ownership of a public wiki is out of bounds however and should not be tolerated in this community. I'd also add that this is an isolated incident for the most part and many of the other admins have been helpful and supportive, jbmurray being one shining example. --Oline73 (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No you are not a Campus Ambassador, are you? You can't just call yourself one, you have to apply. I'd wait until you've been editing for more than a month. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am. I agree that you can't just call yourself one. I agree you have to apply first. I've been editing for years on and off, both anonymously and with this account. Please refrain from posting inaccurate statements. Ironically, much of this debate is about credible sources and you're not helping your cause with that last post. Maybe delete it and we can start over? Oline73 (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No class project is exempt form the WP rules, but if there are only minor problems, such as the acceptability of one particular source, and the matter is disputed, and the argument looks like it may be bitter or disruptive, it might well be deferred until the project is over. Courses are intended to teach students how to write Wikipedia articles, not how to engage in Wikipedia disputes. Obvious this does not apply to things like copyvio and the like. I remind BlackJack that nobody here is treated as an expert-- not the instructor, the students, or himself DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DGG has it. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, DGG makes a fair point but it says somewhere in amongst all the pedantic rules that WP welcomes subject matter experts. In terms of early cricket, I am an SME and have written widely about the subject outside WP. The way things are going with people like Murray who know everything and understand nothing, I will soon be writing exclusively outside WP. Whether you treat anyone as an expert or not doesn't address the fundamental issue here that Murray, Oline & Co. are trying to introduce material into long-standing articles, one of which is GA, that is false or misleading or, in one case, dangerous nonsense based on a single book that is outside the consensus view formed by numerous other works written by people who are acknowledged authorities. Whether I am an expert or not, I am trying to ensure that the early cricket histories contain information that is correct and will not misinform or confuse the readers, which should be what this discussion is about. The ball is in your court now as I am becoming sick and tired of pedantic, self-important admins who think they know more about articles than the people who write them do. I can quote numerous SMEs who have quit WP because they were undermined in that way and I am seriously thinking I should join them. Murray is not fit to be admin. He ignores anyone who doesn't agree with him and then makes a great big WP:POINT about it all not just here but also on the 3RR page. Absolutely pathetic. I think I will pack this in, actually, and you can rewrite all the cricket articles based on the definitive authority Malcolm and remove everything by crackpots like Arlott, Birley and Wisden who clearly didn't know what they were talking about. Absolute block-headed stupidity. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackJack, I am quite up for a proper discussion of the issues. The problem is that your attitude militates against it: for you, it is your way or the highway. As I've repeatedly said, I agree with many of your specific points. The issue is how to deal with them, in such a way that the encyclopedia (and these particular articles) benefit. Intransigence and insults don't seem to me to be the best way forward. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would just add by way of comment and context, and perhaps slightly to the one side of the specific issue raised in this thread, that there are some problems here, which it is not surprising Jack has reacted to and which are similar to those that came up with the last college wikiproject that I came across. While they are no doubt well intentioned, and indeed it is probably a good way of getting people involved here, the upshot is that a whole group of very enthusiastic people suddenly arrive en masse at existing pages (or create new ones) and start inputting some very analytical, comment-heavy and discursive essay-style content. That is happening here, eg on the Cricket in England page and also on the English national identity page, where it is not clear that the additions are an improvement from an encyclopedic perspective. The problem with this project is compounded by the fact that they seem to have at best a single-track and at worst a borderline-POV outlook from the start, in terms of being about the assumed relationship between cricket and Englishness, and also that they're focused on the one book, which leads to undue weight and further POV issues, even if it is an accurate and reliable source. N-HH talk/edits 09:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that - so our role is to educate them but more specifically, educate their instructor on how to prevent such encroachment on the Wikipedia norms ... and not to call them vandals (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c with Bwilkins) For what it's worth, I largely agree with N-HH's points here. I've repeatedly said that the issue is not with whether or not this text is a reliable source, but with questions of undue weight. It is also true that they have a particular perspective (I wouldn't call it a POV), in that they are specifically interested in one dimension of cricket--an important one, but not necessarily the one that interests BlackJack. So I quite agree that it's not at all a question of simply accepting the edits that they are making: some negotiation, refinement, and (well) education is in order. For which purpose subject-matter experts are invaluable! (There is nowhere here any attack on subject-matter experts.) But negotiation, refinement, and education are a far cry from the hostility that BlackJack has shown the project. What I'm asking here is for BlackJack to reign in that hostility; and if he refuses to do so (his responses on his user page suggest that in fact he prefers to lash out more widely still), I'm asking admins to intervene. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• I won't be intervening as I'm a member of the cricket project and can quite understand where Jack's coming from, even if he should have expressed himself better. I will give a few thoughts, though. First, I'd suggest that maybe a WikiProject isn't the best way to set up a class project/course any more, seeing as they have made Wikipedia:Course pages recently (apologies to Oline, I'd meant to tell him about this several days ago, but it slipped my mind). Second, Jack you need to cool down mate. I get that it can be frustrating when a whole bunch of people come in out of nowhere and start making what you feel to be edits that make the articles worse off, but if you keep going you'll end up blocked and, honestly, no one wants that. Just leave the articles in question for a bit – if the absolute worst comes to worst, the edits can always be reverted even in a month's time. Last, I think it would be positive move if we could just leave Jack's talk page alone for a while – telling him that it's his "job" and so on to educate these students is probably only going to make matters worse at this time. P.S. Bwilkins, has going to an editor's talk page who you don't already have positive relationship with and telling them they're being a "WP:DICK" ever made someone calm down? Jenks24 (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa there - first, I have no idea that I "don't have a positive relationship" with the individual - as an uninvolved, totally 3rd party, I was taking it upon myself to pull them out of the void and communicate positively. I at no point called them a WP:DICK - please read the context of the statement a lot more carefully before making ridiculous accusations - honestly, based on your history on this project Jenks, I expected better from you (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I probably could have worded that better, I didn't mean to imply you have a negative relationship with him, just that as you say, you have never been involved with him before. In my experience, editors being told they're acting or being a "WP:DICK" will only react poorly to being told that unless they have some sort of past friendship/positive communications with the person telling them that. And come on, surely if you write "they're complaining because you're being a WP:DICK to members of a class project" it's accurate to summarise that as "telling them they're being a 'WP:DICK'". It was never meant to be an accusation. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi,Jenks24, and thanks for the level-headed contribution to this discussion. I agree that it isn't Jack's job to educate anyone, except in the broad sense of the word. Meaning, everyone on Wikipedia is expected to "educate" people when they disagree with their edits by presenting proof that the source is bad for specific reasons and then reasoning out the continuing construction of the knowledge delivered in the article. I also agree that name calling or personal attacks from anyone for any reason are unacceptable. With regard to your suggestion to using course pages in the future, I think that is a good suggestion but somewhat tangential to this issue. It wouldn't have made a difference if the students were part of a certain kind of project or connected to no project at all. The debate is centered around 2 basic questions- 1) Does someone who spends a lot of time and effort editing an article have ownership of the article? and 2) Is it important to be civil and respectful when disputing edits to articles on Wikipedia? I feel it is clear that claiming "ownership" violates the fundamental principles of wikis and specifically Wikipedia (see WP:OWN), and that civil, respectful discussion is also a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia's process, especially toward newer editors, (see WP:BITE). I doubt anyone would disagree with those two statements, but I would appreciate confirmation that they are indeed accurate. If they are accurate, then I'd say we've reached consensus and this issue is settled. --Oline73 (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree course page/WikiProject thing is relatively tangential, just thought I'd throw it out there. In response to your two basic questions, the second is easiest to answer: yes, it is important to be respectful and Jack went over the line – he could have made the same points without being as attacking. All I'm saying is that a block would probably make things worse. The first question, "ownership", is a bit harder. Yes, it's a wiki and anyone can edit, but sometimes you (just saying that sort of generally, not specifically at "you", Oline) need to understand how frustrating it can be to see an article you've spent a significant amount of time on and really invested in suddenly get changed in a way that you think makes the article worse off. And we need to give some leeway there. So I'm not saying the language or tone Jack used was OK, but his heart was in the right place and, from a relatively quick glance, some of the concerns he had were valid. Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It was essentially rash for a group of American undergraduates to be asked to start editing articles on cricket - have any of them actually ever put bat to ball I wonder? If a group of English students had started major edits to major articles on baseball I'm sure the reaction of local editors would have been at least as intemperate. If the group had followed more closely the advice of the Education Program, and had actually had experienced advice from a Campus Ambassador or other editors, this rather common problem should have been avoided. I would advise the cricket editors to be a little patient. Sadly students doing WP editing as part of their course very rarely return to look at the pages after the assignment is finished. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod understands it the way I do. First, there are a few topic areas I have learned never to touch, and cricket is one of them--it is much too easy to make really foolish errors when the subject is totally unfamiliar. Many things I never previously knew about I've learned enough about here to have some degree of confidence with minor edits, but this topic has defeated me--as it has most Americans. Even if the instructor and the ambassador are knowledgable, the students presumably aren't.

But a Wikiproject was not the way to do it, and those involved with the class should have realized this also. We have done several years of experimentation to find a class structure that works fairly well both in permitting the students to work on the subject and also in not disrupting other areas of the project. Further experimentation is always needed--there almost certainly will be better ways in some circumstances, as not all classes have been successful. And anyone has the right to work here as they see fit, or organize a class as they see fit, if they can do it within the usual guidelines. But if someone does experiment, they need to be particularly aware of the possibility of unexpected effects, and understand how to respond to them: experimentation on complicated live machinery in the RW that people depend on is inherently risky, and those taking responsible for the routine operation must protect against its disruption.

With regard to expertise, the way I have worded it is that any true expert should be in sufficient command of the sources to be able to prove their position without having to rely on credentials because they will have sufficient command of the subject and the sources to clearly justify their positions. Any true expert well-suited for work in a cooperative project should be very glad of the opportunity to do so. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:LesLein

Following the line of Goldbergs Liberal fascism User:LesLein tries to portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US [27]. After finding out that Goldbergs Liberal fascism is reagarded as fringe and not as a reliable source he changed his strategy. As he admittet to the noticeboard "Since Goldberg is so controversial at Wikipedia and elsewhere, I only use his book to find other sources." He Cherry picked some quotes out of context and arranged them in a way that imposes the notion of New Deal Liberal fascism upon the readers. Since then he continuously makes edits like that one until today.

A request at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Charges_of_fascism_and_charges_of_communism was commented by several users all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals. It is now resolved by User:UseTheCommandLine with the comment relentless WP:POVPUSH, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DEADHORSE, progress towards WP:CON seems unlikely.

As User:RashersTierney [28] and User:Wing gundam [29] have done before, User:UseTheCommandLine left a note at LesLeins talk page to stop his disruptive editing [30] LesLein responded that Wikipedia tells him to be bold and that NPOV takes precedence over consensus so he "would rather continue to give it a try at the article a little while longer." [31]. I am afraid that dispute resolution is pointless since User:LesLein apparently does not listen to anyone. --Pass3456 (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I spent some time looking into this and Pass3456 has a point: we're dealing with a POV warrior. There are two options here, both of which leaning on "I didn't hear that", basically: a topic ban for the article, in indef block until the editor understands that those fringey theories aren't making it through the consensus-making processes and that their work is nothing but disruptive. Such editors are a timesink and help drive away positive editors. Now, a topic ban is easily proposed, but I don't know if the editor's behavior on other articles is any better. If the answer to that is "no", then an indef block is the proper way to go here, along with the standard offer of course. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for the length, but the complain has many errors of omission and commission requiring a response. I think that a long response is better than providing a bunch of links. I am also staying up late to submit a timely response; so please forgive me if the editing isn’t as smooth as I prefer.

Pass3456 says that I try to “portray Franklin Delano Roosevelt as some kind of a fascist semi-dictator and the New Deal as some kind of Mussolini/Hitler policy in the US.” The first of my edits that Pass3456 goes to says In his college textbook historian John Garraty, a leading New Deal scholar, wrote that the NRA “was also similar to experiments being carried out by the fascist dictator Benito Mussolini in Italy and by the Nazis in Adolf Hitler’s Germany. It did not, of course, turn America into a fascist state, but it did herald an increasing concentration of economic power in the hands of interest groups, both industrialists’ organizations and labor unions.” This was a very prominent college textbook, not fringe at all. If readers check Garraty’s Wiki article they will see that he held prominent positions among historians. On the New Deal talk page Pass3456 indicated that Garraty was a good reference, but this editor then ends up removing what Garraty has to say on the subject. Another editor previously restored my Garraty material was “well sourced and temporarily restored it.” If the information I originally provided from the Garraty article had been retained, I probably would be long gone from the New Deal.

I’m probably the only one with the textbook handy, so I could have left out the part that NRA didn’t turn America into a fascist country. At other points, I provide quotations that Roosevelt was neither a totalitarian nor a dictator. I also provide examples (handling unemployment, rural electrification, deurbanization, regulations etc.) from other sources to make sure that readers won’t think that the articles were referring to dictatorial aspects of fascism. This isn’t especially derogatory; one could even say FDR’s willingness to consider radical sources to deal with desperate times was laudatory.

What most bothers Pass3456 is when I provided a quote indicating that on October 5, 1933, Harold Ickes recorded a private conversation in his diary. Roosevelt told Ickes that “what we were doing in this country were some of the things that were being done in Russia and even some things that were being done under Hitler in Germany. But we were doing them in an orderly way.”

My first source was Goldberg’s article. On December 23, another editor reverted it as unreliable because even the title did not pass a “BS detector.” The user did not call it fringe. (The fact that so many Wikipedia editors take for granted that Goldberg’s book is unreliable without reading any of it can be considered bias.) I then got a used copy of Ickes’ diary and found the quote. Pass3456 reverted it as original research, even though the Ickes diaries are used as sources for four articles and he does not object to other original research in the article. (I did not know about OR at the time.) I then found an excellent academic article by Lewis Feuer with the quote (Wiki’s Feuer article says that in 1963, the year after the article, Feuer was invited to Moscow to lecture the Soviets on Marxism). On January 17, Pass3456 reverted it as original research without checking the source. Pass3456 and others keep moving the goal line to justify removing my edits.

I am unaware of any Wikipedia noticeboard decision that Goldberg’s book is fringe. (BTW, one of Pass3456’s favorite sources, Stanley Payne, agrees with Goldberg on several key points. More on this later.) Even if it is, there’s nothing wrong with using the footnotes and text to find good sources and verify information. If the administrators determine otherwise, it will become Wikipedia’s practice to determine what books editors are allowed to read and use offline before doing Wikipedia edits. I don’t think we want to go there.

At the fringe noticeboard I asked for Pass3456 and others to provide the real context for situations where I took quotes out of context. I request that Pass3456 check the Feuer article and Ickes diary and provide the real context of the Ickes quote, not using context I previously provided. Pass3456 can quote up to 300 words from the Ickes diary without a copyright violation. Pass3456 can also provide a few exact sentences from the Feuer article (along with the page numbers); the first page doesn’t count. This should not take long since Pass3456 is confident about knowing the context. I already know the context and can check on what is provided.

I don’t have time to comment on the long list of links. An administrator checking them will find that I often rebutted them. If an administrator has questions, please let me know. One point I’d like to make is that one of the link titles states that a quote is “falsified.” Falsified means dishonesty; besides that the name of the author is wrong. Pass3456 knows that I previously reported this as a BLP issue, yet repeats it. It is dangerous to Wikipedia for editors to repeat unsubstantiated accusations against writers.

Pass3456 states that my edits were “commented by several users [at the noticeboard] all disagreeing with User LesLeins proposals.” This is not true. Near the end, one editor wrote, “There obviously are some similarities between FDR's policies on the one hand and communist and fascist policies on the other.”

At the fringe noticeboard a second editor wrote “I am increasingly convinced that the problem is mostly an original research (well and NPOV and undue weight) problem. If we could all agree that the notion of ‘liberal fascism’, that basically implicates that any political group (exept libertarians) are fascists is a not notable subject, we could move on to the original research noticeboard.” The editor is Pass3456.

As the New Deal Revision History https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Deal&offset=&limit=250&action=history indicates, on March 6 I added a quote from Stanley Payne, whom Pass3456 holds in high regard, indicating that he agreed with the types of edits I had been making, saying that the New Deal’s work programs were “rather like” the Germans’. UseTheCommandLine edited the short paragraph with the quote. This editor and another must not have thought that I was pushing a fringe theory. Pass3456 indicated that the Payne quote was fringe theory. It was probably an honest mistake, but once UseTheCommandLine got involved in this, he or she should have avoided doing any more arbitration. It is like a judge ruling on a case after getting personally involved. In any fair-minded legal system, I would win an appeal easily.

UseTheCommandLine acknowledged that he had no enforcement authority. He only said I shouldn’t make any more disruptive edits. When I said I make a few more edits, I also said that they would all be reliable and relevant.” I was working on one today. It is based on information in Foreign Affairs and a Pulitizer Prize winning book. I can provide a summary or draft if you want.

I acknowledge that I may have misunderstood the “Be Bold” advice. I think there’s a statement that core principles such as NPOV trump consensus. Wikipedia states “Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” That is what I have been trying to do. For example, the article has a block quote from FDR completely denying any interest in radicalism. To me NPOV means providing information that Roosevelt said something very different in private. Readers can then review some details and judge for themselves. I am not the one preventing this.

The article also quotes Herbert Hoover’s claim that the New Deal implemented the Swope Plan. My edits to indicate that this is true was reverted. If administrators go to the Gerard Swope article they will find evidence from a Leon Keyserling interview that a major piece of the New Deal was based on the Swope Plan (I made the edits). Right now, the article says nothing about what happened to the Swope Plan. Garraty said that the New Deal and Nazi anti-depression policies had “striking similarities.” He also said that it was “neither capricious nor perverse” to point this out. Pass3456 and others simply won’t allow any of this.

Pass3455 does not mention something else I said on my talk page: “I may end up going to an administrator as a last resort.” I wrote earlier that I might submit a fringe complaint myself. Saying that the Payne quote is fringe is itself an example of fringe theory. (The quote is not out of context; it is the only sentence in Payne’s book comparing New Deal unemployment policies to Germany’s.) It is the same with Garraty and Feuer. There is also a BLP problem since some of these writers, such as Payne and Dan P. Silverman are still alive. I was also considering a NPOV complaint for reasons described earlier.

The reason I don’t usually listen to Pass3456 is that his own conduct is often wrong. This editor wrote on the New Deal talk page that my edits were wrong because the ratio between quoted text and non-quotation text was too high. There is no such rule; Wikipedia encourages quotations. Pass3456 says one time that Payne is an expert and later says that a quote from Payne is “fringe.” I can cite other invalid reasons my edits were reverted, such as a false statement about the context of the Ickes quote.

I also believe that Pass3456 engaged in Wikihounding. Thirty minutes after he or she last reverted my New Deal edits, he or she reverted my edit on Joseph McCarthy without providing a single reason. (Before it comes up, I am not trying to rehabilitate McCarthy, just provide information to fill gaps.)

At the noticeboard Pass3456 accused me of “fabricating an analogy,” without providing a single example. I considered making a complaint about personal attacks. I considered submitting a BLP complaint but don’t know if I can do that for derogatory statements about myself.

I only started making substantial Wikipedia edits late last year. The only other “war” I can think of (it’s getting late) was the Hollywood Blacklist. This link (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hollywood_blacklist&action=historysubmit&diff=543930352&oldid=508972529) compares the last version before I got involved to the current version. I added the paragraph where Huston describes the Hollywood ten’s motives. I also wrote that the Communist party advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government and took money and direction from the Soviet Union. The objection to me was that this was POV. It is only POV in the sense that it is POV to say that Paris is in France. My sources were described as unreliable because they are “professional anti-communists,” as if that isn’t POV. None are unreliable. One, Theodore Draper, was an award-winning historian who used to write for the Daily Worker. He was a professional communist if anything. After another editor joined me, all of the ridiculous praise of the old American communist party was removed. The net effect of my involvement was an improvement.

I have purchased books, including one recommended by Pass3456, to make sure my information on the New Deal isn’t inaccurate or distorted. This shouldn’t affect your decision, but it indicates a willingness to ensure that my edits aren’t fringe. When administrators look over my other edits (Gandhi, Charles Sumner, Preston Brooks, the Caning of Charles Sumner, John Brown’s Raid, John Brown, and Joe McCarthy) because I have read multiple related works on these subjects. I try to fill gaps with interesting and relevant information. I usually pick old topics to avoid a lot of controversy. That is what I tried to do with the New Deal, though perhaps in a misguided way.

I deny attempts to promote fringe theories or push a POV. My interpretation of NPOV varies from others but seems consistent with the quotation from the NPOV page. To same everyone time, I am willing to operate as follows at the New Deal article and others where edits may be controversial:

1. I will go to the talk page first to see what others think for everything but the most obvious problems (of course a lot of my New Deal edits were made in the same spirit; I will be more careful) 2. I will propose compromises 3. I will escalate to noticeboards, teahouse, or other places to discuss serious issues

In return, I request that administrators:

1. Do not jump to conclusions. I too was surprised at some of the things authors said about the New Deal and radical influences 2. Provide specifics when questioning this response 3. Give me a decent amount of time to respond to others 4. Allow me later to provide evidence (short) from other scholars (there are plenty) 5. Allow me to continue editing the articles mentioned above 6. Permit me to submit my own complaints no matter what happens

Another editor suggested that I go to the article called Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Pass3456 suggested on my talk page that I go to Conservopedia. That is not a welcoming approach to a relatively new editor. I prefer to stay here.

Thank you for your time. LesLein (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Um...no offence, but when you post an essay of almost 15K, WP:TLDR kicks in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am keeping the response a lot shorter.

First of all: The article allready describes the relevant scholarly conclusions. Adding and discussing proposals for alledged similarities and differences would overlay the whole rest of the article and give undue weight to a topic that every major work on the New Deal ignores as irrelevant. E.g. David M. Kennedy (historian) has written a pulitzer price winning thick book on that subject called Freedom From Fear that can be considered thoroughly covering on it´s subject. It does not make any charges of fascism or communism. It is the same with every other scholarly book on the New Deal.

Second: Yes, there are a lot of problems in how User:Lesleins uses his quote picks too. First of all they are cherry picked, he only cites quotes that Goldberg quoted to make his statement of Liberal fascism. Then they are cited out of context. E.g. he cited that Hitler and Mussolini send diplomatic notes to Roosevelt -> it is true but doesn´t mean anything since it is standard diplomatic behaviour. By presenting that non-topic (instead of a lot other relevant topics) he gives it a weight that historians don´t do (for good reasons). A historian might display that incident in an 300 pages book (without making anything near to a charge of fascism), that does not mean that an 8 page Wikipedia article should present the same under the heading charges of fascism. Several users suggested that LesLein should stick to scholarly research -> presenting scholarly conclusion. He should not pick one out of many sentences he likes most since it seems to link FDR to Hitler when the secondary source in the end does not link FDR to Hitler since LesLein is then drawing a conclusion that the cited book does not. Another example: one could say that Hitler and Roosevelt both were the first to regularly use radio to reach the people. On the other hand Roosevelt did that in a fireside chat way, Hitler almost every time in a hate speech. Now is it a similarity or a difference? I belive that it is not up to Wikipedia user to draw such conclusions. As long as no historian gives an example for something the scholar evaluates as a fascist move of the Roosevelt administration it is at least original research when User:LesLein does otherwise.

By the way: LesLein does not present similarities and differences but only similarities which obviously violates WP:NPOV. --Pass3456 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I will be even shorter. The response by LesLein is typical and there is no way to discuss an issue with someone who insists on posting those types of responses who nobody who has a life has any time(or desire) to read. The editors edit history is the epitome of disruptive editing. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 8:10 am, Today (UTC−4)

User Weireth removing images

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

---

Over the past week I have witnessed user Werieth (talk · contribs) trolling Wikipedia pages that contain images in tables and removing them citing WP:NFCC standards. While I understand Wikipedia has various standards for displaying content it appears all this user is doing is trolling pages on the Wikipedia for such content and removing. The number of pages having images removed in a day is quite high. On Monday this user was blocked for a 3RR and minutes later unblocked by another user and then the users was back to removing content as if he hadn't learnt his lesson at all. If the number of pages the user was removing images from was small or from a one section of the Wikipedia I wouldn't consider this an issue but there is no pattern as to what the user is removing he is simply trolling the Wikipedia for such content. I feel all this user is doing is upsetting other users on the Wikipedia and using the guidelines to bully people. Bhowden (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• That's a nice little smear, Bhowden. I'll give you a few minutes to replace "trolling" with "trawling", which must have been the word you meant to use. Then I'll explain what else is wrong with your commentary. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Alright then. Your "trolling" is a personal attack. You are here, I presume, to convince readers of this forum that you are right and Werieth is wrong--insulting the opponent is the wrong way to go about it. Moreover, you are wrong already. I have no idea what you mean with "Wikipedia has various standards for displaying content" but I do know that a. your talk page is a pretty clear indication that you have no idea what such standards might be (it's the policy laid down in WP:NFCC) and b. Werieth seems to be in the right in the NFC struggle's they're in. Yes, they were blocked, and unblocked minutes later because of a 3R exemption--so the suggestion you're trying out here, that Werieth is a repeat offender, is bollocks. "Upsetting other users"--well, that's tough. I see that Werieth has taken on a pretty unpopular job, which is to make us operate within the legal guidelines. That those guidelines prevent some editors from splattering pages full with illegally used non-free images, editors who (see Werieth's talk page) seem to be on a crusade to get them banned or otherwise censured, editors who treat Wikipedia article pages like a kindergarten project, makes it all the more important that we properly read the guidelines and support those who are incorrectly put up as partypoopers who should be blocked. Oh, and I'm placing a NPA-3 warning on your talk page for this "trolling" nonsense. Mind the boomerang. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Also, I see now that you have said similar things before, in the section "Revert war, block/unblock, and all sorts of mess", above. It's a bit of a shame that no one commented on your choice of words at the time--but what is clear is that you wanted a lot more out of that thread than you got, and now you're trying again. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• As a neutral observer, looking at two of the articles in question, Classic Hits FM, The Rock (radio station), Werieth is well within their rights to enforce NFCC. In fact, those are two of the most appallingly terrible and POV radio station articles I have read in a long time, and they could do with a major culling (every local variation in that article can be summarized easily into a table consisting of one paragraph, only radio insiders care about the fate of former employees and one source among all that text in Classic Hits FM? No article should be in this type of state). As for the issues of the images in Classic Hits FM, they add nothing to my understanding beyond 'this is the font they used for their logo in 1990; that's cute, but lord is that gaudy'. I have reverted the images myself, and they should not be re-added, and you need to understand WP:NFCC very strongly. Any user with a line of that many violations in their talk page should not come here to wonder why they're being picked on when we have asked you many times to tell us why that image is important enough to go in an article. Nate • (chatter) 00:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Ongoing vandalism from User:206.231.99.154

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

---

Noticed a long string of minor edits by User:206.231.99.154 that in their entirety look like a pattern of subtle vandalism. Many appear to be dates changed by one number. A look at the talk page reveals many warnings, but by the similarity of the offending edits, it looks like it's been done by the same person occasionally popping in to make mischief. – JBarta (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

206.231.99.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a static corporate IP that has a habit of messing with sports-related articles. The last block was 1 month starting on 2 January 2013, after which the disruptive editing was pretty quickly resumed. I have now issued a 3-months block. De728631 (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Ongoing blanking from Imorthodox23

Imorthodox23 (talk · contribs): Repeated, sustained blanking without explanation. Has been warned numerous times by numerous users—user then deletes the warnings from his or her talk page. Today I reverted this, for example: [32]. Judging by the comments on the user's talk page, this is also happening outside of English Wikipedia. I tried to handle this at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but it appears a bot just removed it from the listing for reasons unknown to me ([33]). I now list it here where human eyes can see it. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is vandalism occurring at another encyclopedia by the Wikimedia Foundation, then I'd suggest reporting them at the Meta-Wiki using the global blocks process. Just a note. TBrandley ^(review) 02:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Point of information: today's cross-wiki spree consisted mostly of unalphabetizing a list (in two cases, after the edit was reverted, it was reinstated by an IP). They have in the past been contentious edits, and the editor is blocked indef. for that reason on ru. So far as I can see, they have never given an edit summary, and there may be a competence issue, although much of it may have dissipated with time - this was September 2010. Also this first edit to their talk page mentions a previous account. All I can see that we can do is keep an eye on them. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've requested a global lock over on Meta. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

Bhaskarbhagawati (talk · contribs) is currently engaged in bad faith editing. In the article Undivided Kamrup district he is trying to insert some his own POV, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from references. He are some examples of his activities.

• He started making POV edits (diff). I asked him to discuss edits before making changes (diff)
• He ignored the invitation to discuss and continued aggressively editing, which included removal of references (diff). He removed the reference to Richards 1995.
• I inserted some text, which he then proceeded to move around. He even arbitrarily changed direct quote from references. (diff). Please note the change in the quote: "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the British occupation" to "The Manas then became the Ahom-Mughal boundary until the Burmese occupation". This change is buried in the text, and not easily noticed. The direct quote is available freely (http://books.google.com/books?id=HHyVh29gy4QC&q=page+247#v=onepage&q=british%20occupation&f=false)

Chaipau (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Everything is as per source which is in article itself. Parts of Assam are under Burmese Empire from 1921 to 1925 before British forces take control in 1826. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference deletion by User:Herr Gruber

User:Herr Gruber deleted references, content, and ELs over a whole series of article with no rational other than the note "Mike Sparks is not a reliable source":

diffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiffdiff

It came to my attention when Herr Gruber deleted a link to an online copy of a 1990 article by an unrelated author diff at Collimator sight. User seems to be claiming anything on a Mike Sparks related webpage is "something he made up"[34]. The writer in question (Mike Sparks) seems to have many published articles in the field and it looks like the material being referenced in the articles was not opinion, but instead was technical information and re-posted old articles/documents. Since the linked article in question used at the Collimator sight article was not even written by Mike Sparks I asked the user to take it to WP:RSN to show the claims of "not a reliable source", "altered or forged", "some crank's website full of his own hideous opinions", "He is a lunatic", "a crank and a liar" was more than the user's opinion[35][36], but the user simply keeps deleting the link diff. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll give you my initial thoughts. From my mile high view, combatreform.org claims it is staffed by experts, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Herr Gruber's opinion on the reliability (or otherwise) on Mike Sparks needs to be documented on WP:RSN and agreed by consensus. More importantly, I see you edit warring with your reverts on Collimator sight here, here and here. Further reverts could have resulted in you being blocked for a short period. As soon as you get into a back-and-forth revert pattern with anyone, you need to step back, take it to talk, and wait for consensus. I know it means the article sits in what you might consider to be a "worse" state, but it probably doesn't matter too much in the long term scheme of things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)