Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

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)

I've been advised to ask for WP:ARBIND protection, which may take a day or so to make the request. Don't wait for me to do it if you have the time and patience to make the filing. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 16 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: [1] [2] [3]. This was after someone proposed what seemed to me to be a pretty decent summary taken from an unquestionably independent and secondary source: [4], 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: [5]. 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 [6]). 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)

I've left a note with User:Risker but I'm doubtful that WP:INDIA applies, since it was set up to deal with India/Pakistan conflicts. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ARBIND is no longer restricted to India/Pakistan conflicts. It was amended in July 2012 to include "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 19:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW: What part of WP:ARBIND is relevant to Abhidevananda's actions? I see that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat 2 which appear to be similar to what we are dealing with here. Location (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the Sarkar problem is very similar to the Prem Rawat problem; but of course the outcomes of that arbcom case are specific to Prem Rawat and associated editors, they don't really apply here except as a sad lesson of what can happen. bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe may have already seen this, but it appears that "conduct at Progressive Utilization Theory falls within the scope of discretionary sanctions" authorized by WP:ARBIND and that we "can reasonably bring an enforcement request against Abhidevananda". (See User talk:Risker#Need a quick Arb opinion.) Location (talk) 17:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the page protection on PROUT come off automatically today? Garamond Lethet
c 01:26, 18 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)

See Drmies? You have been Shineyed! He shoots his opinions at you first, and asks questions later. If you would take the time to read all of his comments he likes to speak as a Wiki-dictator. Any reasonable person could see that this is all a sham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.10.112 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please mind WP:NPA, even if you have been wronged, two of them don't make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet ten pages of nothing that resembles dialogue with all the banning and bullying never solves the real problem -- absolute power corrupts absolutely. Funny how comments like these always favor the bully and never present anything truthful. Is Wikipedia now a playground with no adult supervision given these juvenile behaviors? Ten pages of no solutions says "yes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.10.112 (talk) 14:50, 16 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: [7]
• Contravening WP:3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:BlackJack_reported_by_User:Jbmurray_.28Result:_.29
• Contravening WP:OWN: [8]
• Contravening WP:AGF: [9]

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)

Well you're not on the list, and your one-month-old user page doesn't say so. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That list is no longer maintained. (I'll mark it historical right now.) The current list of active Campus Ambassadors is Special:CampusAmbassadors. Oline73 is indeed one. Sorry for the confusion.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 00:29, 15 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)

And I'll just add that, as a result of negotiation and compromise, the page on English national identity is now improved. It's rather a good example of how things should go. Yes, for a while the enthusiastic efforts of the students meant that far too much emphasis was placed on the role of cricket. Now, as N-HH notes, it's much more reasonable. Again, this is the kind of to-and-fro that Wikipedia editing involves. Nobody is suggesting that the student edits (or anyone else's) are sacrosanct and can't be touched. The problem is when an experienced editor above all simply shows hostility and reverts wholesale. This is the issue with Jack's attitude. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 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)

On that as a side, side point, I really think people ought to stop the regular references to WP:DICK, let alone accusing people – as indeed was done here – of "being a WP:DICK". Regardless of what the page/essay actually says, and whatever people aim to mean by it, it comes across, to me at least, as a pretty direct and deliberately offensive insult. Maybe it's a North American vs British thing, but to these ears/eyes it's certainly not something that's going to help an already difficult situation calm down. It seems an especially odd phrase to use in discussions at ANI, all the more so in the context of any existing personal attacks. N-HH talk/edits 18:48, 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)

I have no idea what nationality the students are, or what their experience of cricket before this class may have been. Nor does it seem to me to matter too much. It is not, after all, as if hours of practice in the nets would particularly qualify anyone to opine on the history of cricket in the eighteenth century: this is knowledge that's gained through reading, not through playing. Still more to the point, I'm loath to encourage parochialism. I have asked students of mine to edit articles on Argentine literature or heroes of Cuban independence without their necessarily ever having been to Buenos Aires or Havana. What's important is that students proceed in line with both scholarly and Wikipedia norms. As a matter of fact, on the whole these particular students seem to me to have done so.

Meanwhile, I have no doubt that BlackJack knows plenty more than me about the history of cricket; I have never suggested otherwise. But I can identify what Wikipedia calls a reliable source, and I can also identify edit-warring, hostility to newcomers, possessiveness, and a refusal to see others' point of view. And these are the things at issue here.

I happen to be something of a "subject matter expert" (a term I don't much like) in other areas, though, and sometimes I note that pages that I have watchlisted suffer good-intentioned but problematic interventions from educational projects. So it's not as though I don't understand something of what BlackJack is feeling and saying. This happened quite recently, as a matter of fact. The edits I had to deal with were much more egregious than those under discussion about cricket: their sources included a book review from UWIRE and the account of a book-club leader briefly discussed in the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; the referencing was also a problem, and it took me quite some time to track down the original sources, but I felt it important to do so. Anyhow, I reverted but also dropped a note on relevant editors' talk pages and on the project talk page, too. Unfortunately, that group of students is much less communicative than the Hofstra class. Still, as far as possible I'd rather encourage people's interest in an area in which I have some expertise, instead of telling them to go take a hike. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:33, 17 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)

• I just wanted to plug the essay WP:Assignments for student editors, which I've helped write to provide guideance to all people involved in such activity: Wikipedians, students, ambassadors, and instructors. I didn't see it mentioned above, so feel free to take a look and help improve it. Biosthmors (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• And on the side issue of course article naming, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Should the "Wikipedia:WikiProject" prefix be reserved for "full projects/sub projects/task groups" or any gathering? The-Pope (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I have expressed this in the previous ANI report but since the previous one was merged with this and didn't keep a record of my opinion. I also agree that BlackJack failed to uphold AGF and have bitten some new users. A seven-year veteran user should know better about those policies, so I can safely assume that he knowingly violates these policies and treat them with disregard. Furthermore, after a few days since the previous report, I think BlackJack calling it "hoax" is more than just violating AGF. It's more towards being incivil. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the drift of this discussion seemed to be in the direction of WP:COMMONSENSE, especially where Jenks was involved, until User:OhanaUnited got involved. I was the first regular editor to notice the impact of the student class and when I initially wrote to ANI about it I genuinely did not know what was going on. My impression was of a host of redlink userids seemingly investing a long-term GA with preposterous "theories" and I really thought it might be some elaborate hoax. I asked ANI to investigate and accepted the "class study" finding and that particular thread was closed. Then, after trying to stem the flow of these incursions and being ignored by Oline as a "pain in the arse" because I wanted to protect articles that had veracity and credibility, I came to ANI a second time with the suggestion that class studies of this kind should be restricted to sandbox or userspace where they can edit dev versions of articles to there heart's content without impacting the "live versions". But then we get the nonsensical attitude of jbmurray which is that the live articles must be used for what is essentially experimentation. I try to protect the articles, Murray starts an edit war and here we all are.

The issues here are, first, the protection by (sorry if I seem arrogant) a subject matter expert of longstanding articles including one that is GA, working almost singlehandely against a swarm of incomers using a single reference point which has been denonstrated to contain falsehoods and misleading information; secondly, the attitude and behaviour of jbmurray who is pursuing a WP:POINT and is acting in a way unbefitting an admin. I don't know what processes may be in place to vet and if necessary censure and sack admins but that is where he should be. Finally, why is this being discussed both here and at the 3RR page? Surely it should only be at 3RR where, incidentally, I have already demonstrated that jbmurray is the responsible party.

Finally, I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses but, as the subject of early cricket has only limited interest even at WP:CRIC, I felt I was fighting alone against a group of people who will not listen and who persist in citing a source that my colleague User:CDTPP (new to WP but nevertheless an expert like myself) has read and dismissed as "risible". I have made clear in History of cricket to 1725 what the consensus view among recognised authorities is about the theory of origin but still we have Oline and Murray insisting that this book is credible and must be used in the articles. Am I supposed to just sit back and wave them through so that the readers are presented with wild speculation and falsehoods? Wikipedia depends on articles, especially developed articles, having veracity and credibility. Murray just doesn't seem to get that where early cricket is concerned, hence this fine mess he has caused. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're supposed to engage with them in the same way that you would engage with any new editor on Wikipedia. If there are problems with their edits, they can be dealt with in the same way that problems with anyone's edits can be dealt with. It's drastically inappropriate to accuse new editors of being malicious hoaxers conducting incursions in to your territory not here to improve the encyclopedia. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Another one who is missing the point. If you would like to look at the initial enquiry you will see that it was an enquiry and a request for investigation. I was told that ot was a class study and I did not dispute the finding. Later, having tried and failed to convince their teacher that he is using a single dubious (indeed "risible") source and that his students were, perforce, disrupting established articles with false and misleasding information, I cam eback here with a second enquiry which was a suggestion that such study classes be confined to userspace. The two things are unconnected. Before you start using phrases like "drastically inappropriate" you should consider the fact that is even more drastically inappropriate to jump to conclusions without getting your facts right. How many times must I advise so-called admins that WP depends on its articles being accirate and credible? And isn't there somewhere a policy around all these rules that there are in fact no rules. May one advise that WP:COMMONSENSE is called for and the integrity of developed articles is paramount? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you know a lot about cricket, but the fact that you are a subject matter expert doesn't give you carte blanche to attack new editors, and neither does IAR. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I propose again that this should be restricted to the discussion on the 3RR page. It is ridiculous toing and froing when there is essentially one complaint which is the edit war started by jbmurray who is wasting everyone's time bringing his dispute here as well as 3RR. Please close this and let the 3RR thread sort things out. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

BlackJack, there is not one complaint. I pointed out at least four: WP:BITE, WP:3RR, WP:OWN, WP:AGF. Meanwhile, you go on about WP:RS but continue to ignore the relevant venue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to close the report at WP:ANEW as soon as I finish writing this comment. Both BlackJack and Jbmurray edit-warred on the article. They can think of this as a warning not to do so again. Neither has edited the article since March 13; therefore, any blocks, in my view, would be punitive. Kevin Gorman, has taken it upon himself to revert the article back to the pre-edit-warring version. I have no comment on that action other than to accord Kevin good faith for his attempts to assist. I have not studied the posts above here. I'm going to leave that to others to sort out. However, I will not permit any more posts to the 3RR report once it's closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fair enough from Bbb23 but the final explanation I put into the 3RR page needs to be here now so I've added it below. I'm sure Kevin Gorman means well but he must be the first to admit that he knows nothing about early cricket and the article in question now has a very unsatisactory status as it contains content that is false and misleading, content that is extremely dubious subject to a thorough check by someone who knows the subject, and content that is completely out of scope. All of this has been brought about by Jbmurray who should be censured and removed from adminship. I'll go through the 3RR history as follows:

First off, History of cricket (1726–1740), unlike History of cricket to 1725, is nowhere near complete and I subsequently decided to reduce its scope by moving it from 1726–1763 to 1726–1740. On 11 March, about five members of the Cricket and Englishness course introduced numerous changes all based on their single source which is a new book written by one Dominic Malcolm. I found these changes two days later and immediately, given my extensive knowledge of the subject matter, realised that this statement is false and misleading: "Articles of Laws from 1727 first prohibited the questioning of umpires decisions and therefore decreed them as the final source on conflict resolution and dispute settlement. One such law decreed that "umpires were to be the judges of all frivolous Delays; of all Hurt, whether real or pretended". Obviously, I could just have removed that or revised it somehow but I had serious doubts about several other inputs too, including some outside the scope of the article (e.g., events occurring in the 1770s). I decided, therefore, that the best thing to do was revert and make a note to review and improve the article.

Later the same day, without making any attempt to ask me for the details of my action, Jbmurray came along and reverted my edit. In doing so, he reinserted information that is false, dubious (subject to detailed checking) or out of scope. His stated reason was that "Malcolm is far from being an unreliable source". Jbmurray knows little about the early history of cricket while both User:CDTPP and myself are experts. CDTPP has read and reviewed the Malcolm book and has dismissed it as "risible" (see above). I am convinced, having seen the edits done at History of cricket to 1725 and in this article that it is unreliable and is completely out of step with the consensus achieved by the subject's recognised authorities in their respective works which are the ones I have used when building these articles.

I am not going to stand aside and allow someone who knows nothing about my subject to insert content that is frankly rubbish and so I reverted Jbmurray's edit and gave an explanation within the limits of the edit summary: "Reverted; the stuff in Malcolm's book if quoted correctly is wrong; e.g., nowhere in 1727 "laws" is the stated text included: see Articles of Agreement (cricket). The source is unreliable". Any reasonable person would at this point have checked the 1727 statement against the content of Articles of Agreement (cricket) but Jbmurray did not do so. That article includes the precise wording of the 1727 "rules" and a quick scan shows the falsity of the statement which the students found in Malcolm's book.

After making this revert and directing Jbmurray to Articles of Agreement (cricket), I decided I would make some improvements to the article. I moved it because when it is eventually finished it will be too long if it covers a forty-year period so I decided on a 15-year scope. I made some content adjustments to comply with that and a few copyedits, nothing too extensive as I didn't have time. Within an hour, Murray made his third revert and he clearly had not verified that the 1727 statement was false. He did at least maintain the edits I had just made given the new scope. Again, he made no attempt to discuss the matter and just wrote in the edit summary that he was undoing a mass revert.

After that it was a case of not giving in. I am the subject expert and the only other expert in this area who uses WP, although he is new, entirely agrees with me that the source is unreliable. As I see it, I have to prevent articles losing veracity and credibility. Jbmurray on the other hand is simply making a WP:POINT about allowing this university class carte blanche. You can see what his attitude is like in other discussions such as this one with his "let the madness continue" jibe.

My initial action in reverting the students' edits to this article was bona fide and done in the best interest of the article. If the students had written to me to ask why I had undone their work I would have told them; and I would have explained it to Jbmurray if he would ask and also listen but he has shown that he does not listen and thinks that he can ride roughshod over other people's work and expect them to wave him through. I did not commence an "edit war". That began with Jbmurray's revert here and was then escalated by him with this revert here which was done after I had made a start on improving the article. His attitude and actions are completely unreasonable and taking his point to both this page and ANI is completely OTT.

Whatever the outcome of this dispute, someone should report Jbmurray to whatever process screens admins with a view to him being removed from the adminship. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A few quick points:

1. At no point have I suggested that the student editors should be given "carte blanche." On the contrary: I merely think they should be treated like any other editors. See the series of edits at English national identity for what I have said more than once is a good example of the way in which Wikipedia process should work: The students added material, but in the process gave it undue weight (I've said all along that there are indeed problems with the student edits--as one might expect of any editors, indeed--but they have nothing to do with the red herring of supposedly unreliable sources); their edits are reverted; and then I added the material back, but at the same time cut it right down to deal with the problematic issue.
2. Regarding whether or not the source in question is indeed unreliable, once more I refer you to WP:RS, and to the discussion here, to which you haven't even bothered to contribute. You were too busy opening up ANI threads, without prior discussion or notification.
3. I think that the problem has been almost from the start that you have adopted the attitude of "not giving in." That's what leads to edit wars, as well as to the general unpleasantness that you have shown.
4. Finally, if you are serious that I should be "removed from the adminship" (though this seems to me another instance of your tendency to over-react), my talk page indicates clearly that "I am open to recall in line with the default process, although in my case only three editors are required to trigger the recall."

I'm not somebody to takes matters quickly to ANI. Indeed, you have opened twice as many ANI threads on this matter than I have. But I'm struck by how very obstinate you continue to be. Again, it doesn't seem to me that that's the Wikipedia way, and I'm surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself should think so. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Whilst I believe BlackJack may have been editing in good faith, there's no questioning that he did bite the newcomers, and there was also no justification for you "decommissioning", so to speak, the WikiProject by moving it into a different namespace. I think any call for desysopping is ridiculously unfair, to be honest. By the way, what exactly is the problem with the WikiProject discussion at EN? I can't see anything POINTy at all, just some light-hearted remarks that shouldn't have been taken seriously. The thing you've linked to as being edit warring, well, I can't evaluate the source due to my own lack of knowledge on the subject, I will say that some of the edited text appears to be appropriate (stuff about umpires, bats, etc), whilst the violence/gambling bit may need more discussion. Also, BlackJack, claiming you haven't edit warred is incorrect: I count 5 reversions of text on that article alone in one day. Based on the extensive edit-warring, both parties should get a block of 72 hours, or whatever the standard is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, Blackjack, that I don't know much about cricket. I reverted the page to the pre-edit war version because I don't think it's okay for someone to revert an article five times in less than 24 hours without even using the talk page to ensure that their preferred state 'wins.' We have well-established procedures for dealing with content disputes - use them. I find it absolutely stunning that a veteran editor would make five reverts while claiming to own a page and attacking new editors without making a comment on the talk page of the article or engaging with the ongoing WP:RSN discussion on one of the sources involved. It's great that you're a subject matter expert, but your behavior still is not okay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no point going to the WP:RSN forum because I would be outvoted and the result is a foregone conclusion even though, unless I can persuade CDTPP to take part, I would be the only contributor with any knowledge of the subject. You people assume the source is reliable because it has a reputable publisher. I have already shown in History of cricket to 1725 that the author is promoting a crackpot theory as near-fact and I have also shown in History of cricket (1726–1740) that a significant statement about the sport's earliest known written "rules" is a falsehood. In addition, CDTPP has read the book and condemned it as "risible". All that adds up to a source which should not be used if articles are to retain veracity and credibility.

Kevin Gorman has on a number of occasions stated that he is unfamiliar, has missed something, didn't know that, etc. yet he has effectively stirred things up again. One of the things he has missed is my statement above that "I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses, etc." How many times do I have to say something before some of you people actually take notice? I accept Luke's point about the edit war but he should read again my explanation above. True, I should have gone to the talk page but I do not believe Jbmurray would have done likewise: e.g., there is an open invitation to him to go there now and he hasn't appeared. I explained about the false information in one of the edit summaries and gave him the main article for verification but as always he just ignored me and ploughed on. Is that how an admin should behave? Okay, if I get a block I'll accept it and come back afterwards because for me as an editor it is a technicality like a footballer getting two yellow cards as a result of over-commitment. But Jbmurray is an admin and his attitude and behaviour is completely unacceptable for someone in a supposedly trusted position. I'm glad Luke agrees that I have acted in good faith but Jbmurray has not: he has ignored an article's main author and tried to use his admin status to railroad through a set of changes which are controversial and has not been prepared to discuss the matter. My original revert of the students' input was done because of multiple issues and, okay, perhaps I should have made time to deal with each issue individually. That would have ended with the same result, near enough, but would have taken a lot longer.

I've nothing else to say here and am taking ANI out of my watchlist. If anyone wants to ask me anything else, do so at my talk page and I'll give you a full answer there. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I filed a RFPP for the article related to this thread, hoping that a brief temporary full protection of the article would mean that those involved in the content dispute would take their problems to the talk page or RSN instead of continuing to editwar. I think that BJ's responses on that page as well as the diffs provided by jbmurray earlier in this thread demonstrate that BJ is unwilling to comply with our basic behavioral guidelines. I would ask for an uninvolved administrator take a look at BJ's behavior, especially his continuing violations of AGF/NPA/BITE/OWN. Even though BJ is obviously a knowledgeable contributor, I don't think his expertise excuses his behavior and I feel that a strong admonishment or a 24/48 hour block may be necessary to get through to him that our behavioral policies really are important. Kevin Gorman (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• RFPP is a good idea. I'm beginning to believe less and less my statement about him acting in good faith, the more responses I see from him. If anything, his expertise in this field, and as a Wikipedia editor, makes all these edit warring and "I'm right, you're all wrong" stances all the worse. I also agree with Kevin restoring pre-edit war content, as no discussion was made by BlackJack. Furthermore, if RSN would find that the version jbmurray edited was correct, as BlackJack seems to think, then he's clearly forgotten that this is the version we should go with: from WP:NOTTRUTH. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Luke, if you would care to read Talk:History of cricket (1726–40) you will see that I have outlined my problems with the article including one of the statements which was false with a direction to the article which contains the true information for comparison. You will also see that no one has accepted my invitation to discuss changes that were needed in that article which is now finished for the time being as the falsehoods have been removed or corrected. So to say I have not made any discussion at the article is only true insofar as no one has accepted my invitation to discuss. I believe Gorman is making something personal out of this and is going out of his way here, at RFPP, on his talk page and at the article to make things as difficult for me as he can: see all his contribs in the last 12 hours or so which are focused on trying to stop me from working on that article. Why is Gorman raising the RFPP issue as well as there? Why can't he allow the people at RFPP to deal with his issue without attempting to prejudice the position by sounding off in another forum? His basic objection, stated elsewhere, is that he thinks I am out to remove all references to Malcolm's book and this is simply not so because I've accepted it as the key source for the gambling and violence section of the article. Your comment that RSN might agree with Murray does not mean for one second that the book is right, only that it is "reliable" and therefore "usable". If it contains information that is factually incorrect we don't use it, we use something that is factually correct as I have done in the article by replacing the false statements with correct ones taken from Ian Maun's book. In WP:NOTTRUTH, you need to read "If it's written in a book, it must be true!" Are you actually saying that a statement which is untrue and can be proved from content in another article on this site to be untrue must be used instead of one which is true? We come back to the basic issue which is the veracity and credibility of the article and this impacts the whole of Wikipedia because if you create a precedent whereby false information can be inserted just because the source is on the whole reliable, then the entire site will be discredited. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It flabbergasts me that you think my basic objection is that you are removing a source from an article. My basic objection is that you don't seem to realize or accept that our behavioral standards apply to you and seem completely unwilling to abide by them. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll change my comment: You were edit-warring without discussing, and then later went to discuss it - 3 days later. Also, as far as I can determine (forgive me if I'm wrong, because this ANI is full of walls of text) you're the only one disputing the factual accuracy of the book? Therefore wholesale removals of text based on that is flat-out wrong. As I've said before, I know absolutely nothing about whether the book is accurate or not, but I do know that it's been determined a reliable source, so it can't be that inaccurate. Also, last time I checked, Wikipedia ISN'T a reliable source, so just because something in another article disagrees with it (even if you put it there), doesn't necessarily mean the book is flat-out wrong. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Jbmurray was edit warring without discussion. I explained in an edit summary that the 1727 statement was false and referred him to the article which contains the true account, copied verbatim from the source, and he ignored me and carried on reverting. As for "later", you are twisting things. The article was left alone for a period until the 3RR discussion closed and then, with Gorman's apparent agreement, I set about editing each point individually (which to be fair is what I should have done at the outset but was short of time then). I went to the article talk page as you may now have seen, pointed out the main falsehood and invited discussion. None came so I set about correcting and improving the article using Ian Maun's book which is undeniably a reliable source (it is a prizewinning book highly valued in cricket literature) – contact User:CDTPP if you want verification – and the article is now okay except that it's incomplete. I've told you above and on the article talk page that Malcolm's book is fine for the social aspects and I've retained it in the article for that section so I don't understand your point about "it can't be that inaccurate". No, not in that area but as far as the early laws of cricket are concerned it is evidently way out, though personally I think the author has got his years mixed up because what he is talking about under 1727 actually occurred in 1755. So, he made an error but, given the historical significance, it is a major error that we cannot possibly transclude into a WP article; hence that statement has to be replaced with a correct statement taken from Maun or McCann who both have the 1727 information spot on (McCann even has a photograph of the original document). By the way, CDTPP also disputes the veracity of the book and User:Jhall1 has raised serious doubts about it, though not in connection with 1726/40, so I'm not "the only one". CDTPP is a subject expert and he is an authority on sources, so please don't ignore him just because he's new to WP. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 10:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I said as far as I could tell with regards to the book, so fair enough, and thanks for putting me straight. You both were edit-warring without discussion, this is why I said you both should be blocked for edit-warring earlier. The difference is, Jbmurray has admitted they broke 3RR, whereas you haven't. Also, I'm not twisting things, your edit warring was on the 13th of March, the talk page discussion that you showed started on the 16th. That's 3 days. I'm not questioning the expertise of you or other users, just your actions as a long-serving editor here (with regards to edit-warring) - you should've known the drill by now (as should Jbmurray). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The edit-warring issue was dealt with at the 3RR page and has been closed. We were both warned and I have accepted the warning. In future if someone does a similar thing, I will go to the talk page first and then come here. I will, as someone else suggested, stay cool in future. As the matter has been closed at 3RR, you should not still be talking about it here. The only question now seems to be about the veracity of the 1726/40 article and, given the recent changes, I suggest someone asks another member of CRIC to verify that they are okay. It has to be someone who knows about cricket even if they are not closely interested in that period. So I suggest you contact WT:CRIC and ask someone to do that. Then we can all move forward and get away from what you rightly call a "wall of text". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 13:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you see what was wrong with the way you have treated other editors in this whole mess as in, for example, the diffs jbmurray posted at the start of this thread? Are you willing to commit to not acting in such ways in the future? Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look several posts above you will see an apology in there where I wrote " I apologise if I have overstepped in some of my responses". That was meant for the Englishness & Cricket group. And I have said to Lukeno94 in the last post that when confronted with a similar situation in future I will stay cool and go to the talk page, or here if that doesn't work. By the way, I've asked WT:CRIC to review the article and if they want to revert it or make wholesale changes, I'll accept their consensus. They do know the subject and at least one of them will speak up if there is anything questionable. I hope that settles our differences too, Kevin, and we can move forward. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:44, 17 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 [10]. 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 [11] and User:Wing gundam [12] have done before, User:UseTheCommandLine left a note at LesLeins talk page to stop his disruptive editing [13] 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." [14]. 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)

Your statement that mentioning similarities without mentioning differences violates NPOV is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of NPOV. The policy discusses an aspiration about articles, not about each and every editor contributing to each and every article. It is true that we accuse editors of violating NPOV, but we do so when we see that the article violates NPOV and we an editor or editors contributing to a bias. However, we typically see one editor trying to add some material and remove other material. If you have evidence that LesLein is adding similarities, and removing or edit warring to remove differences, then I would agree that is a violation. Is that the case? To use an analogy, article History of basketball is mostly about the history of men's basketball, with too little on the history of women's basketball. I plan to increase the coverage in Wikipedia, of the history of women's basketball. But I would be upset if someone accused me of violating NPOV simply because I rarely write about men's basketball. I don't accuse editors who write solely about men's basketball of violating NPOV. I would only see a problem if some editors, in addition to writing about one aspect, affirmatively took steps to exclude coverage of women's basketball. (This may be controversial, and it is possibly to see NPOV problems with editors only adding, and not removing material, but I think the charge in this instance is unfair.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree on your baseball-example but this is a different case. To start with comparisons between fascism and New Deal (that have been made in the 1930s e.g. Hoover) ended mostly after 1945 when the full scale of Nazi terror and murder came to light. In the 1960s and 1970s a few historians startet to compare the economic policies of Hitler and Roosevelt - explicitly not to make an argument from analogy but as an comparative study to find out in which way the depression has been overcome in Germany and the US. German historian Kiran Klaus Patel summarized that studies in a recent work -> giving a valuable hint how to use them. He said that those comparative studies were made on the basis that they were not ment as an apology for Nazism since these comparisons were ment to highlight similarities and differences Soldiers of Labor: Labor Service in Nazi Germany and New Deal America, 1933-1945 page 6.

Summary: a few studies were drawing conclusions of how the Great Depression has been overcome in Germany and the US by analyzing similarities and differences. They were not intended to make an argument from analogy (therefore there are no deliberations on relevance, amount and variety and number of characteristics in those studies).

User:LesLein is making an argument from analogy (-> charges of fascism). But those studies are not intended to do an analogy, these were comparative studies just as historians have made comparative studies on weapons and tactics of Wehrmacht and US army in WW II without making an argument from analogy. LesLein uses those studies in an unintended way and necessarily ends in an False Analogy. By the way the correct context would have been Great_depression#Common responses to the crises. It would be similarly false to use a comparative study on Wehrmacht and US army strategies for United States Army#Charges of Fascism. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:44, 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)

LesLein is new, with under 200 edits, so deserves AGF for not fully understanding how this is best done. You, on the other hand, have 7K edits so can be presumed to know how this place works. LesLein has been accused of inappropriate editing, and has responded, admittedly at length, but without acrimony, and with cogent examples. In contrast, you accuse LesLein of disruptive editing, yet do not provide a single example. Which editor is doing better at making a case?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, you have a point, though I hate to admit it of course. That someone wouldn't have a life because they post at length is, by the way, really a personal attack. I'm going to strike my earlier comment, just having reread that FRINGE discussion, which was marked "resolved" by an editor who was seriously involved in that discussion. Perhaps an RfC is the way to go, or a couple of them with some pointed, individual questions. Drmies (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the "nobody who has a life" comment as a statement about the type of people who would read it, not the person who wrote it. Sperril (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• It takes a writer with lots of time and little life to produce something like that. I didn't issue any warnings, didn't block anyone--but I don't like the tone of that remark, especially since I'm not sure what that editor is doing here. Nor does pointing at an edit history mean anything at all. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am cognizant of the warning signs. I've read Goldberg's book, understand it is not mainstream, but do not consider it fringe. It must be used with care, but that pretty much applies to all sources. It looks like we have an editor who thinks some position are under-represented, and a large number of Wikipedia editors do not accept the central thesis of Goldberg's book, but we have the challenge of NPOV, which does not require the inclusion of literally all views, but neither does it insist that only "central" views be published. I haven't read the article in question closely, so am not yet ready to have an opinion on whether any of the attempted edits fall afoul of Wp:Weight, but I do see reactions to this editor that aren't well grounded in policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In accordance with Richard Bernstein I don´t think that Goldberg himself meant it serious when he stated that Liberals since the "American fascist" Woodrow Wilson are "nice fascists" [15]. Anyway he is an political columnist not at all an historian and therefore fails Wikipedia:HISTRS. --Pass3456 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For another source by a reputable historian, see Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939 by Wolfgang Schivelbusch. Warden (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven´t read that book by heart by I remind a passage (perhaps the introduction?) where Schivelbusch wrote that the notion of "nice" fascism doesn´t illuminate anything. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR

Could someone please give a quick nutshell of what LesLein said (preferably by Leslein himself), in no more than a single paragraph? Thanks, Shiny Bauble! ^{Pretty Shinies...} 18:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

"I'm right, you're wrong, NPOV trumps consensus" seems to be the jist of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Bushranger, how uncharacteristically dismissive of you! What's the matter--did you run out of coffee, or did you have a flat tire? Try to see the glass as half-full, even if this particular glass holds gallons and gallons. Drmies (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I was indeed a tad grumpy due to having to deal with RL idiocy, alas, next time I'll try to keep Oscar in his can. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The parallels and explicit links between the New Deal and Mussolini's fascism are well-known and therefore not fringe. We have another page which comments on this extensively — the New Deal and corporatism. Pass3456 seems disingenuous because he has edited that long-standing page while User:LesLein has not. This therefore looks like a case of WP:OWN — an incumbent trying to defend his turf against a newcomer. Warden (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure if this is a case of article ownership or of a newcomer misunderstanding the nuances of NPOV or both... I will say (echoing the Colonel) that LesLein is not coming at this from Tinfoil Hat City, there is scholarship down the avenue he wishes to travel, although one must be careful not to overstate the parallels. I am guessing there is a conservative/liberal difference at root here rather than ownership of the piece pure and simple. RJensen, a conservative historian and a solid wikipedian, would be a good person to get the newcomer versed in NPOV. If he has been talking to LesLein, I hope he continues, and I hope Les listens. I don't have time tonight to dive into this controversy but will take a look at things tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 06:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took a quick look at Les's edit history before I head off for beddy bye... He's a conservative new editor who has dropped in a few tendentious factoids attempting to "expose" the nature of the Communist Party USA. He's also made some edits regarding 19th Century US history that I haven't looked at. I hope that RJensen or some other simpatico wikipedian can either get the new editor up to speed contributing somewhat more useful content on 20th Century history or else steer him towards matters in which he has greater expertise. More tomorrow. Carrite (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I haven’t written or read anything here since my first response and may not be back again for a few days. Like others, I have a day job and personal matters to attend to. Outside of Wikipedia, I too have a very nice life. It is too short to be consumed by some of the things concerning the New Deal edits. I am rapidly losing interest and may not use Wikipedia much more.

My view, in a nutshell: Roosevelt was neither a dictator nor a totalitarian. The similarities are in economic policies, not politics. To let FDR’s denial stand without indicating his private views (Ickes diary) is misleading. The subarticle should make it clear that it wasn’t just folks like HUAC, McCarthy, and Hoover making claims of radicalism, but New Dealers themselves. If you scroll to the end of this edit, you will see an example where FDR’s ambassador to Berlin supports my information in my edits. One or two examples of radical influences on policies (mass unemployment, rural electrification) would be helpful. These examples are not necessarily pejorative.

An administrator or someone should check the New Deal talk page. There is a possible case of plagiarism or copyright violation. It appears minor and accidental.

Pass3456 is not the only bloodhound on my trail. Another is DD2K. This user’s edit summary did not say one thing that is accurate.

In addition, Pass3456 insists that it is nothing personal. In this edit at my talk page Pass3456 wrote “About New Deal: I don´t know what your pain is.” Pass3456 wasn't talking about physical pain. He or she was talking about mental anguish. Now it is fringe theory. I am also a fabricator. Someone should tell Pass3456 not to practice psychiatry without a license. If he or she is a psychiatrist, then Doctor Pass3456 should know better than to publish a diagnosis, especially without knowing the patient. It may be a problem with phrasing, but alleging that dissidents have mental issues is a practice that went out with the Soviet Union.

This user stated that I “admitted” using Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism to identify references. It is true. I read a book and used the information. Is there an article on what books we may read or how we find references? What does Pass3456 want me to do with the book, burn it? I have another confession: I went to the bank and grocery store this morning.

This comparisonshows edits of mine that user rjensen partially restored after removal by Pass3456 (who ignored consensus here). See the paragraphs starting with “Other historians …” and “In 1934 German author ...” The second paragraph says:

“In 1934 German author, Helmut Magers wrote ‘'Roosevelt: A Revolutionary with Common Sense'’. The book stated that the New Deal bore ‘surprising similarities’ with the Nazi revolution. U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd wrote a foreword to Magers’ book. He praised Magers’ ‘outstanding success’ in describing conditions in the U.S. and Germany. Dodd was emphatically anti-Nazi and hoped that moderates would overthrow or at least restrain Hitler. Dodd wrote of ‘the heroic efforts being made in Germany and the United States to solve the basic problems of social balance.’ He described Magers’s book as ‘excellent, friendly unpartisan book … without a sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.’ Dodd allowed his foreword to be published despite State Department objections. “

Roosevelt’s ambassador to Berlin was not a fringe theorist. Ambassador Dodd, an important official in FDR’s government, said that a book noting “surprising similarities” does not include a “sentence that could have been quoted to our disadvantage.” If that is the case, why can’t I note “surprising similarities” (with due balance) in Wikipedia? This is not a rhetorical question. LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well I don´t think that there is a need to get personal ("bloodhound"). By the way I neither am nor do I think that I am an psychiatrist. And I never thought that you were in something like "mental anguish", actually I was allways well aware that you are not too much into Wikipedia. "You don´t talk to me so please request third opinion." was an attempt to get the dissence solved.[16]. By the way I have shown with a lot of difflinks that I am not the only one taking issue on your edits.

There is nothing honorless in taking an advice, I actually took that one LesLein pointed at in his above statement (please note: Rjensen referred to the public debate that ended in 1945).

To get that straight I never denied that there are comparisons between New Deal and Fascism. I never said that these comparisons are without relevance (they actually are relevant in the right context). I took issue that LesLein wants to add his findings under the heading "Charges of Fascism" and asked him to provide prove that the various quotes he wants to insert actually are charges of fascism. E.g. he added a quote from FDR himself that in his opinion proved his point. I responded that FRD never considered himself fascist -> no match [17].

I could give a source for the fact that Goldberg called Woodrow Wilson an American fascist -> match [18]. That is exactly what I wanted from LesLein, a source (book, page) with an unambiguous charge of fascism.

It is not meant as a harassment. You have to be carefull with a charge of fascism since it is very serious. E.g. Hitler was famous for building controlled-access highways. Eisenhower is famous for building controlled-access highways. This is a comparison and there is a similarity. But was Eisenhower a fascist? (I don´t think so). Now if some historians think that FDR was a Fascist they must have written a sentence like "FDR was such a fascist" or something like that. That is what I ask from LesLein to prove his point. --Pass3456 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a content dispute, nothing actionable here unless I'm missing something. Take it to the talk pages, my friends. Carrite (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Bhaskarbhagawati

LesLein (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC) 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 1821 to 1825 before British forces take control in 1826. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 15:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is your ignoring request for discussion, removing references, and vandalizing direct quotes from them. Your POV and disruptive attitude has been noted by others. (diff, diff) Chaipau (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing ? भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 19:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that issue could be construed as canvassing, though that wasn't my intention at all, as I have admitted (diff). The editor in question refrained from voting, rightfully so. In that instance I wanted to let him know since he too found your edits "disturbing" and wanted me to bring your activity to admin notice (diff). But my notices to the other editors were not. I wanted to let them know I was using their quotes, so they could either refute or endorse the connotations. They endorsed, and this one was explicit (diff). Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

How can we see it differently when you involve in such practice few days ago too here and here with whom i have some disputes in past. I cleared air here but you still indulged in vote bank tactics which was termed by user concern as vote banking.

In your earlier post you said conduct is the issue not references, than why you posted link to google books as references in current discussion. I have edited as per sources and i have discussed issues with you on dozen of talk pages and noticeboards from mid last year which are not vandalism. Main problem is your primary topic which you want to glorified on every possible article which your recent history shows and correcting the same is equal to vandalism or disruptive editing for you. You used to be a neutral editor in past but it is lacking in your current conduct which i hope you work on. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 05:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please advise how these issues may best be addressed? Chaipau (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT by User:LePatro

Hello,

I would like to report a new user with non-constructive behavior (mass adding of WP:OR and WP:FRINGE) on articles related to Hejaz, replacing "Hejaz" by "Tihamah" on more than 100 articles (!). Even if many users asked him to stop that, as it can be seen on his talk page, he refuses and persists on these edits (referencing them by a book written in 1228).

Since this user doesn't seem to be ready to accept what other users ask him (i.e:consensus) nor to respect Wikipedia policies, I ask the admins to do the necessary to prevent him from continuing in that way.

Thanks in advance
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not understand the reason behind this request. I was (removing wrong information, adding sourced information, and moving some parts of some articles to other articles that are related to the information). Omar-toons however was undoing all of my edits clearly without even reading some of them even though some of them were about other topics. The resources I have put are verifiable and genuine about this geographic matter and all of them cited and differentiated between the two neighboring regions of Hejaz and Tihamah. There is a huge misunderstanding in wikipedia that Mecca is part of Hejaz and that originated from Kingdom of Hejaz that became an independent state in 1916. Before that, all the sources regarded Mecca as being in the region of Tihamah whereas Medina is regarded to be in the region of Hejaz. Wikipedia is about sourced and true information and not misled information that originated from the name of this very modern state relative to the age of those cities. All Islamic and Arabic sources before that differentiated between the two regions. I am correcting this mistake in wikipedia citing these resources that are from multiple scholars in different centuries.

Omar-toons however does not like the sources so he deleted the information I added with the sources in a move that I think against wikipidea rules. I have been in discussion with other users and I have clarified the matter ti them and submitted the sources and all of them accepted that and accepted the sourced information. However, this user unfortunately insists on undoing my edits. I ask you please to review my edits closely. I have not removed sourced information from any articles, and I was not replacing Tihamah with Hejaz everywhere. I replaced it when appropriate and you can see that I left the mention of Hejaz in most of the articles I edited. Please see the article of Tihamah that I improved. In the article of Hejaz, there were some parts that talked about Tihamah and some of its cities so I moved those sections to the article of Tihamah and I left the parts talking about Hejaz in the article of Hejaz. Thank you for your cooperation.--LePatro (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• The edits that you were edit-warring in were totally unnecessary. I'm pretty sure we've all been through the sources as part of the numerous debates about these articles, and if the information was wrong, we'd have found it then. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately in aggressive editing, Omar-toons is continuing to delete the sources I put in the articles. He is continuing to delete the mention of the region of Tihamah from all articles. He wants to remove it from everywhere in Wikipedia just because he does not know about the region. All gepgraphic Arabic books cites the difference between the two regions of Tihamah and Hejaz. Even today, people still know the difference in Arabia. Mecca is geographically in Tihamah while Medina is in Hejaz. When someone talks about Mecca, the region associated with it in articles should be Tihamah not Hejaz. In fact, Tihamah is one of the names of Mecca. I find it very annoying to see the resources of the information I provide to wikipedia get deleted in the blink of an eye just because a user does not like what they say. --LePatro (talk) 06:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Help! Any admin to consider this request? Cuz' the user persists on editing that way--Omar-toons (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the other users discussed the issue but they did not delete the sources. Omar-toons is insisting on deleting the sources (and deleting the mention of Tihamah from all the articles). I have listed multiple sources from several centuries BUT he is trying to imply that it is one source only. He does not have sources that contradicts this geographic view with the same old background so he is trying to say that old is bad. He is just deleting the sources because they contradict his understanding about the issue. He even undid some of my edits that have nothing to do with this issue (He is really engaging in a very aggressive and annoying manner unfortunately). I also do not see his point about the sources being from multiple centuries ago, does not that prove the idea especially that there are no contradicting geographic sources ? To summarize the discussion to the admins: All he is saying is that he knows Hejaz and does not know Tihamah. He says that Hejaz is more known than Tihamah so let's keep saying that all the cities of Hejaz and Tihamah are in the Hejaz only and delete the mention of Tihamah. What I am saying is that geographically from centuries ago up until now, Arabia is divied from the east to west into: Najd, Hejaz, and Tihamah. Cities like Medina and Taif are in Hejaz wheras cities like Mecca and Jeddah are in the region of Tihamah. I have proved that with multiple books that talks about the georgaphy and history of Arabia from different centuries. The user then responded by deleting the sources, undoing every edit I made, starting edit war, and now implying that all I put was one source even though that is NOT true. I ask you please to review his edits deleting my sources even though I put pictures of some of the sources on his talk page so that he can read it. Thank you. --LePatro (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Can someone please do something about this guy. He's running around the whole 'pedia pretty much changing almost every reference to Hejaz to Tihama despite being asked to stop by several users. It's going to be a real pain to sort the mess he's creating out. DeCausa (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nickst and User:EpidemiaCorinthiana

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

---

Nickst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yesterday, I reported the user over his disruptive editing and he got blocked as a result of the 3RR. However, I really reported him because he refuses to listen to reason or regulations and he even had a little spat with a few of the administrators on his talk page to the point they needed to block him from editing his talk page. Well...the first thing he does the second he is unblocked is deliberately disrupt any article that I have edited regardless of how much I try to explain to him that I am merely following certain basic regulation. On top of that, it seems he is trying to game the system in order to excuse his erratic behavior. I just don't think he learned his lesson and I will not even bother reversing anything anymore. His attitude yesterday at his talk page is more than proof of the futility of it.

I reported him, again, to the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. However, I was directed here per User:Monty845. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk · contribs) renamed today all Intercontinental Cup pages by moving text (!) without any discussion on WP:RM. See [19] [20]. Also [21] [22] I just reverted that renaming. I ask admins to check his contribution and revert other his today renaming. NickSt (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Cut-and-paste moves are, indeed, a major no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you, The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), for restoration of the International Cup articles names that was moved today by user EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk · contribs) without WP:RM discussion. Please, see also this edit [23] I think the change of the lead section and infobox info to unconsensus Toyota Cup is also disruptive edit. But I am afraid to change it because this user reverted all my useful changes in "his articles". NickSt (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not seeing anything disruptive from Nickst nor do I see WP:GAMEing, certainly not since the block expired, which seems to be the time period referred to. Those kind of accusations would require diffs backing them up, and maybe I'm just missing something but those seem to be lacking. On a side note EpidemiaCorinthiana, NickSt is allowed to remove comments from his talk page, removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it. Reverting that removal (and removing one of this responses in the process) is inappropriate. - SudoGhost 18:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we all need to step down for a bit, this has become a bit silly. EpidemiaCorinthiana has made a number of edits which contravene WP:COPYPASTE & WP:SPEEDY and failed to acknowledge that mass moves which may be controversial should go via WP:RM. I've informed EpidemiaCorinthiana of this and we're trying to get to an understanding. Certainly I believe there's no justification in calling User:Nickst a "vandal". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this, Rambling Man. By letting this user get away with gaming the system the way he has just to derail anything I have touched is simply opening a can of worms. Since I was extremely busy today, I decided to take a short wikibreak and my hunch was right: he was merely waiting to be unblocked to become a disruptive editor. I have had my disagreements with a few editors. This guy's case is blatantly obvious if you look at his edits today. Ultimately, it isn't my choice. I would recommend blocking him for a month. By his logic and pattern of editing, anything he doesn't agree with must be discussed and that derails any real progress to any article. I am not even going to entertain this any longer. He walks like a duck and if the relevant people want to ignore that, that's them.

And in case no one has noticed, this has nothing to do with editing any certain pages on my behalf. His behavior yesterday with the administrators who were trying to help him is more than enough proof of the kind of persona you are dealing with. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. EpidemiaCorinthiana (talk · contribs) now is under sockpuppet investigation with indef blocked God Football (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/God Football. NickSt (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Durneydiaz potentially removing PROD tags placed on his articles while logged out

A suspiciously large number of articles created by User Durneydiaz (for reference, see his talk page) have been marked for PROD, but never deleted. Upon some examination, I have discovered that many of the pages that User Durneydiaz created have been marked for PROD, but then the PROD tag was removed anonymously (many of them from the same IP). This seems fishy.

See:

• Gabriel Moyano - which I added the tag back
• Gonzalo Mottura - which I added back
• Iván Juárez
• Paul Dzeruvs
• Rodrigo Sevillano

Uberaccount (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious. Are the external links (the profiles) in these articles considered reliable? Aren't they used as sources? (I know nothing about this stuff.)--Bbb23 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Added bullets to your list. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• This makes it pretty obvious they are the same person. One week blocks issued for named account and IP, which is probably too generous looking at his block log. Feel free to revert those PROD removals. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think it should be pointed out that unlike CSDs, editors are allowed to remove PRODs from articles they have created. The mystery here is why Durneydiaz felt it necessary to log out to remove them.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • That raises an interesting question: is it a violation to do something that's not a violation in a manner that evidences you believe it's a violation and you are, therefore, attempting to avoid scruitny? (Obviously, the answer is 'it's socking' in this case, but still, my tired brain is curious.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • He probably thought it was a violation. He's been blocked in the past for "repeatedly removing deletion and maintenance tags". I haven't had time to check to see if those were also PROD removals but I did notice that he has no edits to any talk spaces aside from removing posts from his talk page. Whether he is not interested in discussing his edits or sees no point in it because everybody just slaps tags on his talk page I don't know. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • • If the cause of the block is only because he did took down the prods from his IP rather than his account, then he block is wrong because anyone, IPs included, can take down block. Shouldn't AGF prevail here that the use of the IP was not on purpose? Unless the IP is being used to sock, AGF should prevail....William 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I did a little further checking on one of this user's past blocks. It was done so because of his removal of reference tags plus prods. The Prods were however placed because the editor thought the articles are unreferenced. In fact the articles have EL to websites about these athletes. The articles were referenced, but only through a EL. Let me point out, baseball player articles on older players sometimes only have a link to baseball reference as the source for the article. BR is considered a RS. I don't know soccer well enough to say if the sources are RS but there's a very good case that part of why the first block was done was incorrect so I wouldn't think that makes it grounds for this block....William 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
        • To be clear, he was blocked and tagged for sockpuppetry, ie: using another account for the sole purpose of avoiding scrutiny. This isn't the first time he has been involved in this type of socking. [24] Additionally, removing a PROD because you disagree is one thing, removing large number of good faith PRODs en mass without any explanation is disruptive. Had this been the first time he has had issues, a warning might have been more appropriate, but that wasn't the case here. My block was the same duration as the last sock block, so again, I think I was pretty generous. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
          • The block was for 'abusing multiple accounts'. I've made it clear, an IP or an article creator can take down any prod. Also these articled were wrongly prodded from the beginning. They are referenced. In fact another editor has come along and removed all the BLP prods for the very reasons I stated above. The EL are the articles references. So the violation of Prod "The {{prod blp/dated}} tag may not be removed until such a source is added, and if none is forthcoming within ten days the article may be deleted." Never happened because they were referenced from the start. As I said before, EL to RS sports reference websites have been considered acceptable references for BLP. Unless I'm wrong, it doesn't say the reference has to be in the body of the article or as an inline citation.

• • • • • • As for abusing multiple accounts, the abuse didn't happen and editing outside your user name isn't a blockable offense. AGF he could have been signed out by accident. AN IP this obviously linked to one user would be awfully dumb to do vandalism from....William 16:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this block. Maybe I have the sequence wrong, but here are four items, I believe in order:

• Last edit as 190.163.65.248 21:56, 15 March 2013
• Last edit as Durneydiaz 22:09, 15 March 2013
• Block of 190.163.65.248 13:33, 16 March 2013
• Block of Durneydiaz 13:39, 16 March 2013

If Durneydiaz had been blocked, and then used the IP to make an edit, then it would be socking, but the block reason was socking. This doesn't make sense to me.

I don't have a problem urging that Durneydiaz use the account, rather than the IP, but unless evidence is presented that Durneydiaz actually was using the two inappropriately, such as voting keep at an AfD with each, I'm not seeing the rationale for the block.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Expanding: Durneydiaz was blocked (twice) for vandalism in 2010, closing on three years ago. The first block was less that two months fater first edit, we ar well aware that some editors take some time to learn the ropes. Blocked again in 2011 for removing "deletion and maintenance tags". Should know better by then, but appears to be a good block, because they aren't supposed to remove those tags.

In contrast, the editor is allowed to remove PROD tags. While it may be that the editor did not know this, and did so as an IP to avoid detection, the simple removal of a PROD is not disallowed. I appreciate Dennis Brown's point that doing this repeatedly may be viewed as disruption , but that should start with a stern warning, not a block.

As a technical point, I still don't see how Durneydiaz was socking. I suggest an unblock, followed by a stern warning. Willing to write the stern warning, but unwilling to unblock without hearing more from Mr Brown.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

His reason for logging out was to prevent the removal of the PROD's from being connected to him. That's a textbook case of "avoiding scrutiny", and clearly justifies a block.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not "textbook case of "avoiding scrutiny" unless someone is completely ignorant of the ways around WP. A textbook case would be creating another account, not using an IP so obviously your own.

• If another admin wants to unblock, that is their discretion and I will not be offended in the least. I've always said anyone is free to revert any admin action I have made without permission. I've explained my reasons above and will leave it to the community to determine the wisdom of my actions, which I stand behind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly object for you, then. It's clearly socking. The only question I had was why the soft-block was so short.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how it is clearly socking. I confess to spending very little time with sockpuppet's so may well be wrong, but I just reread Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and do not see how the edits violate the policy.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked. I am trouble by Durneydiaz's lack of use of talk page, so may regret this, but I'd like to start with a warning first.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking when you know that other's strongly object is a really, really, really bad idea. It's socking because the intent is to avoid scrutiny. He's logging out to perform an edit because he fears he would be criticized if people knew it was him making the edit. That's the definition of "avoiding scrutiny": taking actions that make it difficult to link the edits to the source.—Kww(talk) 19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick also approached me on my talk page before he took action. As the blocking admin, I told him just as I did here, no offense would be taken, although I still feel the block was the right solution. Blocks are cheap, if he thinks he can convince someone to comply with community standards, I'm ok with giving him the opportunity. I'm not convinced, by any means, but willing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see one admin Ron Ritzman making a statement that is in no way support for the block, much less strong support. Perhaps even a suggestion that it was too much.

Similarly, The Bushranger's question cannot be viewed as strong support for the block.

Brown blocked. Per usual convention, I discussed with Brown, who did not object to my plan to unblock, which I did before seeing your strong objection.

I accept that you strongly object, but your use of the plural "other's" (assuming you didn't literally mean the possessive) is false.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I object, Brown objects (though less strongly), and I read Bushman and Ritzman as supporting that the intention of the editor was to avoid scrutiny. Your unblock is based on your personal failure to understand the meaning of "avoiding scrutiny". In what way do you think the intention of this editor was not to avoid scrutiny?—Kww(talk) 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we speculate that the decision to remove the PROD was to mislead? Sure. If I were to place a bet, I know which side I'd bet one, but we don't block because we speculate someone had improper motives, especially when what they did was not against policy. The editor is abysmal at using the talk page, and I have made it clear that removing PROD as an IP will not be tolerated any more. PRODs can be removed, per policy, by anyone, but if the editor is blocked,a ad there are any outstanding prods, then we have effectively prevented the editor from contesting those with a one week block. The editor now know they are on a short leash.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ILLEGIT is all about motives, and we certainly do block on the basis of improper motives. Nearly all sockpuppeting blocks are based on a combination of the edits themselves and the imputed motivation behind those edits.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all other than not putting an edit summary of telling why he removed the PRODS, durneydiaz didn't do anything remotely wrong to earn this block. The PRODS were wrong and I said exactly why up above. If I'd discovered the PRODS, I would have taken them down. Another editor has already done so. The block was for abusing multiple accounts, but this isn't abuse and neither is editing while not signed in....William 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:ILLEGIT over again, specifically the sections labeled Avoiding scrutiny and editing while logged out to mislead. His edits were a clear violation of policy. It doesn't matter if the edits would have been permissible if he had done them under his account, only that he attempted to make it difficult to connect his edits to his account.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I read illegit where it says 'violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. Is an IP an alternative account or just A quick look at the IP's contributions history would tell you or any other its the same editor.

Even the removal of the sticky prods without an edit summary isn't a violation of policy. It might be preferred, there is nothing that says it is required.

Funny thing is, unless I missed something above, nobody is disputing the prods were wrong to start with.(My explanation of how EL are used as references in sports articles is somewhere above) What we're really getting into a lather about is the prods being taken down in a way people don't like but there are lots of things an editor might not like around WP but policy is otherwise....William 20:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I will point you at the section labeled editing while logged out to mislead. An IP address is an account in the context of WP:ILLEGIT.—Kww(talk) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed all posts on editors talk page for the last twelve months, which took some time, because the editor clearly is not quite getting it and creates stubs that aren't quite good enough. However, I failed to see a single warning in the last twelve months letting the editor know that removal of prod warnings was wrong. Which isn't surprising as it isn't wrong, but no one explained that if one logs out and does it, that such an action is not allowed.

However, I then reviewed further back and do see some warnings about removal of templates, so I have a better appreciation of why some may feel that this editor deserves no further warning.

A year is a long time. I think I recently saw someone running for admin not much more than a year after a block for edit-warring. Not a warning, but an actual block. I see two possible scenarios:

1. The editor will finally accept some help and become a productive editor, or
2. The editor will remove another template, after being explicitly told not to, and will be blocked.

What is the downside to taking this path? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Kww, you seem to be arguing that the edits were wrong. I'm not disagreeing. However, it is my belief that editors should generally be warned before being blocked. While I have now found some ancient warnings which may cover this situation, they are more than a year old. Please explain what harm will accrue to the encyclopedia if this editor is allowed to make a bad edit today, instead of a week from today.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to get WilliamJE to drop the false assertion that the edits were not against policy. While I disagree with the need for a warning prior to a block in this case, that's not a big issue with me, and I have no illusion that the block will be reinstated. WilliamJE's selective reading of WP:ILLEGIT to attempt to justify the edits as being within policy is what I'm arguing against.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've refuted ILLEGIT violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. He didn't create a alternate account, he's used the IP before, no violation of policy. You're exhibiting a strong case of WP:IDHT. Not responding to this thread again. I'm going out now in real life and have a busy morning planned for tomorrow....William 22:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No refutation to be found there. The policy violation is clear.—Kww(talk) 23:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd love to assume WP:CLUE, but given the fact that all these prods were moved by an IP used by the editor who created the articles, the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn, at least by me, is that the editor presumed that a PROD tag operated under the same rules as a CSD tag (...and, really, why are they different anyway?) and he was, therefore, forbidden from removing them, so he decided to edit as an IP to remove them in the hopes that nobody would think to check the contribution history and connect the dots (or, alternatively, simply never thought of the contribution history as quacking). While the edits themselves don't violate policy, the method used to make them was clearly meant either to evade scruitiny, or is indistinguishable from an attempt to evade scrutiny and, therefore, has to be treated as such - as (as has been said) we can't presume to speak of the editor's actual intent, we can only judge by its effects, and the effect here, intentional or not, was 'logging out in an attempt to evade scrutiny'. That said, both the block and the unblock were, IMHO, good; while I personally would have put a 'by the way, did you know...' on the editor's talk page, there's no reason to take Dennis' actions as inappropriate, and SPhilbrick's unblock was also according to his interpretation of the prophecypolicy and with Dennis' blessing. And while it's obvious there's a disagreement as to the means and wherefores, it's likely we could all argue loud and long, each in our own opinions, exceeding stiff and strong, and not convince the others, so I believe the only thing to do here now is to agree to disagee and, if needed, discuss elsewhere if anything needs to be changed, perhaps regarding the wording on the PROD tag to make it clearer that the article creator is allowed to remove it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

please remove information about me immediately

• List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK)#Bea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bea Hamill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

my name is Bea Hamill, I want all information about me removed immediately. It is causing me a lot of distress. I have tried deleting and people keep putting it back. The information is of no interest to anyone. I want my privacy and I do not want my name, my surname, my date of birth, where I went to school and university being publically accessible. This is also having a very bad effect on my family, who obviously have the same surname and do not want to be associated with a tv show i was on 4 years ago. thank you

Beahamill5 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The above was a contestant on Big Brother. Her information is part of List of Big Brother 10 housemates (UK); the BBC News website profile used as a source is still live. —C.Fred (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Short of deleting the section entirely, we could pare it back. We could eliminate her last name, the birth year, and the part about the school. The part about the school is mainly there because the principal of the school expressed her displeasure with Bea appearing on the program; it's not really necessary. The other two pieces aren't necessary, either, but removal of them would make her section inconsistent with all the others.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've unilaterally blanked this as a temporary measure. How about, just this once, we decide what to do first, then we set the content however we've decided it ought to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I applaud Andy Dingley's removal of the information as an interim measure. I hope that permanent and complete removal is something that can be done. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The person involved should contact the sites being used as sources and have them take the information about her taken down first, otherwise, Wikipedia is reporting on past events that are reliably sourced. RNealK (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the OTRS ticket the user opened today regarding this request, with my recommendation that they discus this here instead. There are things we can do BLP and courtesy-wise, but I did explain that completely removing the section is not possible. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I don't think the unilateral removal was appropriate, but, as a temporary measure, it's not a big deal, either. BTW, the three points I highlighted are all independent, so, for example, we could remove the birth year and the school business but leave in her last name. Omitting the birth year wouldn't be as glaringly inconsistent as removing the last name, and the school stuff isn't really necessary. Related to RealK's point, though, I wonder how much more damage our article does to her vs. the information that is publicly available on which we're relying.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the whole article has been to AfD twice, before ARS rock up and claim that this trivia is the most important content on the whole of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Disagree with removing sourced, factual information. Put the whole article up for deletion, but we cannot respond to every request - we don't know who the person making the request is. Either the bio is within policy or it isn't, regardless of the requester. I have some doubts as to their identity. Leaky Caldron 23:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Then restore it and start the edit war ASAP. Please, will someone do this – I've got money riding on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If you removed it in the hope of starting an edit war that seems a poor motive. I said I disagreed, that's all. Leaky Caldron 00:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Andy, please stop toeing the line of WP:POINT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please use the phrase "or I will block you". Someone has already restored it in mid-discussion, so that's lunch paid for. If I can get a threatened block too, I get free beer as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is a branch and the main article contains much more information that the claimant may not like. Leaky Caldron 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

We may not treat the Bea section differently from the other entries; I agree that this is not particularly encyclopedic, but there's no good reason to pretend that the content was unsourced or improperly sourced. Let Bea nominate the whole thing for deletion (which I'd support) or persuade the BBC to take down their comments on her. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I also disagree with removing sourced information. When someone goes on a show like Big Brother, they are putting themselves in the public eye, and what goes on is a matter of record. That is not something that can be suppressed later when they regret their decision. Even if we remove it, Googling her name produces plenty of references to her BB career. JohnCD (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Both Nyttend and JohnCD are correct. If you want to be a private person, don't go on Big Brother. If you put your personal life on a TV show, then don't complain when it doesn't get forgotten. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that has already dawned on Beahamill5 (talk · contribs) by now (and I find the linked article from her former teacher to be ironic in that sense), however we are here to explain to her why we cannot remove the information while being sensitive to her plight. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. You go on BB, you get to live with the crap afterwards. However we have the option to act honourably and decently in the interim, while we decide what to do. Nor is information being available elsewhere a requirement for WP to duplicate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's not like this was the first season of the show and nobody knew what would happen. There was ample example of how show contestants are viewed/discussed and I submit that anyone who claims they were surprised is....well, I'll be polite. (that's me being sensitive to her plight) Niteshift36 (talk) 01:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Compared to whats out there - I would assume this entry here at Wikipedia is not a priority vs all the negative info about her on the net. I do feel bad for her - we all dont make the right life choices all the time - but we all have to live with them.Moxy (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate venue for this discussion. Wikipedia administrators are responsible only for the most obvious and pressing breaches of Wikipedia policy, which doesn't appear to apply in this case. The community in general is responsible for everything else. This discussion belongs on the article's talk page (with a courtesy link from BLP/N, or vice versa). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually what makes this the appropriate venue is that the editor who started the thread has been making legal threats - [25]. When warned to stop she asked if the person who told her that was crazy [26]. In line with WP:NLT the account should be blocked. I think all the information should be restored to the article, this person made the decision to publicise herself on a TV reality show and is now demanding that her name be removed from this entire site, which is not a reasonable demand in my opinion. Smeat75 (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You must have missed the bulletin, Finlay, everything now belongs on ANI. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think that if we include the most basic info, and remove anything not required for context, we aren't compromising our duty to publish facts, and remembering that she is a fellow human being. This is my opinion as an editor, not an admin. Pharmboy (alt. of Dennis Brown) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

As Wikipedia, we report on what is notable. Notability is defined by us as having coverage in reliable sources. Barring libelous or slanderous material, or other legal considerations, we don't remove material or stop the addition thereof because someone asks. This person, although I sympathize for/with (darn English language) them, knew what would happen if they went on the show. They should not be surprised that the sources we use still have her information, and that we still have her information. If she wants it removed, she will need to make a formal legal request to the Foundation, which may or may not have merit. This all, of course, is pending the AfD on this article. I do feel bad for Bea, but we can't just remove anything that anyone asks at any time. Otherwise, I could go create the AngelMcKenzie73 user and come and say that I wanted my information removed, or others. The proper method for Bea to follow would be to file a formal request with the foundation, because we are not obligated to remove the information, nor should we, here. gwickwire^talk_editing 02:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If we knew she had made "a formal legal request" we would block the account per WP:NLT. She appears to have followed the instructions to email her request to OTRS, which would have ended up with a polite "sorry, we can't do anything" response not dissimilar to yours. I don't know how she ended up coming to ANI, but she will probably get the desired result because of it. The fact that she is a young woman and is not an entirely unsympathetic character will work in her favour. Perhaps she should claim that Wikipedia is trying to "blackmail" her into something by threatening to reveal general information about her which is already available on the internet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(because that sort of thing is only the evil crime of "outing" and "doxxing" when it's done to Wikipedians!) *Dan T.* (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Outing is only a big deal when a user has made an effort to remain anonymous. For example, I haven't been on a reality tv show, there are no news articles about me, therefore if my personal details are added to Wikipedia it could be considered "outing". Bea Hamill has articles published about her. You can't really "out" an already public figure unless you post new private information (which Wikipedia does not). If it were her phone number/address etc. then it should be removed. Information published in reliable sources is reasonable to retain. James086^Talk 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• While I understand Andy's motivation behind blanking the section pending discussion, the Striesand effect needs to be considered here. Having one constestant's section blanked is a red flag for people to go looking for information to add to it, and if we were to delete one article on BB housemates, that creates a hole in the list that other people will ask "why?" and start poking. Wikipedia is not censored, we don't remove reliably sourced, verifiable material on notable subjects just because somebody is hurt or offended. I feel bad for the person involved, but unless the sources are dissapeared and the event unhappened, there's nothing we can really do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Gwickwire and Bushranger. I looked at the material before Andy removed it and it seemed to be pretty mild stuff. I'm sorry it's causing her distress, but removing it from here is really antithetical to what we do -- and it's all over the Net anyway.

    One thing we can do, though. is to get rid of the redirect at Bea Hamill, which seems pretty unnecessary for someone whose "fame" is basically a one-time thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

    • Agreed, but that should be a matter of consensus as well at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify here, I never intended a permanent blanking of this material, merely a temporary one whilst discussion was ongoing and mostly to defuse an issue of hysterical forumshopping that was just getting untidy. I happen to think that detailed coverage of BB contestants belongs in Hello! (It means Hola!) magazine, not in an encyclopedia, so nuke the lot from orbit. As to this particular person, then the more I hear of them, the more I dislike them and their flakey pseudo-bohemianism. Certainly they signed the Faustian pact, so they can kiss their privacy goodbye and good luck to them. Me, I'm laughing - free lunch tomorrow, as I had a bet that WP couldn't behave decently over a BLP issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the figure voluntarily joined a nationally televised, controversial show and now wants that scrubbed. Uhm...am I missing something? Has the figure been defamed? Is the information inaccurate in any way? Are the sources adequate? Is the request based on an immediate need or danger or is this a simple request to take the spot light off her now that the show is over and they don't like the result? Yes, we should trim it back to what is firmly within policy but no...we don't blank BLPs in the middle of the discussion before a consensus and this is the wrong venue. This should be at the BLP noticeboard unless editors agree to ignore that.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Eliminating the redirect is essential. Deleting the article is unacceptable. Clearly the initial version of the article, with some unsourced and highly unflattering personal commentary is also unacceptable under BLP. The first version got whacked down to a second shorter version which is pretty close to okay. The "scatty and bohemian" bit needs to go for sure, and further tightening could also easily be accomplished; but all information on the contestant should not be blanked. This is really a matter for the discussion page of the article and not AN/I, by the way. Thank you to Bea for alerting us all to the problem; the first version clearly was unacceptable. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• It looks to me like there aren't any sources for the full names or birth dates in most cases. When no reliable secondary source exists for personal information it should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is kind of my point: enforce BLP strictly here and only include the information actually needed and properly sourced. I agree with Carrite that the redirect isn't needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the redirect is not needed but do think it should go the normal route as has been done with other mentions of living persons such as Ryan Lanza.

• I don't see what deleting a redirect will change. Any one searching for her name will still get the list page in their top results.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 13:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You go on television - a primetime television show at that - you accept the consequences. I've had a look at the revision as it was then and in my opinion, there is nothing there that falls foul of WP:COI as reporting on offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. In addition, I don't like it is not a valid reason for removal.--Launchballer 17:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think Bea's edits to the list article should be oversighted as she has revealed further personal information which is available under the edit history. –anemoneprojectors– 20:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done a revdel, I think it's only right, but also felt I should notify this discussion as well! –anemoneprojectors– 20:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've now gone ahead and contacted an oversighter. Pretty sure this was the right thing to do. –anemoneprojectors– 20:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, there's some information at Big Brother 10 (UK)#Controversy and criticism and Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (UK) that relates to this. –anemoneprojectors– 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The general question is what should be done with respect to someone who is engages in a very public activity under their real name, an activity that is either designed for publicity or will inevitably have publicity, and later in life thinks better of it. (There have been instance of people in beauty contests, for example.) My own personal moral feeling--a feeling that I would not impose on the community--is that many such activities, including this one, are to me so obnoxious that I would afford every degree of protection to someone who is eventually sensible enough to repent of them. (I would therefore cover a show like this without the names of the participants on the basis that their participation is not a subject for a rational encyclopedia, whether or not they wish it to be--if it were an encyclopedia catering to my point of view, which it is not.. To those who regard the activity as praiseworthy, it would be the different question of whether someone who has deliberately done something in public intrinsically notable and later is so eccentric as to want to hide their participation should be indulged in their peculiarity. I think these articles are often or usually dealt with by people who do regard the events or shows as a positive activity, and to that extent we do have a bias in favor of some forms of popular culture.. I suppose the only possible stance for WP is to regard the activities as a morally neutral choice, which like any other choice in life a person may later wish they had done otherwise,but I cannot see how to actually do this. We would normally apply the presumption of privacy, but that presumption is contrary to the purposes of this genre of entertainment, and we would therefore have to decide whether to accept or reject its purpose. I'm looking at the ongoing AfD and I see very few participants there actually regard it as neutral--they all of them on both sides would tailor WP to their own taste. Presumably those not interested in the matter who would therefore be neutral are not interested in the AfD. Thats how we make decisions at WP, but testing the strength of conflicting groups, not by rational analysis.

On balance, I think it helpful to use a different principle; since we're an encyclopedia, I think it wrong to cater to the publicity hungry in this or any other part of Wikipedia. We should either include all the candidates, or none of them. I suppose there is a compromise, by omitting the last names and other personal information, and just discuss the actions on the show. Unfortunately, to a considerable extent such shows are notable because the people have a real life; I suppose that's the main point of the genre. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• • There is a degree of parity in our positions, to include the basic information of "who" and what happened on the actual show themselves, without the fluffy and unnecessary material that is more tabloid than encyclopedia. As a general rule, we would be a better encyclopedia for limiting ourselves to truly encyclopedic material, particularly with BLP considerations (thus, fellow humans) at stake. I think to claim that because they chose to be on the show, that there are no rules as to what we can publish (regardless of sourcing) is callous and doesn't advance us as an encyclopedia. I wouldn't exclude her name, but I would excluding activities and information outside of the events of the show itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem here was details of events that happened on the show, though. –anemoneprojectors– 22:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

To keep things in perspective, let's browse the entries of this list. Now, we don't hear any of these BLPs asking to be removed from Wikipedia. Most of them have their own business, so they get free of charge advertising on Wikipedia. So, Stuart Baggs probably does not mind that his entry says: "Before firing him, Lord Sugar told Stuart that he was "..full of shit.."[19]". Count Iblis (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Two Three new related users; could be socks, could be meat

• Hira.abbasi (talk · contribs)
• Omar.nawabi (talk · contribs)
• Ahmednawabi (talk · contribs)

The accounts have been working in concert, first making unsourced test edits, now adding references like this [27], which leads to a university library site, not the professed source. Overall these still amount to test edits, and though there's been discussion attempted at both user talk pages, there's been no reply. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Omar account hasn't edited since you posted the warning, which leads me to assume that it was in fact heeded. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding a third to the collection, with a similar edit to the same source and university library website [28]. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think the most recent additions to Self-image, even if the sources are fixed, add much to the article. But to continue reverting him/her/them is tiresome and looks bad. Other thoughts appreciated. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The added content was terrible. It's possible (though not likely) that these are students. If you don't mind, drop a line on their talk pages with a link to some acronym for "Don't Edit With Two Accounts". Again, it is possible that they have an explanation for this. Kindalike the Alabama Republicans think it will improve education if they take up to $300 million out of the education budget to hand it over as tax breaks to parents who send their kids to private schools. Kindalike there are people who want to have relations with the Kardashians. It's hard to imagine that one would, but there are people who do, so it's possible. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, mr. Invisible IP, consider looking at Cct881 and Luluchan04 and Chuntingchan. Or mosey on over to SPI. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oy. Socks everywhere, or else a group of affiliated students who are experimenting here. How did you manage to work in editorial comments on Alabama education and the Kardashian clan? You know, we have universities north of the Mason Dixon, too. Just saying. And I'm not invisible, but I am transparent. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the edits, I think a small group of students or people acting as a group is more likely. Not necessarily meatpuppetry, just working together. Polite notes welcoming and explaining things would be the better first step, ie: assuming good faith. Doesn't look like they are intentionally trying to break anything, from the contribs I sampled, although they are of questionable quality. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding two more, in addition to those mentioned by Drmies. Every reason to assume good faith, but as a group these are problematic, often linking to the University of Toronto library website, which can not be freely accessed, rather than to the cited sources. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, he did mention Lulu. Well, there's a bonus listing. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Galgegod (talk · contribs)
• Luluchan04 (talk · contribs)

I'm also certain Hira2024 (talk · contribs) is related to this possible sockfarm... same type of edits with the same poor grammar, etc. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Franek K.

Franek K. (talk · contribs)

Abuses warning templates and accuses users of vandalism for edits he disagrees with [29][30]; continues an edit war (albeit with slightly altered versions) on Slavic Languages. Previously warned for edit-warring about the same topic on a different article. (notified. I will be offline for an hour or so.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I not abuses warning templates, User Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 made ​​a typical vandalism (remove text + sources from Wikipedia) [31] and this user start new edit war (two reverts in 16 minutes) and reverted to yesterday version by Benwing (for which there is no consensus). The use of warning template is appropriate. About my edit, this is new edit, I only added opinion by linguistic organisations and political issue (about regional language) + sources, do not change the tree of languages. We can freely edit Wikipedia, I added new data + sources. I have a right to this. The problem of the Slavic languages‎ is complicated and users involved in the discussion are not neutral, therefore, I propose the creation of a neutral RFC. Is this a good idea? Franek K. (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Franek, WP:Vandalism is a very narrowly defined concept here, meaning edits that are designed to deface or undermine the encyclopedia. The two examples given are clearly NOT vandalism. Throwing vandalism templates at people when their edits are not vandalism is considered incivil, and as such, unacceptable. You need to familiarize yourself with the wikilink I've provided, and not template people in this way. You can argue about the appropriateness, the neutrality, etc. of the edits, on the talk page of the article. That is what the talk page is for, and not what we decide at ANI. If you keep accusing people of vandalism for edits you disagree with, you will end up getting blocked, which is something I would rather avoid. I assume you would, too, so stop the templates and use the article talk page and conduct a civil discussion on the merits. If you can't agree, go to WP:DRN and hash it out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see, though Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 is new case but edits by user Benwing have signs of vandalism. Benwing deliberately remove the data and sources from Wikipedia (eg opinions by linguistic organisations) because they have a different opinion and also pushing only one POV-version despite the fact, that the topic is contentious (different opinions between linguists and linguistic organisations and politicians and sociolinguists and other). This falls under the Wikipedia:Vandalism: deliberate action on your site and weakening the credibility and neutrality of Wikipedia. However, you're right, better avoid these terms. Vandalisms better report to administrators. If the fight is not over, I think on the DRN or RFC. Franek K. (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

NONE of these are vandalism; from now on, each time you repeat that word in this manner, I will give you escalating NPA-warnings and you'll eventually be blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is not vandalism. Vandalism is something like replacing the content with garbage or obviously unrelated information. Period. Do not template as vandalism edits that you think have neutrality isssues. As for the content, I have no opinion, but when it comes to your actions, Seb is completely right here. You will get NPA warnings and blocked if you continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I'll try to do not write terms of "vandalism" describing the action of other users. Wikipedia:No personal attacks (NPA) works both ways? So, why user Benwing in their posts lying about me and says that I am an activist; and nationalist editor and other? (for example: [32] and ten times on other sites). This is personal attacks. I asked user Benwing several times to not write about me and do not lie about me. It does not work. Also, user Seb_az86556 who wrote to me about the NPA here should be impartial and should be write about NPA also to user Benwing. Franek K. (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Insertion of non-notable individual into Aix-en-Provence

Putting the socks in their drawer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Spanish version of the Aix article was recently modified to include information about Antonio J. Wassermann living there on Rue Cardinal.[33] I cannot find any sources that suggest this is an important person so I wonder if anyone can back up this addition. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.216.52.43 (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Unfortunately we have no control over the Spanish Wikipedia, only the English (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs on Office 365

Multiple IP addresses in a similar range (presumed to be the same person) have been engaged in an edit war and uncivil behaviour surrounding what the service Microsoft Office 365 is classified as (contending using original synthesises that it cannot be considered Software as a service or Software plus services, despite multiple reliable sources using the term "software as a service" to describe. The page was semi-protected in order to prevent their disruption, but their uncivil remarks continue on the talk page. One IP also made a personal attack directly against me. Their only edits have been on the one page, and I'm beginning to suspect possible sockpuppetry. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I read the link 3 times .... where's the personal attack? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Directly attacked me based off his opinion on my edits and for reporting him on edit warring, claims we cannot use "buzzwords" in articles, that my writing is poor, etc. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." ViperSnake151  Talk  18:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the IP's talk-page contributions look constructive, other than accusing you of vandalism in one edit. A bit gruff perhaps, but I don't think there's need to semi-protect the talk page over this. I think continuing the discussion on the talk page would probably be best. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that there was a WP:DRN case opened on this: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Microsoft Office 365. I closed the DRN case per the intruction at the top of the page: "What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums." --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, everything is a tangled bureaucracy nowadays, sorry about that. I still think that these IP's are conducting disruptive editing practices that need to be rectified ASAP. Asserting ownership of the article (even without editing it) because he does not want it to use certain terms which are actually more confusing than he claims them to be. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

User: 109.151.98.87

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

---

User has engaged in personal attacks and edit-warring, although this last is outside this page's jurisdiction.

Diff 1: His edit summary says, "rv as per WP:OWN - Fantr if you don't like people editing you're words don't go on Wikipedia. (Besides they're only being edited because you can't write for shit.) Did you graduate high school?)"

Diff 2: "Undid revision 544689632 by Fantr (talk) Get stuffed. Read the reference, if you want to get stroppy. I did. What has a credit got to do with anything?)"

I left a message cautioning him against personal attacks. He replied with:

Diff 3: "Piss off fag! If you can't take the heat don't hang out in the kitchen! 109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)"

-Fantr (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK goodness sake. Is this like running to mummy? Geez grow a pair, why don't you! All I did was edit substandard English and amend the words to fit the reference. Look at the article here here when gentle-of-heart rested on the seventh day because they had done all that they could. Then look here to what I added. Seems to me there might be a tad more here than when twinkle toes tried to be an editor. Besides the quote is wrong in the sentence the novelist doesn't "claim" to be a writer on the film, because they were a writer on the film. At the end of the day, I don't suffer fools gladly and as this one has only being around since last October they get what they deserve.109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff 4: He writes on my talk page: "Look you obviously have a very thin skin and also an inability to write clearly and concisely in English. So >with a sigh< I have to take your hand and walk you through the facts: <snip> In the end if you don't want grief then my advice is walk away now? There are no rewards for this, none whatsoever, except unwarranted self importance and eventually a chance to advance to a new level. Despite my crass manner I am trying to be nice, but others who play here will not."

- Fantr (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

But you omit what is wrong with your edit! Ah how very picky of you. I just edit content and add reference. That's all I do. The last time I was dragged here to Admin land must have been a good few years ago. I am more than a gnome, I just like to add information, tighten copy, find sources and improve articles that lack details. However I think sweet, little Fantr is more interested in the drama and lawyering than content. 109.151.98.87 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff 5: He writes on my talk page: "Wow such a drama queen. Why don't you grow a pair and learn to write properly?"

- Fantr (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In contrast, the bravery of IP addresses knows no bounds. However, there's a theme to his comments. Being from "Man"chester, he's obsessed with "Man"hood. I've reported him to AIV, and we'll see where he gets blocked first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

IP blocked 48 hours. Hut 8.5 21:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd kick up the block another 24 hours for accusing others of not being able to write well, while demonstrating their own inability to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Steve Walsh (rugby referee)

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

---

Steve Walsh (rugby referee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to be heavily vandalised. Uberaccount (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It was semi-protected by Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) shortly after you posted here. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Kevin Youkilis

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

---

This is a copy-paste of my post to WP:BASEBALL

User:Nyyfnfrvr is actively disrupting this page, adding a non-free image and the whole "2013-present" WP:CRYSTAL violation. S/He reverted Muboshgu once and me three times. I have issued 3 disruptive editing warnings which have not even bean read. Don't want to be involved in an edit war here - any and all assistance would be awesome. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

and s/he just did this to my talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really consider the talk page thing an emergency or a threat, but quick admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Filed an AIV report. Go Phightins! 21:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

please also see this latest message. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Continued violation of WP:BLP

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

---

Tramadul (talk · contribs) has been warned multiple times on his talk page and at the Paul Frampton talk page to stop using Wikipedia to exact vengeance on the subject of that article. Paul Frampton was duped into carrying a package out of Argentina which turned out to be cocaine. He was arrested and convicted, but Tramadul has been adding nonsense such as "The Paul Frampton ring operated for the purpose of cocaine traffic between Latin America and Europe at least until the arrest of its namesake in early 2012." to numerous article's See also sections,[34][35][36] despite being warned. He also created Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate as a redirect, which he added to multiple articles. A block is already warranted in my opinion. First Light (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tramadul is an out-of-control editor who's primary purpose, based on his edit history, seems to be to do a hatchet job on Paul Frampton. Please see the current BLP/N discussion. Among his many, many outrageous edits is this one he made at Mule (smuggling). Also see this thread on the Frampton talk page about highly inappropriate images he added to this BLP. Look at those images and read his reasoning for adding them. He will not listen to anyone, ignores everything he is told by other editors, continues to make contentious edits (and while a BLP/N exists), and most importantly, appears to be on a mission to destroy the subject's reputation. He acts calm in the various discussions, but then repeatedly proceeds to disruptively edit about Frampton and violate BLP. I agree with First Light that a block is already warranted and also that Tramadul should be permanently banned from editing the Frampton article and from inserting content about him in any other articles. I don't know what Tramadul's beef is with Frampton, but his apparent vendetta needs to stop. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above analysis. User:Tramadul should be banned from editing the Paul Frampton page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC).

Any ban of this sort may need to expand beyond Frampton's page since they also added info about him to the Mule (smuggling) page meaning they may try to insert stuff via a back door if we are not careful.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's simple enough. Extend to matters relating to Paul Frampton. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC).

Absolutely, just as I said above: "Tramadul should be permanently banned from editing the Frampton article and from inserting content about him in any other articles". But that's at the very least. I don't know what it takes to warrant an indefinite ban or a long-term ban, but I'd like to hear from others if this perhaps is an example of it. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this list of highly inappropriate edits make Tramadul's intentions clear: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] It also appears quite possible that there is a significant sockpuppet issue here, but that will have to be dealt with separately. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly trolling. a13ean (talk) 02:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't see this earlier. Blocked for three days. If they return to this article or any article related to this person, or if they commit similar BLP violations elsewhere, it's an indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you! First Light (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

User:TBSailors

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

---

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

User:TBSailors has been adding inappropriate pages to Category:Biblical scholars. The category page includes the "Category diffuse" template (which admittedly, I added myself, about a month ago) stating that "Pages in this category should be moved to subcategories where applicable". TBSailors added several pages to this category. I removed them (since they were already in subcategories) and placed two friendly notices on the user's talk page.[70][71] In response, TBSailors has reverted my edits on eleven pages, each one with the edit summary "undoing vandalism by troll", e.g. [72] StAnselm (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This was TB's first edit after not editing for almost 3 years. I've reverted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've left them a final warning for the edit summaries. As I told them, I'm not inclined to warn again and if they continue, I would expect to see them blocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

More Echigo mole socks, now disrupting SPI report

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

---

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole
• Aquisextian (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Fruit pastille (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Intestinal villus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Actiniform (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 46.65.53.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 86.183.125.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

There have been a number of new socks of which Aquisextian is the latest obvious troll sock, taking the user name from the Latin name for Aix-en-Provence and in their second and third edits trolling in the SPI report about mathematics beyond their competence (a recent article Borel-de Siebenthal theory that I created on Lie groups and symmetric spaces ). All their edits are typical of the community banned user Echigo mole. Please could someone block these sockpuppets and semiprotect the SPI page to stop non-autoconfirmed accounts trolling there. The other accounts are described in on the SPI page listed above. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has blocked the first two accounts as obvious socks as I was making this report. Since Intestinal villus has edited the same articles as Fruit pastille (including the mathematics articles), please could that account be blocked too and the SPI page semiprotected? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected the SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

IP contributions, Spam????

Could someone have a look at the contributions here, not sure what Topix is, but looks like spam to me. Mo ainm~Talk 10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that myself and was going to leave the i.p. a note but you got there first. My initial thought as well was that it was spam but topix does seem to be a general political discussion site and most of the i.p.s contributions (for example here) do seem to contain suggestions on article improvement. I think in this case, encouraging them to add to the articles and discouraging them from linking to topix every single post would be best. Valenciano (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well that Topix link contains information about a large number of issues that relate, which will help change the articles etcetera. I'm not a spammer....one link isn't spamming is it? On a number of the threads, too, such as Roy Acuff, Cadair Idris, Geology Of Great Britain, Mynydd Moel there is no Topix link. I'm almost done. I'm not going to post on every Wikipedia page!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.113 (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the topix links that you're posting. They appear to be to a political discussion forum, however Wikipedia requires reliable sources for material added. Why don't you have a go at editing the pages yourself, if you believe that information is missing? If you're not sure how to do that, you can ask me for help on my talk page. Valenciano (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made posts myself, on Topix. My words. Diary type extracts. Are you accusing me of making that up? So yes sources by me are reliable. I don't see what's so awful about one link in a number of Talk pages. And that link contains further links, for example from newspapers, politicians or wannabe politicians official websites, their twitter pages etcetera. I'm not sure if i want to edit main pages myself or whatever, i want to discuss, hence posting in the talk pages. I might get round to reading your link or links, or i might not get round to it, i've spent a long time typing a lot up. Anyway there's less than 5 left. Etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.253.113 (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, sources by you are not consideredreliable per the policy. It's not that we're saying you're lying. Far from it, you would count as a primary source but there are very strict usages of primary sourcing allowed on wikipedia. In general, only secondary sources are used.However, anything that comes from a reliable source like a newspaper, journal that sort of thing would be most appreciated. Blackmane (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've rolledback the edits as they violate a handful of policies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The same. or very similar, edits are now being made, presumably by the same editor, from another IP: [73]. RolandR (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Soft-blocked 62.249.253.0/24 for one week.—Kww(talk) 18:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

DE user

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

---

IvanOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Extremely disruptive edit warring after expired block for the same thing. Obvious national agenda, no talk page usage, blind revert of sources without comments of edit summary. Just check contribution. User is NOTHERE, in ARBMAC area. --WhiteWriter^speaks 12:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week and edits reverted. I wouldn't normally escalate that fast (the previous block was just one day), but this is beyond simple vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor ignoring talk page, also engaged in WP:Hound

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

---

Hello, consensus was reached by 6 editors to change the wording of a contentious sentence in an article, rather than removing it. One user, (RolandR), however, now refuses to acknowledge the talk page and reverted the rewording in the sentence, and was previously engaged in WP:Hounding to intimidate other editors. Warnings to his talk page he considers "trolling" Was wondering if we could get some help, the agreed change text is located on the talk page, after the RFC text, after the text "a possible change then?". Talk:Karl MarxPatriot1010 (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• You must notify the editor in question when bringing a case to ANI. The easiest way is using the template at the top of this page, {{subst:ANI-notice}}. I've done this for you. Next, the discussion is in an ongoing RFC. I suggest completing that, then using WP:DRN if needed. It is hard to claim a consensus while the RFC is still ongoing. You didn't provide any links to the hounding claim, but if you do so, that can be looked at by someone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Therre was no consensus in the talk page. Three editors favoured a proposal, three opposed it. I am hounding no-one; it was Patriot1010 who him/herself accused me of this, with no details or diffs,[74] after I reverted a clearly unacceptable personal attack by him/her against me at Talk:Karl Marx[75] and one against two other editors at Talk:Pogrom.[76] I did indeed remove as "trolling" repeated edits to my talk page by an editor who has since been warned by two admins to desist from this behaviour.[77] Patriot did not notify me about this complaint (thanks Denis for letting me know), and has not attempted to communicate with me except for the entirely non-specific warning template noted above. I don't think that there is any case to answer here, this is an ongoing content dispute. RolandR (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Lugnuts and civility

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

---

User:Lugnuts assigns stub tags to a lot of articles; I regularly stub-sort and inevitably come across a lot of the tags he's assigned. I've politely pointed out that if he adds {{stub}} rather than {{Stub}} it saves the stub-sorter a few keystrokes, and asked him to use the lower-case "stub". He ignores this and is still today adding {{Stub}}.

OK, it's trivial. But there seems no reason for him not to comply with a polite request to save other editors' time. His attitude to other editors is perhaps reflected in the abusive message displayed to anyone editing his talk page. PamD 18:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you fix whatever piece of software mishandles "Stub"? All code should be case-insensitive with respect to the first letter.—Kww(talk) 18:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Implying that you should fix the "major malfunction"... That's where my edit notice comes from, BTW, as an active member of the Film Project, it's used in a tongue-in-cheek way. This is for fighting, this is for fun, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lugnuts, please - there is a small benefit to using {{stub}} for the sake of future manual typists, and it costs nothing to do it that way first. How about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Take a look at the Usage section at Template:Stub. Lugnuts is doing what our documentation tells him to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Guy Macon. I knew I'd read it somewhere. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd already noticed that, and was going to wait for any dust here to settle, but I've now proposed on the talk page that the wording there is amended to state that {{stub}} is the form which should be used. PamD 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Question: What, exactly, makes {{Stub}} more difficult to work with than {{stub}}? And why should that be any of Lugnuts's concern anyway? --NYKevin 19:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Lugnuts', not Lugnuts's. I don't want to edit your comment, but I thought I'd point out that very important and non-trivial point. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Try amending {{Stub}} or {{stub}} to {{painting-stub}} (and sorting a dozen more similar stubs) and spot the difference. PamD 19:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this discussion worth bringing up on the administrators' noticeboard for incidents? What exactly do you think administrators should be doing about this? Giving him a telling off on his user talk page? Blocking him? Okay, I've grabbed my mop and will furiously shake it at him while saying: "Lugnuts, type stub with a lower case 's' rather than an upper case 'S' to be nice to the stub sorting people. If you don't, we will... not do anything about it, because it's pretty much completely trivial." —Tom Morris (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Administrator abuse: User:Bbb23

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

---

Below I have compiled a list of recent evidence of administrator abuse by User:Bbb23 against two other users: an IP user and subsequently myself. Note that, per policy, I have discussed this with the user being reported - see the last point below - before coming here.

Against the IP user:

1. Merging reports made by two different users into one without citing policy - I have been unable to find a policy that supports this myself - and more importantly doing so in such a way as to almost completely remove the second user's report
2. Clearly violating policy by semi-protecting this article, despite the fact that the reporting user was registered while the user being reported was not
   From WP:SEMI: "Semi-protection should not be used [...] to privilege registered users over unregistered users in (valid) content disputes."
3. Favouring one version of a protected page over another by reverting after protecting

Against myself:

1. Making an implied threat against me for speaking out against - at least possible - administrator abuse, ignoring part of my unblock request, and most importantly responding to an unblock request despite not being an uninvolved (independent) administrator
2. Claiming to have been an uninvolved (independent) administrator despite policy
   (Note that a more detailed explanation of this point was written by me here)
3. Again claiming to have been an uninvolved (independent) administrator despite policy and more importantly implying that this administrator is willing to change a guideline without consensus
4. Actually changing a guideline without consensus
5. Closing a report for being retaliatory without citing policy - I have been unable to find a policy that supports this myself - and more importantly ignoring my specific request that this be handled by an uninvolved (independent) administrator
6. Refusing to cite policy even when specifically asked to do so and refusing to discuss this administrator abuse situation at all

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of this looks meritless. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I expect an explanation of this opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to expect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I now expect that other users who come across this case will disregard your opinion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I suspect that a lot of them will go through each diff as I did and will not see what you claim they are. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

At least I got you to explain your opinion. A point-by-point explanation would be preferable, though, especially for other users who come across this case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dogmaticeclectic, please read WP:IDHT and WP:STICK. Continuing to stomp your feet is not going to get you your way here. Of course admins always protect the WP:WRONGVERSION, it's what we do. There's no "admin abuse" here. There's no "involved" here, and quite frankly your continuing along this path is leading into disruptive editing, and likely to lead to a longer block than your initial one. (See also: WP:BOOMERANG) Hopefully someone will close this down before you get yourself into any further mischief. — Ched :  ?  19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote about the protection issue carefully. More importantly, there is far more to this case than just the points you mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• I almost closed this as without merit after going through and reading the diffs, but felt there might be some educational value in leaving it open more than 10 minutes. After reviewing the diffs, I didn't see anything that qualifies as admin abuse, or incivility even. You can disagree with his conclusions, but that doesn't make them abuse. As Ched has pointed out, bringing unsubstantiated claims here wasn't wise, and trying to wikilawyer us isn't either. In the future, WP:AN and not WP:ANI is the appropriate place to register admin complaints. For what it is worth, I suggest withdrawing the complaint, or finding a diff that actually demonstrates some abuse. Or duck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should update WP:ADMINABUSE then, after obtaining consensus of course - it currently links here. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite - these claims are simply wrong. Bbb23 is quite right about involved (he wasn't), he didn't "change a guideline" (he just wikilinked it), and the claim that Bbb23 made an implied threat when he was responding to an unblock request that did contain a threat (made by you) is really not wise. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote about the guideline change issue carefully. More importantly, there is far more to this case than just the points you mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I have read it all - that's ten minutes of my life I won't get back. There is no merit to any of your claims. Bbb23 did nothing wrong whatsoever. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I see it does, although for long term issues (like you are claiming) that are not singular incidents, WP:AN has traditionally been the venue of choice. That aside, my other advice stands. I strongly suggest you drop the stick as it appears several people have looked an no one has found merit to your claims. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
      • It sounds like you didn't read what I wrote about the report closure issue carefully. More importantly, there is far more to this case than just the points you mentioned. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• None of these diffs indicate any administrative abuse. The section borders on abuse of an admin, though.—Kww(talk) 19:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see: 1) No issue Merging two related reports is the norm - in any investigation (including ANI) the actions and activities of both (or all) parties are considered. In all cases of edit-warring, there are at least 2 parties involved - sometimes more. Merging reports is the best way to proceed so that all evidence is evaluated and weighed properly - of course, tit-for-tat filings usually don't end up well, and that becomes part of the evidence. As such, merging them removes the appearance of tit-for-tat, thus giving the reviewing admins better opportunity for objective review. 2) No issue Protection in lieu of blocks is the preferred M.O. If the most problematic edits are being made by an anonymous editor, then protection is common. It's also highly possible that the admin watchlisted the article in question to ensure that the registered user did not continue to abuse edit-warring, OR abuse the fact that the article was not protected. 3) No issue The protecting admin usually returns to a pre-edit-war version - or at least a version that appears to have the most references supporting it.

1) No issue Your unblock request was horribly non-GAB compliant, and was clearly the right thing to do. 2) No issue You're obviously mistaken about your reading of WP:INVOLVED 3) No issue See above 4) No issue He was WP:BOLD, and he actually made WP:AAB match policy - no discussion nor additional consensus required 5) No issue Retaliatory/tit-for-tat filings are typically closed for the benefit of whoever was silly enough to open a tit-for-tat filing to prevent them from being blocked for disruption instead 6) No issue He discussed - you simply didn't like the answers. probably just like you're going to do right now. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggest final warning be given and immediate block if Dogmaticeclectic pursues this any further. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly concur. When you reach the point where you are claiming that everybody on Wikipedia is wrong and you alone are right, you really need to find a place that is more to your liking. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I also support giving Dogmaticelectric a strict warning and a block if Dogmaticelectric pursues this any further. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Seems a logical conclusion, warn when possible. I've tried to gently hint that backing away was in his best interest and that hasn't worked, perhaps Bwilkins or someone else can craft a proper warning that conveys the situation, and the consequences if the warning isn't heeded. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Read all the material, report is cruft. Nothing there approaching admin abuse. Not that it matters what I (or anyone else) think as everyone is wrong, apparently. Support final warning and block if this continues. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• I took a shot at it on his talk page - he seems to have stepped away for the moment, so hopefully it can be a learning experience. So ..  Done — Ched :  ?  21:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Annoying IP vandal

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

---

I went to AIV, but didn't end up posting anything because this isn't just simple vandalism. 24.135.72.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is edit-warring with me on my talk page, blanking virtually everything, and all because I semiprotected a page because this IP was disrupting it — the IP is seemingly being used by a blocked user, too, although the proof isn't so strong that I thought a sock block warranted. Crowning everything else is the messages at the IP's talk: "I will continue vandalising until someone blocks me" and "Remove the biased source or block thousands of people, BECAUSE I WILL GET A NEW ADDRESS IF I GET BLOCKED. REMOVE IT OR BLOCK ME NO THER CHOICE". I hesitate on WP:INVOLVED grounds to block, and I'm about to go to church, so I'll not be able to look out for socking; someone else will need to do it. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP and will try to keep an eye out for reincarnations. Favonian (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Favonian has just blocked the IP, but the threats of socking mean that we'll need to keep paying attention. Final note — please do not semiprotect my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oldhouse2012/Archive 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Edit warring IP at Sega Genesis

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

---

Now, I just noticed that I just hit four reverts in a day, so I realize that I'm not without sin here, but could an uninvolved admin take a look at the history at Sega Genesis?

The issue here is that the device is sold under different names in America verses other English-speaking nations, and it occasionally causes minor problems when people try to "Correct" parts of the article, which uses American eng-var throughout.

Right now there's an IP editor making various eng-var changes leaving edit summaries like "retarded yank is retarded". He was blocked for 12 hours for 3RR and immediately took it back up again when the block wore off.

Thanks. APL (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to edit-war. Maybe try talking to 'em? If it's "wrong" for a short time, that's not the end of the world... perhaps you could discuss it with the person, and come to some agreement. User talk:82.41.107.134 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've left him a final warning and full protected the page for 24 hours. Obviously, this isn't a person who takes to civil discussion very quickly, but I ask that you try on the article talk page, and give it the old college try. If they continue the incivility and warring, they will likely be blocked again. For your sins, which you have graciously admitted, go read WP:3RR three times for penance, and please don't do that again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it appears the IP invoked Godwin's Law [78] and has been blocked by Favonian. It does rather prove my previous point, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, can't win 'em all. 88.104.17.92 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Death threat by IP

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

---

Should something be done about this? Revdel is obvious, of course, but can we lengthen the IP's block? – Richard BB 21:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been reverted, I've protected the talk page until the block expires. I don't see a need to extend the block as it's fairly obvious it's not a serious threat and just pure trolling. I don't even see a need to rev del.Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I did RevDel the edit, but the existing block should be sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Widescreen and Civility

Widescreen (talk · contribs) has recently made some abrasive remarks over a dispute in psychoanalysis.

• (diff) Sorry Snowded, he got us! Theres a "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience" edited by Dr William F. Williams as article in Wikipedia. Let's pack up and go home. This argumentation is so cleare I can't found any arguments anymore. Thats it! He pulped us.

When I asked for an apology he responded with another insult:

• (diff) It's your decision what you add here at wikipedia. You have to bear the response. Particularly when you are so undiscerning. (my emphasis)

Widescreen has also had a history of personal threats and other uncivil remarks:

• (diff) Sorry, I'm not interested in your faux-indignation. I called your arguments sophistry. Thats not a personal attack. I think such sophistry damage the contents of our articles. Calm down and try to answer my critic, or I will revert you.

• (diff) CartoonDiablo has been clearly violtaing WP:BEHONEST, WP:NOSOPHISTRY; WP:DON'TFABRICATEARGUMENTS; WP:KNOWWHENYOUAREWRONG; WP:NEVERTRYTOFOOLOTHERS and of course WP:NPOV. Diffs are known.

• (diff) You talking such a nonsense. That's not bearable.

• (diff) Sorry, but this dispute can't be resolved, because it isn't a dispute among different authors. It's a dispute among CartoonDiablo and reality.

He has been told by various editors to stop before (diff)(diff)(diff) and has not done so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I'm a bad user and CD is a commendable one. I have no intention whatsoever to follow this siding. --WSC ^® 22:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have had dealings with both of these editors at the Psychoanalysis article. I have to say that each of them has a long way to go before they could be called collegial, collaborative and co-operative. However neither has, in my opinion, yet done anything blockworthy and there is no admin action justified or necessary in this case at the moment. I hope it remains that way. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• NB: I should point out I'm WP:INVOLVED at this article and won't be taking any admin action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 23:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree things haven't been cooperative but this is beyond the pale, I asked in good faith as have other users to stop and he continues to so. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed Widescreen's comment here, am I the only person that thinks that's kind of insulting especially right when its in here? CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

IMHO, these comments above are pretty far on the wrong side of the WP:CIVIL, and it's the WP:NPAborhood they're residing in. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Mitredestructor2, edit warring and repeated insertion of Non-RS BLOG links

Page: Kallistos Ware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mitredestructor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requested action: 1-week block

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

UNSOURCED BLP

• Revert 1 (restoring unsourced BLP violation) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542927913: restoring truthful comments about Ware's closeness to Moscow Patriarchate")
• Revert 2 (same as revert 1) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (edit summary: "No BLP issues in truthful comments. These issues are well known and do not stand to Ware's credit.")

REPEATED INSERTION OF Non-RS WP:SELFPUB SOURCE

• NonRS insertion 1 23:10, 10 March 2013 (edit summary: "Ware's relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad")
• NonRS insertion 2 10:23, 11 March 2013 (edit summary: "Ware's double allegiance to the Russian orthodox Church Abroad and to the Ecumenical Patriarchate")

TOLD IT IS NONRS19:40, 11 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mitredestructor2 (talk): Issues with WP:BLP; the only source offered is questionable (per WP:BLOGS). (TW)")

• NonRS insertion 3 11:21, 12 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 543479488 - ROCOR Studies article has been approved by M. Kallistos himself")

AGAIN told it is NonRS 13:12, 12 March 2013

• NonRS insertion 4 19:52, 12 March 2013 (edit summary: "Nothing incorrect in an article which has been specifically approved by M. Kallistos himself.")

Told his claimed exception to WP:SELFPUB is invalid 19:58, 12 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 543682096 by Mitredestructor2 (talk) Fails criteria #4 at WP:ABOUTSELF; plus you're WP:EDITWARRING")

20:03, 12 March 2013 Edit war warning

• NonRS insertion 5 20:28, 17 March 2013 (edit summary: "Adding reference")

Both and I and another user have attempted to engage mitredestructor2 at their talk page, and on the article talk page, but mitredestructor2 has not responded - other than to keep inserting the nonRS blog.

Request 1-week block NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Bill Browder

Bill Browder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This biographical article appears to be subject of heavy point of view pushing.[79] Could a few uninvolved editors please take a look. I am especially concerned about the allegation of plagiarism,[80] and the attempts to include primary sourced material from dodgy sources.[81] Jehochman ^Talk 22:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that this article was the subject of an ANI discussion last month, "Borderline legal threat". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Violation of WP:AGF

I made an edit to the "Lakeside High School (DeKalb County, Georgia)" to update the GHSA (Georgia High School Association) navbox to the correct navbox. User:TerriersFan placed a vandalism warning template on my talk page, which is a violation of AGF since my edit was not vandalism. TerriersFan also reverted my edit. Therefore if there is any vandalism being committed it is by TerriersFan, since the definition of vandalism is edit(s) that compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, because I actually adhere to AGF I am not going to accuse TerriersFan of vandalism since he/she might have thought my edit was improper, but anyway his/her action of posting the vandalism template was uncalled for - see Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars.

I would like for appropriate sanctions to be applied, thank you in advance. --96.32.138.125 (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• The essay "don't template the regulars" is just that, an essay. It is not policy, so there is no enforceability to it. Your being an IP makes it impossible to tell if you are a regular anyway. You didn't bother trying to discuss this with him on his talk page first, something we expect in cases like this. That being the case, I would suggest closing this thread and if you have an issue, discuss it with the editor first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

1. TerriersFan's talk page says to reply to messages he posts on the same page, therefore I would think that me replying to his post on my talk page, on my own talk page, is sufficient attempt of trying to discuss this with him/her. Additionally I notified the user of this AN/I discussion.
2. DTTR is just an aside, the main issue is the accusation of vandalism, which is clearly unfounded based on my edit to the "Lakeside High School (DeKalb County, Georgia)" page, and is thus likely a violation of WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith).

--96.32.138.125 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Just my view, I see no vandalism by this IP address at all in the history, nothing that even comes close (by this IP). gwickwire^talk_editing 01:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

96.32.138.125's edit added "AAAAA" to the article; seemingly random strings of letters like that are a common pattern in vandalism and editing tests. Particularly with the lack of an edit summary or reference, mistaking this edit as vandalism is unfortunate but understandable, in my opinion. An apology is in order I think, but this was a single mistake and there's no need for admin action here. Sanctions are imposed on editors only to prevent continuous disruption and not as punishment. Chamal ^T•C 02:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

TerriersFan has already apologized and struck the template warning [82] [83] . Done? 88.104.17.92 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)