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

The CfD result regarding American women novelists ignored at Amanda Filipacchi

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24#Category:American women novelists
• Amanda Filipacchi
• Obiwankenobi and The Devil's Advocate

The above-linked CfD was closed as;

“ The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature. {{All included}} and/or {{Distinguished subcategory}} should be added to the latter so that this does not happen again. Can someone with AWB or a similar tool do this soon, given the frighteningly large amount of media coverage focused on these categories and related discussion? ”

I did just that at the Amanda Filipacchi article...IMO there was no reason to wait for the bot script to come about in order to address some of the more high-profile articles of this debacle...but was reverted once by Obiwan, and again by TDA. So rather than perpetuate an edit war, admin intervention will apparently be needed to enforce a consensus decision and prevent disruption by these two users. Tarc (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Just came across this myself. It takes a hell of a lot of gall to claim of a just-closed CFD that " this is a losing a battle" [1]. Picking the article most certain to cause outrage as the locus of this defiance is approximately as WP:POINTy as putting that article up for deletion, and just as futile. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• There has been no decision against categorizing by century. People in Category:20th-century American novelists and Category:21st-century American novelists do not need to be in the overall Category:American novelists. There is absolutely no reason for such duplication. Anyway, Filipacchi is on List of American novelists, where if someone really wanted to marginzalize her they could fairly easily, as has been done in the past by removing Stephanie Meyer from that list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • • We've established loads of reasons for duplication, and who is that keeps claiming we can't have duplication? That's not true. Eventually, the duplication will be removed through technical means, but for now, stop diffusing the categories. This obsession with unhelpful tasks that piss people off needs to stop. Viriditas (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on the matter at this point is entirely irrelevant. These BLPs are to be categorized back into Category:American novelists and Category:American women novelists, that's all there is to it. What you choose to do after the fact regarding 20th, 21st century or any other categorizes is academic. Tarc (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
    • No, the decision is that we will not remove articles from Category:American novelists to place them in Category:American women novelists. There is no decision against moving them to Category:20th-century American novelists or Category:American historical novelists. Those are legitmate diffusing categories and there is absolutely no reason not to diffuse. If you think we should not have Category:20th-century American novelists, you are free to take it to a CfD, but while it exists it is a 100% legitimate diffusion category, and there is no reason to fight diffusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Your interpretation of the matter is so divorced from reality that we're either in "I'm not listening" or "Just plain doesn't get it" territory. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Suggest you diffuse the other 4,000 American novelists into their respective century sub-categories first before you do Filipacchi. Otherwise the unavoidable impression is that you are unpleasantly and indefensibly obsessed with the category her biography is in. Walk away, drop the stick. Andreas JN466 10:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment(edit conflict):I've been watching this whole fiasco from the sidelines. Seeing this pop up at the bottom of the noticeboard made me think of a scene from a painting (or perhaps a movie, it was quite a while ago) I saw. Attila and his horde were advancing down a hill upon an unsuspecting settlement. With this huge debacle, and the following media storm, I can only imagine in horror the Chinese fire drill that will result. All while this plays in the background. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more of this. At any rate abstracting the principle of the CFD result (i.e., don't diffuse people by gender, race, or anything else likely to set off the "ghetto" accusations) and then getting on with doing anything else but this what everyone needs to do, at least for a couple of weeks. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Stop diffusing the goddamn categories. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello friendly denizens of ANI, and allow me to apologize in advance for having been partially responsible for bringing what is basically a content dispute here. The reason I felt it might be worthwhile coming before you is an interesting point of policy - how does community consensus interact with guidance, in this case, this particular guidance: Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing_pages, which states "In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Non-diffusing subcategories below."

We have a very crisp and specific example here in the guise of a famous novelist that launched a storm of epic proportions against our little wiki-ship - I think Ms. Filipacchi has actually done us a lot of good, ultimately, by pushing us to think hard about what categorization means, and how we might be giving an impression of sexism or racism, and why we need to do better. So, thanks to her for that.

Now, we have a CFD, which closes as "keep + merge" - meaning, all women novelists would be also bubbled up to Category:American novelists.

That much is clear, and is currently being done. However, here is where it gets fuzzy - what happens next? I can map out a few possible scenarios:

1. community consensus was firm and clear, and all women novelists shall forever remain American novelists - not to be diffused. The community, unfortunately, was mum on a few other points - like, what about men?

a)In the interest of fairness, should all male novelists, even those that have been diffused to deep subcats, bubble up to American novelists too? Then that basically suggests the following conclusion: henceforth, in the American novelists tree, all categories are non-diffusing, and we bubble up the whole shebang (Note for the record: there are 3000 novelists not in the head cat today, so get your bots ready) I'm not sure if the community said that, but maybe they did.

b) Or, should all male novelists be treated as before, eligible to be diffused. If this is the case, then we have a stranger situation - in a few months time, after the gnomes are done diffusing all of the men, there will be only women left in American novelists. Ah, the irony!

Either way, if you take this to its conclusion, you end up in two strange worlds (1) Where everyone is in American novelists or (2) where only women are in American novelists. I'm not sure either is desirable. Remember, before this whole debacle started, Category:American novelists was tagged with a template that asked people to diffuse - so clearly consensus leading up to this was that the cat should be diffused.

1. Here's another option - community consensus was that women novelists should be bubbled up, and then henceforth treated like their male colleagues. If this is the case, then diffusion to a by-century cat once they're there (which I did, and have done to several other bios, male and female, that have hit my watchlist), is perfectly reasonable. (For the record, this is my own personal position)

A counter-argument could be made here as follows - That's all fine and good Obi, but (a) I don't like the century cats or (b) the century cats should be non-diffusing. But I haven't heard anyone make either of those arguments.

1. A third option is what I might call Filipacchi-exceptionalism. The argument here is (and this has already been made above)is that this bio is now so famous, and she was so dismayed at not being in the American novelist cat, that we should keep her there, no matter what. The other women and men can be diffused, no-one will care - but she must stay. There may be good reasons for this, having to do with reputation, letting-storms-blow-over, not-poking-a-lion-with-a-stick (esp when she has a NY times pulpit), etc.
2. A fourth option, which we might call the ostrich option, is to say "there is so much media around this, let's just give in, stick them all in American novelists, and hope the attention goes away" - then after a few months, we can get back to categorizing and diffusing the way we always did (remembering, of course, to not diffuse gendered categories). So the community then says, don't touch anyone in American novelists for a month or a year, then back to business.

So that's my brief analysis of this story. I welcome your thoughts, and I'm sure there are other options/interpretations, and I will of course abide by whatever you want us to do here, but please be very clear on the guidance - going forward, what exactly is allowed in terms of diffusion from American novelists - can everyone be diffused? only men? Everyone but Filipacchi? Everyone but that specific set of women who were in the American women novelists category as of May 2? And does the guidance decided here affect other categories, like Category:French novelists or Category:Polish poets, etc.? Cheers, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors should not be categorizing and diffusing, as that makes it impossible to find anything. Wikipedia:Categorization is a guideline and its current implementation does not work. We need to take categorization tasks out of the hands of obsesive editors and make them completely automated. You guys had your chance and you blew it. Now, step away. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

+1 ^^ Exactly this. The obsession with arbitrary "too big" limits on categories leading to increasingly useless "diffusion" just makes the category system useless as anything other than a self perpetuating plaything. Categorise every thing for everything that it is (which we deem notable enough). An author goes in "Authors". US people go in "US People", etc... Each category record reflects a single data point for a single item. Then use the intersects to search. If that means some articles have hundreds of categories, or some categories contain (god forbid) tens of thousands of things, then so be it. That's how the world we are documenting is structured. We should record all of the data as it is, and allow it to be searched in any way based on this data. The technical issues of how this information is displayed and searched will need to be solved, but trying to guess the result of any potential search by creating a zillion over specific ghettoised "subcategories" as we do now is unachievable. They aren't categories at all, they are search terms... I'm not even going to touch on the potential it includes and perpetuates for "attack/slur categories", but the impact of that is far from negligible. Begoon ^talk 04:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As I've said before, indeed - this approach around high-level facets is definitely the way we should be going. But we're not at a bar all having beers together - TDA and I have been dragged before ANI to receive a smack-down. Has the community, e.g. the broad consensus, changed? Did some big RFC somewhere say "no more diffusion, no more specific categories"? I'd love to end up there, but we aren't there yet, so sanctioning us for not fulfilling that utopia right now seems a bit over eager. Let it be known that as we push for category intersections, I am all over that and even made a prototype of it at Category:Nigerian novelists. But that's not yet the consensus path as far as I know. Cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That all seems well and good so long as you are talking about individual people who can be subject to fairly simple classifications like you describe. However, you are still going to need those more specific sub-cats to cover subjects of more specific interest where you can't have some straight-forward intersection. Surely you aren't suggesting we shouldn't have Category:Kennedy family or that it can be easily addressed with some intersection of other widely-used categories. How about Category:William Shakespeare or ones about events such as Category:World War II? Maybe what people are suggesting can limit the amount of diffusion necessary, but there would still need to be quite a bit of it in order for categories to serve their desired purpose.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can have a category "Kennedy Family". It's an additional data point concerning the articles you include in it. Provided it's deemed notable you create it and add it to all articles concerned. What you don't do is remove the members of your new category from other categories they belong to, like "TV miniseries", "People", Women or "US Presidents". Same goes for "World War II" and your Shakespeare example. As ObiWan says, though, this is probably the wrong place for this big discussion - I just wanted to agree with Viriditas' point, and maybe expand on it a bit. Begoon ^talk 05:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas raised his personal opinion that is unsupported by any consensus here as though it somehow has relevance. Adding sub-categories and removing parent categories is not suddenly prohibited. What this really amounts to is that the Amanda Filipacchi article is getting special attention because she was in the press on this issue. Even now this sort of category switch happening on another article generally would and does occur without incidence. No policy or consensus is actually being violated as replacing a broader gender-neutral category with a more specific gender-neutral category is not the same as "ghettoizing" novelists by gender. It is, in fact, a compromise measure that has not been rejected by any consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It should be prohibited when obsessive editors engage in disruptive category diffusion that brings the entire mainstream media down on us and instead of listening to their criticism, attacks them in response and continues on their merry, obsessive way. No, I'm sorry, but you guys need to stop this unusual obsession with category diffusion and find something useful to do. Wikipedia isn't therapy. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're pretty clear on your POV here. I will take your recommendation under consideration. That said, when the mainstream media gets it wrong, as they did in the main this time, I usually just feel free to ignore them - beaucoup de bruit pour rien. Is wikipedia's clunky categorization system really the front line of the sexism problem in the world? I mean, if we solve that, have we made a big dent in the problems that women face in the world? No.

In the meantime, do you have any actual violations that merit sanction here? I do note that JPL was proposed for a categories topic ban just a few days ago, and was closed in a pretty snowy fashion. Personally, I've probably categorized < 100 bios in the past week or so, so I'm not exactly an obsessive machine, and I'm almost positive I haven't ghettoized anyone. In fact, I de-ghettoized Maya Angelou, who was a feature article candidate but her categorization was besmirched in the media - I fixed that. :)

Also, since you seem to be a fan of an all-inclusive Category:American novelists category, can we count on you to volunteer to start bubbling the 3000 bios up the tree? I mean, do you actually care enough to do something about it, or are you more the rock-throwing type? (I kid :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The fact is that plenty of men and women were not included in the main category at the outset of this because they were included in non-gendered sub-categories of American novelists. Just look at any number of sub-categories and you will see both men and women who are not included in American novelists because they are included in a gender-neutral subcat. I don't think the intention of the CfD was that every single person in every sub-category of American novelists (currently 6792 people) be added to the American novelists category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • And, just exactly what is wrong with that? With alpha sortable menu options at the top, I can find exactly what I'm looking for anyway. If we had a well designed category system, we wouldn't be diffusing anything, and frankly, all of this effort spend diffusing categories can be better spent improving articles. Let the bots deal with the categories. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. Allow me to invite you to view a prototype I created here: Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today - would love your input and feedback. For the record, I agree, it would be great if we could get to some sort of category intersection, and have larger head cats. However, we're not there yet - we have a prototype that could be evolved, and wikidata is on it's way - but until then, I don't recall community consensus to rescind the guidance for categorization - so why should we stop paying attention to it? Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• This assumes you know the novelist's name or that you are even looking for a specific novelist. I think Obi's addition of Catscan to the top of the category page was actually a very good way of addressing the desire for a single comprehensive list without having some big clutter of entries. Until there is an actual function that would, with the same or greater level of ease, serve the same purpose as creating more specific sub-categories then we should work with the current system. The objection was that women were being systematically moved out of the parent category to a gender-specific sub-category, but not men. We do not have that situation as plenty of men are in these sub-categories and not the parent category.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another question for V (and others advocating full membership in American novelists) - should we also consider bubbling this all up to American writers? That way, we can see all writers, no matter what type, in one category. Then, we could move all the writers up another level, so that we can see all writers, artists, etc, all in one place, for convenience? Diffusion is there for a reason, and until we have a better category system, we'll be in big trouble if we start un-diffusing large trees - as it's not clear where to stop. Is Category:American novelists an exception to all rules now? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they should all be upmerged to Category:Humans. Or perhaps that's discriminatory to some famous apes, so Category:Apes would be better. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The only people who should be "bubbled up" are people who were excluded from a generic category based on race, gender, sexuality or religion. If American novelists end up being diffused from Category:American novelists to century categories, then I suggest Wikipedia would be wise to start with the men, as otherwise outside observers are very likely to get the wrong impression whenever the American novelists category is removed from a female writer's biography. You want to be able to point to hundreds of diffusing edits to male novelists' biographies (i.e. edits removing Category:American novelists from the article, and replacing it with a category like 20th-century American novelists) that were made under the exact same rationale. Andreas JN466 11:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think you would not want to "start" with any specific gender as if the category becomes entirely female that could raise questions as well or if someone sees an editor in the process of depopulating an exclusively female version of the category they may only see an editor systematically removing women without catching on that the men are already gone. Perhaps we should avoid Filipacchi for some time until it becomes abundantly obvious that no gender or individual is being targeted. If people see her removed from the category and then notice or are told that the category is otherwise empty, it would make things a lot less contentious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, this isn't (on one level at least) all that hard. Given the outcome of the CFD, any solution to whatever categorization problem there is which takes the "women X" out of "X people" is going to be unsatisfactory. If the guideline says otherwise, then it's time to talk about changing it. And if we can't come to a consensus about that, it's time to rethink the whole categorization mechanism (and I'm personally betting that we'll get to that eventually). But however any of that goes, ostensibly mechanical application of anyone's interpretation of the guideline against the explicitly stated outcome of the CFD, at the article which is the locus of the original complaint, is a Reichstag-class level of WP:POINTy behavior. Taking the person's article who is rattling our cage in the media and making it an object example of one's defiance is deserving of a vacation, and a forced vacation if one doesn't back down. Right here don't need to discuss to the bitter end, or even any further, whatever solution needs to be worked out, but anyone who diffuses that particular article needs to be blocked if they go at it again. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. There are nearly 4,000 novelists to diffuse from Category:American novelists (if that is indeed what is going to be done). Why anyone would want to start with Filipacchi beats me. You can diffuse her when the vast majority of men have been diffused, otherwise it will just look like more petty harassment and revenge editing. Andreas JN466 10:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah but having diffused all the 17th 18th and 19th century American Novelists the 20th century list is going to be so much smaller and more manageable, and won't have anywhere near 4000 items. John lilburne (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Does the CFD ruling apply only to American novelists? What about Americans in other professions? What about novelists of other nationalities? Categorisation should be consistent across the entire system, having special rules just for Americans or Novelists is completely unacceptable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dito women. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The ruling is the ruling. Apply it with common sense either directly or by analogy when needed. There is an incredible lack of common sense on display by anyone advocating that Filapacchi need be an initial target of removal from Category:American novelists yet again.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The CFD ruling applies narrowly to the issue of American novelists, that being the set of categories under specific discussion here. But I think it serves as a useful precedent for other, similar categories - and that this issue shows in general that we need to revise the Category guidelines. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• My read of the consensus at the CFD is clear, and I'm having a hard time seeing how overrulling that consensus is not a prime example of Disruptive Editing. Could someone explain how a guideline trumps a specific CFD? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't even really pay much attention to the CfD when it was happening so I really didn't look at the result. Looking at it now, I don't read the consensus as being "no article can be removed from the parent category when moved to a gender-neutral sub-category" but more as "no article can be removed from the parent category just to be moved to a gendered sub-category" and I feel the changes being made were consistent with that principle. To Jayen's point above, I don't actually think anyone was "starting" with the Filipacchi article as many other articles for male and female novelists were getting moved to those gender-neutral sub-categories. It is instead that people only noticed the change on the Filipacchi article because more people were looking at the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The entire point of the debate was that removing female novelists from the main category was somehow interpreted as saying that they were not actual for-reals American novelists. The result of the discussion was that the articles removed from that main category should be put back into that category, while the articles for female novelists should remain at the subcategory as well. OK, so is the subject of this article an American novelist? Yup. Is the subject of this article a female American novelist? Yup. So now I'm asking you to please revert your edit here and restore the main category to the article, in conformance to the consensus at CFD of which you are now aware. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the edit was already reverted. However, looking over the votes in the CfD, I would say the consensus was that the American women novelists category issue was a problem because women were removed from the parent category, while men remained. Most calls for a merge or restoring articles to the parent category specifically justified it on the basis of the parent category becoming exclusively male. As noted, moving men and women out of the parent category is not creating that issue. I do not think one should take the admin finding of consensus as indicative of the actual community perspective. To me it seems as though moving all articles in the American novelists category, without regard for gender, to gender-neutral sub-categories is perfectly respecting the major objections raised in the CfD, even if it doesn't fit the letter of the admin's closing statement.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both men and women should be upmerged to the parent. Equal opportunity categorization is the only solution. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Compromise

Thanks to all above for their thoughtful comments - I've learned a lot, and I appreciate better why this has caused an uproar. To me, it seems to be an issue mostly of timing and scale, not of principle - e.g. I'm not sure people think Category:American novelists should *never* be diffused, just that we shouldn't start by diffusing to non-gendered cats women who have written articles about wikipedia. Fair enough. So that said, here is my proposed compromise:

• No more women can be diffused out of Category:American novelists to a non-gendered century-specific cat (e.g. Category:19th-century American novelists or to a non-gendered genre cat like Category:American romantic fiction writers) until there are at least 1000 men, including 10 Pulitzer prize winning men, that have been moved out of the head category first. I noted above that I've already moved Hemingway - I will go after Faulkner next. In addition, for Filipacchi specifically, we should keep her in the head cat for at least one month regardless of what happens - after which point she can be diffused as long as there are at least 3 (male or female) Nobel prize in literature winners in the same category as her. In this way, she will remain in the head cat at least until this all blows over. Finally, a (self-imposed) wet minnow to Obiwan as a way of helping him get a clue. I welcome your thoughts and modifications to the above.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating two issues. The consensus was that female American novelists should be in both the category for American novelists and the subcategory for female American novelists. All of the other issues surrounding century-specific categories, diffusion, etc, are subordinate to that consensus. Suggesting that we comply with that consensus "until this all blows over" is rubbish - have an RFC and come up with a better solution, then. But the CFD result should not just be handwaved away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I totally appreciate where you're coming from. However, as noted above, if we take that specific interpretation of consensus to its logical conclusion, we end up with an odd result. (I note that the consensus never ruled on whether post-facto diffusion to non-gendered sub cats was allowable or not - the consensus was mum on that issue, so it's really an interpretation you're putting forth).

If it is allowed to diffuse men in Category:American novelists to century-or genre-specific sub-cats, but the women are untouchable, then the result after a few months will be that Category:American novelists will only contain women. That would be a rich irony indeed - and perhaps, frankly, deserved :) But do you understand why this is not desirable or logical? On the other hand, if it's also *not* allowed to diffuse men, then that means, logically, all cats under Category:American novelists have now become non-diffusing, and to be fair, we have to bubble up everyone who's not currently in the parent - around 3000 bios. My response here may be helpful in understanding why that is not desirable either ==> Category_talk:American_novelists#By_century_sub-cats. Best regards, and appreciate your contributions here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• • That compromise sounds eminently sensible to me. (At least, if there are subsequent arguments about whether diffusion is sensible or not, these arguments will be carried out on the backs of male writers.) Andreas JN466 23:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, uh, why is having a very big category a bad thing?

Let me first admit that I have not read all of discussion about this, but I will ask my question anyway and perhaps someone can point me to the answer - why is having 6700 (or 10000, or more) listings in a category a bad thing? If readers of WP see that a person is in the category "People from Earth" and in "People from Africa" (or "People from Mali" etc), what does it matter how many entries the main category has? I think it is clear from the media reports that readers have been confused and upset by the diffusion of categories. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not only are readers upset, editors are too (well, I am). And the media has it right, imo. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a great question - and I think it points to a fundamental flaw and confusion with the way the current system works. There are two ways of fixing what you're asking for:

1. Alternative 1: Put everyone in every category all the way up the chain. This would mean, all American politicians would be in Category:American politicians, as well as in any specific cats below, and in the more generic cats all the way up the tree, such as Category:American political people, Category:American people by occupation, Category:People_by_nationality_and_occupation, Category:People_by_nationality, Category:People, Category:Humans,Category:Hominina,Category:Homininae, Category:North_American_people, Category:People_of_the_Americas, Category:People_by_region, and so on. To implement this in a generic fashion, we'd literally have to add dozens or, depending on depth and complexity of parenting, hundreds of categories to every single page in the wiki.

Take a look at Category:People - can you see how easy it is to find those in need of better categorization? a few entries, sit there, waiting to be sub-catted. What would happen if People had 500,000 entries? How could you find the ones in need of a better cat?

Even if you went to the page Category:American politicians, there would literally be tens of thousands of entries competing for your attention. If you wanted to find someone who wasn't yet put into a more specific category, you'd have to read all of the bios, one by one. So it would basically be impossible to find articles in need of diffusing/sub-categorization.

It would also be extremely brittle. Suppose someone comes along and wants to create a new category, called Category:People from North Africa. In the current system, it would just mean adding the top level cats, Category:Algerian people and Category:Tunisian people and so on to Category:People from North Africa. But if you're not diffusing, you now have to edit every single bio, tens and tens of thousands of them, in order to get the full complete set visible in Category:People from North Africa. So a 5 minute edit today to create a potentially useful category would turn into weeks or months worth of work.

Finally for the reader, it would become meaningless - Category:People would have 500,000 entries, Category:Humans would have 500,000 entries - what would the point be?

1. Alternative 2: Don't put everyone in every category up the chain, continue to diffuse, but have the option, when needed, to "display" everyone in all sub-cats of a given cat recursively. I gave some examples of how to do this elsewhere, but go to Category:American novelists and click the link at the top for an example. I think #2 is the better option. It would be nice if they just built this into the wiki. May be you can try to make that happen? This isn't the forum, right here, though. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So, the problem with categories that have many listings is that there would be many listings in the categories? And that would be silly because readers would not want to see that someone is from the US, they would prefer to know that someone is from Queens (because Queens is such an important borough of New York city that it is globally recognized)? (By the way, I'm not suggesting that we put every article into every category "all the way up the chain", but I'm sure tools could be created to painlessly handle that situation if that were the case.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

DC, I've tried to explain, and obviously failed. If you want to swing by my talk page I am willing to try again - but it's a waste of space to discuss the theory and practice of hierarchical categorization and taxonomies, the challenges of non-diffusing categories, and how this might influence a given search here any more. Sorry.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment: First off, this discussion belongs somewhere other than ANI. Second, there are two answers to your titular question:

1. It isn't.
2. It depends on what the category is and how big it is. Once you get 10K articles, it's unnavigable or meaningless. I think a bigger question is, "why are articles in daughter categories automatically removed from mother categories" pbp 18:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The concept of a category being "unnavigable" is an odd one. Do readers go to categories to find things, or do they see categories at the bottom of the article they are reading? I suspect it is the latter. Even if a category is too large to conveniently browse, it can be used in searches. And those searches would return the results that I think our readers expect. If I am looking for the article on a novelist whose name I cannot recall, am I likely to know that Herman Melville is not an "American novelist", but is an "American male novelist" "American men novelist" or a "19th-century American novelist"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The author of Moby-Dick was actually categorized as both a "male writer" and a "men novelists". But not a straight novelist (pun not really intended). As though that's what people are looking for! This is now theatre of the absurd and if I were writing for the press would have a field day. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Herman Melville was an american who, among other things, wrote novels in the 19th century. So, he is in category Category:19th-century American novelists. What part of "19th-century American novelists" do you not understand? Try this - take your finger and cover up the word "19th-century" - see that? Wow - he now looks like an American novelist. Read WP:Categorization again please.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, this discussion has got me at the point where I believe that anybody in any subcategory of American novelist should also be in the mother category! Just like Louis Armstrong isn't just a jazz cornetist, he's an American musician, and as such, he should be in the parent category pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment - people who are depopulating categories without understanding that our best American novelists now are no longer categorized as novelists really need to step back and stop now. Please pick one centralized place to discuss and wait for consensus to develop. I feel very very strongly about this - am not happy to see the novelist taken out of Faulkener, Twain, Hemingway, Hathworne, etc (that's as far as I got on my watchlist). I'm willing to take a block or a ban for this - that's how strongly I feel. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree! There seems to be an insatiable need for some editors to somehow show they were "right" but emptying out a category that doesn't *have* to be emptied. Jumping in and taking Twain, Hemingway, etc., out of American novelists? Sheesh. It reminds me of the famous punk lyric "I want to be stereotyped. I want to be classified."[2] Please, someone in the press, if anyone is still writing about this, work that quote into your pithy observations. The Workhouse Category Editor isn't sexist or racist, they just crave order.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one was "taken out" - they were simply classified into a more specific categorization by century. We do this all over the wiki - just look at the Category:Poets tree. ==> Category:20th-century American novelists - most of the letters in that name spell A M E R I C A N N O V E L I S T S. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not true. Hemingway is relegated as a mere writer and his achievement of writing novels has been removed. It's wrong. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffs or it didn't happen. Please don't make accusations that you can't back up. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[3]. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

sigh. Did you scroll down, and look through the list of categories he is in? Even after my edit, he remained safely in Category:20th-century American novelists. Can you please stop with the bogus accusations???? I didn't remove a single bio from "American novelists", I just moved some to "X century american novelists" - which is again a rather humdrum thing called category diffusion that happens ALL THE TIME.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, there is a 20th-century American novelists category that was added when the American novelists category was removed. However, it was added lower down where the American novelists category was originally so it is not as visible. I fixed that to keep the listing alphabetical and so that category is now more prominent.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, now that it's sorted I see what's been done. My diffs are set so as not to show the entire page - so, nope, didn't see it. It's really confusing though and still not being done consistently. The women are being kept in the American novelists category but the men not. I'd still like to see a centralized discussion brought to a wikiproject - either novels or literature - and see it mentioned there and garner input. Having discussions all over the place, on barely watched cat pages and on individual talk pages isn't helpful. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi TruthKeeper. Like you, I am for consistency, and if you see an edit I've made which is not consistent, please let me know (on my talk plz) - I am actually quite careful about these, especially now. If you just read diffs, and don't look at the full category list, you may not understand the full reasoning/scope of the changes. Secondly, as to why are women being kept and men moved, I hope you realize that I and TDA have today been dragged before ANI - that's this thread - for the crime of moving our intrepid NY times columnist from Category:American novelists to Category:20th-century American novelists - I suppose one might say we "ghettoized" her by century. That is our crime, and we await judgement. The atmosphere has become so poisonous that as of now, I am no longer going to touch any women novelist bios, I'm just going to be fixing men going forward. I targeted a few big names though on purpose, per BRD - it gets a discussion going. You don't want to start with bios nobody knows, do all this work to diffuse, then find out consensus has moved in the other way. Better to go after whales, and deal with the fallout - that's why your watchlist is lighting up. Now, the question before you, given your reverts to date is (1) Do you like/don't like the by-century american novelist cats. If you don't like them, bring them to CFD, that's the centralized place, and the community can decide to delete them. If you're ok with them, you'd then have to find a way to either (a) accept that they are diffusing, which will mean that in a few months time, there will be ZERO bios in Category:American novelists (all having been diffused) - looks at Category:Poets for an example or (b) argue somehow that, like gender/ethnic categories, these by-century-cats should *also* be non-diffusing. But that will be a harder argument to make, as we have diffusing-by-century-writer-cats all over this tree, it's common practice, so I'm not sure why an exception would be made here. Finally, I would appreciate an apology for the bogus accusation, I'm a big fan of Papa and would never knowingly do him harm.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion should serve as an illustration of the problem here. Was Ernest Hemingway removed from the category "American novelists"? A common sense answer would be yes, because Hemingway is no longer in that category (having been removed in this edit). Obiwankenobi says no, presumably because subcategories are logically included in parent categories. While I understand the reasoning, the fact remains that when a reader looks at the bottom of the page, they will not find "American novelists" (although they will find both "20th-centuy American novelists" and "20th-century American writers", even though "20th-centuy American novelists" is a subcategory of "20th-century American writers". Ask a Wikipedia reader if Hemingway is in the category "American novelists", what do you think they will say? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Phew - finally someone gets it. Thanks DC. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and ask a reader if Obama is in the category "American politicians" - what will they say?? Or ask the same reader if Hemingway is in the category Category:Novelists or Category:Short story writers or Category:American writers - same answer! In almost all cases, we categorize based on the most specific category(ies) for that person. That's the system. If you want to change it, go for it - but you have to change the guidance first, not battle it out article by article.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with having people in both general and specific categories? pbp 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's take an example - Ernest Hemingway. He was a novelist, short story writer, etc. So we stick him in Category:American short story writers. But why not go more general - and stick him in Category:Short story writers. We can get more general, and stick him in Category:Writers, and then up and up and up till he's in Category:Human. The problem is recursion - where do you stop? How generic is generic enough? As you go up the tree, any parent category will likely be valid - so I could edit war and say "Hemingway wasn't just an American novelist, he was a novelist, so he deserves to be in Category:Novelists. Others could make the same argument for higher level categories. The result would be a mess. Now, there are certain exceptions - for example, Novelist is a special type of writer ,but we stick Papa in both cats because he was known and DEFINED as a novelist, and he was known and DEFINED as a writer. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a sec there. If Hemingway is in Category:Novelists then he should not be placed in Category:Writers because Novelists is in Category:Fiction writers which is in Category:Writers by genre which is in Writers, so, by your logic above, Hemingway is already in Writers (because Novelists is a subcategory of a subcategory of Writers). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an area that's a bit wonky. For a moment, ignore the whole "american" thing - let's just deal in the abstract. Let's say he is in a specific sub-category of writers, as a novelist. If he only wrote novels, that would be fine - and if someone said "give me all the writers", I would also give you Hemingway, because he is a type-of-writer. Just like if someone said, give me a fruit, and you gave them an apple, because apple is a type-of-fruit. However, "writer" is not just a container - it is also a title that is applied to people - we have Category:Writers from New York for example - we don't have Category:Short story writers from New York or Category:Novelists from New York - so you end up putting him in some writers cats as well, because he was a journalist, short story writer, essayist, and so on. So, for various reasons, he ends up in some writers cats, some cats like short story cats, and two novelist cats - but they should all be siblings or cousins. This is a particularity of this writing tree, and the fact that writers is not fully diffusing - e.g. you can't always diffuse someone down, except by century, and there are lots of ancillary trees that only use the 'writer' moniker. It's the same with novelists - as currently structured, it's only partially diffusing, with the exception of the by-century cats, which do fully diffuse. I think that may be the crux of misunderstanding here - some of the genre categories do not fully diffuse based on the person (for example, if you wrote science fiction and romance and "general" novels, then you'd be placed in sci-fi, romance, + novelist - but then you'd be diffused from novelist to novelist-by-century. Perhaps we should rename the head cat to Category:American novelists not yet diffused, which would reflect a bit better the current setup. Anyway, if you want to discuss this particular point further, please come to my talk page... cheers,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've put Hemingway back as it was for many years and would like the page to be locked please until this resolved - where ever, whenever that happens. I'm tired of this; tired of being talked down to, tired of reading walls of text of why we have to diffuse, (we don't imo), sick of it all. I don't see that the edit warring will stop. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

General comments

Declaration to start with - I'm the one who used AWB to implement the outcome of the CFD. My interpretation was that all in Category:American women novelists should be added to Category:American novelists as a starting point but to be absolutely frank the CFD is a classic example of a very messy discussion because it's formally only actually about one individual category but many people were making points pertinent to either the broader tree and/or the entire category system as it's currently arranged. It certainly doesn't help when many contributors seem to have been under the impression that all American novelists were already directly in Category:American novelists and only women were diffused (not helped by some poor researched media articles). And this makes a mess if people aren't aware of what arrangements and categories they are and aren't reviewing. That particular discussion was only about Category:American women novelists - it didn't take in other categories and as they weren't tagged people either watching them or the relevant projects (and the media attention was not universal) so I'm not sure that has been decided beyond that women novelists should not solely be in that category. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Should "three-way intersection" categories even exist? "Category:Nationality Gender Occupation" or "Category:Ethnicity Occupation Location" etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well in the same sense that we go down the list in categorizations, the American novelist section should be the finite spot, but it is possible to go down to male and female novelists (as it seems was half-done), but you can keep categorizing down to state, province, town if you really wanted to. But where to draw the line, when it becomes an issue? Or do we have to re-think our entire system? What about Wikidata? Many things mean well, but it is impossible for every editor to be on the same page and due to the nature of Wikipedia, a single interested person can be unchallenged for even large moves in obscure editing spaces. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Can this just be closed and policy discussion resume in appropriate location?

There's a pretty clear consensus that the removal of Filipacchi from the broader category was inappropriate. None of the related issues are suitable for resolution here? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not convinced yet we have a consensus. Her presence, and the presence of all of the other bios in Category:American novelists needs resolution - are they ever allowed to be diffused, and if so to which categories? Or if not, why not? I proposed a compromise above. If they're *never* allowed to be moved, that causes other problems.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And that discussion is why I suggested an RFC - to clarify precisely that question. But until then, the articles in American Women Novelists need to also be in American Novelists. Period. Full Stop. Dispute the CFD consensus at DRV, or start an RFC to clarify the issue of diffusion in general, or as it relates to this category in particular, or send WP:CATEGORIES to MFD. All of that is out of scope for ANI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. we'll just diffuse all the men, and the women will be left in the head cat. Maybe a new article will be written about the irony of that result. :) I'm really not in the mood to open an RFC, I don't even know how to do it - if you open one, just let me know. Thanks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

No! That makes no sense at all. If consensus is not to diffuse the women (which it is), then the men too should all be upmerged to American novelists instead of being shoved down a level - and this opinion from a woman. Recent edits to writers' biographies really are lacking in consistency and creating a bit of a mess; can we just leave them alone for a while? Truthkeeper (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see, go to the relevant page, make an edit in your favor [4] and then argue for diffusion. This is wrong and frankly disruptive. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, were you watching the media sh*tstorm that just happened? Do you know *why* it happened? It was because we had diffusing gendered cats that should have been non-diffusing. I have a feeling you need to take more time to read diffs, this is like the third time you've accused me of something that is completely false. That edit I made above was to clarify that our guidance and current consensus is that gendered/ethnic/religious/sexuality cats should almost always be NON-DIFFUSING - so I fail to see how that edit is an argument for diffusion. Please read your diffs more carefully going forward and ease up on the bogus and unfounded accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I read it wrong. Bleary eyed. Struck. Sorry. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Intent to continue to subvert community consensus

Attention should be drawn to this user talk page section, where the two named parties to this filing intend to "lie low", leave the Filipacchi article alone , and do this genre-fiddling that was rejected at the CfD elsewhere. to quote TDA, "Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. ".

I believe it may be time to discuss a topic ban for The Devil's Advocate and Obi-Wan Kenobi from any gender/author-oriented categorization discussions. Tarc (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks inspector gadget. You've uncovered our top secret plan, which is to leave the women novelist bios alone as requested, especially the high profile ones. Sheesh. I have yet to see a community consensus that any sort of diffusion is simply not allowed, but I have said there, and here, and elsewhere, that I'm going to avoid touching women's bios because of the current climate.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are hell-bent on diffusing all the things, start an RFC and get consensus to do so. But you can't do that with these categories, and it is WP:POINTy in the extreme to assume that consensus against diffusing one gender equals consensus to diffuse the other. I don't think you are that ignorant of policies 'round here. I am strongly inclined to support Tarc's proposal - every time someone points to a very recent and well-discussed consensus, your response is essentially "nuh-uh". And it is tiresome. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 01:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ultra. I'm sorry if I sound obtuse, but could you explain more clearly what you mean by "consensus against diffusing one gender"? Where, exactly, in the CfD did you see a consensus that Category:American novelists was no longer a diffusing category - e.g. that moving a male mystery novelist from Category:American novelists to Category:American mystery writers was not permitted anymore? Please provide diffs. Again, my reading of consensus was that women were not to be shunted into a woman-only category, and they should always also be placed in a gender neutral category alongside their male peers. This is not new, this is in fact our guideline, per WP:EGRS. In every edit I've made, I believe I've abided by that consensus, and that guideline. Category:American mystery writers and Category:19th-century American novelists are gender neutral, so no-one is being ghettoized by being placed within. In any case, I've stated I wont touch the "special" bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women for the time being - tensions are too high right now... As for an RFC, do we really need an RFC to ask if we should abide by WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS? If you'd like to change that guideline, maybe you could open an RFC and make some suggestions? I think it's actually pretty good for now. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• WP: SNOW Common Sense Oppose Obviously not going to happen. The users violated no policy at all. Per this edit, TDA was already notified of the thread prior to Obi contacting him, thus the comment was not canvassing. More time should be spent trying to actually dicuss the topic at hand then attempting to drive productive editors out of a topic area. I think User: Tarc's increasingly hostile behavior (prime example) should be called into question, rather. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 04:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Um, how does one declare a "snow close" before any voting has actually begun? Or before an actual vote, straw poll, etc..has even been initiated? Did you read WP:SNOW before citing it, because I really do not think you know what it means. Tarc (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Please carefully read posts before commenting on them. I understand that the word "oppose" can appear similar to the word "close", but close was not said anywhere in my comment. However, I want this discussion to remain WP: CIVIL and without any WP: BATTLEGROUND actions. Therefore, do hope that you enjoy the cup of tea that I sent you. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I saw that; distinction without a difference. You wrongly cited a WP page that has no relevance to the discussion whatsoever, and quite frankly your "explanation" makes it appear even more unwise. Your input into this matter thus far has been a resounding net negative. Tarc (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  I've struck out WP: SNOW in favor of better wording, for personal reasons. I still have serious doubt in your judgement, and I will be happy to disregard your above comments. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 12:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support on a case by case basis. Viriditas (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Lock Filippachi until this whole argument blows over (which it frankly won't until she stops criticizing Wikipedia editors, but, eh, what can we do?) pbp 04:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  I hope she continues for the foreseeable future. Wikipedians are too insular, too resistant to change, too stubborn, and too narrow-minded. They only seem to do the right thing when they are forced to do it. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Tarc, I have very little interest in making hundreds to thousands of edits to clear out a major category. All I did was say what I think should happen. I have said basically that same thing several times including further up in this discussion. Several other people, including Andreas (you and I both know what his stance on the original issue has been), have talked about such an approach being acceptable. You are basically calling for a topic ban because I made a single revert and you don't like an opinion that other people do like.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Obiwankenobi has now moved to novels categories by placing Category:Asian-American novels at CfD as a "test case" without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature; continues to edit war, [5]; has actively edited against consensus formed here as shown at the top of the thread. We will almost certainly need an RfC to settle this issue, but it's best to let the dust settle, move away from it for a while, give people time to give it some thought and figure out what to do going forward. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• "without an apparent understanding of Asian American literature" So, the people who started the CfD on the women's category didn't have an apparent understanding of Women's literature? You can't have it both ways. Either it is proper or not. Silverseren^C 20:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, that's not what I'm saying. Amy Tan is an American, a novelist, Asian-American. I'd categorize her as an American novelist, and now that we have the category (though I think it's unnecessary and is rightfully being upmerged) as a woman novelist. Her novel The Bonesetter's Daughter is rightfully categorized as an American-Asian novel: a novel written by an American about an Asian theme. Deleting that category, and presumably others, will only cause more fuss and we don't need that right now do we? Truthkeeper (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what nomination of categories for deletion have to do with this ANI. I've nominated several cats for deletion before and after this mess, mostly in an attempt to clean them up and comply with our guidelines. Please AGF. In any case, this particular one on Asian literature I've withdrawn, pending further research to build a better case. Also, you have "edit-warred" as you say on the Hemingway article just as much as I have, so don't throw stones if you live in a glass house. you even said you were willing to be banned in order to maintain your specific set of categories on Papa Hemingway. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• RFC and Categorization freeze — With an attempt to diffuse Category:American novelists to Category:American women novelists blocked by community consensus, several editors are trying to create new categories. As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. The details of the categorization scheme to be applied, and which categories are diffusing or are not diffusing is not a matter for AN/I. However, we have some very active categorizers who can't seem to wait for consensus. This Incident appears to be an attempt to ask them to desist. I would suggest that (1) we have this conversation as a RFC on Category talk:American novelists; (2) preliminary conversation on the possible options begin immediately at Category talk:American novelists#Preparing an RFC; (3) No new categories should be created as subcategories of American novelists, and no members of Category talk:American novelists should be removed from the root category, until that discussion is complete; (4) (and here I lack an understanding of protocol for whether I may suggest this; I've edited in Wikipedia arenas where this kind of intervention is more common and hope I'm not overstepping boundaries:) An administrator formally warns all involved editors to not violate step 3, under penalty of a topic ban from American novelists.--Carwil (talk) 04:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think you should, or even could with any degree of efficacy, bar people from creating new categories that are sub-categories of American novelists. You are right that ANI isn't for policy discussion and that is because you often can't get meaningful community involvement. Likewise we shouldn't impose such substantive restrictions because a handful of people complain at ANI. Most in the CfD only objected to the consequence of a parent category becoming an all-male category due to a gender-specific sub-cat being created just for women, not the idea of gender-specific cats as a whole, or sub-cats in general. It is wikilawyering to take a literal reading of the admin's close as representative of the community position and then accuse people of going against consensus when they pursue a compromise that honors the community's actual concerns just because it seems to go against the literal reading of the admin's closing comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Are you seriously complaining about the fact that I created American western novelists and American adventure novelists cats? Silverseren^C 05:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• "As is obvious from this thread, multiple editors have objections to some of these schemes, and there is uncertainty as to how to preserve/create an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists." There has never been an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists. Why do people not understand that? The full list of American novelists was NEVER Category:American novelists, any more than we would expect Category:American writers to have a full list of writers or Category:American politicians to have a full list of politicians. The *only* way to get all of them today is recursive enumeration, which, surprise surprise, is now available as a link at the top of Category:American novelists. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

TDA, this is not about "winning" or just expanding the Admin's closing into some general law. It's about a pattern of pointless escalation. A subgcategory (Category:American women novelists) is critiqued in the media and brought to CfD, where it fails. Meanwhile, editors create new categories (like Category:American humor novelists, Category:American realism novelists) representing not so-clearly-delineated sets of novelts. Some are brought to CfD. Meanwhile, editors create new categories dividing American novelists by century. This all happens in less than two weeks, while there is vigorous debate about each, and some editors (not necessarily me) are vocally advocating a large root category. Now, these subcats may or may not be the right choice (I tend to think that they fail WP:DEFINING), but they are being rushed into, despite active conversations. What makes this relevant to AN/I is that there's way too much bold and absolutely no willingness to wait for discuss before going on to the next scheme. While active conversations are going on, we have over-eager categorizers moving hundreds of articles. If they would slow down voluntarily, that would also be lovely.

Seren, I'm inviting you to join the discussion. There are multiple ways to divide this category, some of which will diffuse everyone. Some of them involve lots of non-defining characteristics ("satire novelists," "realist novelists," imho) that won't fully diffuse the category anyway. If the scheme leaves behind a residue of novelists in Category:American novelists it will be interpreted by the world as "the real American novelists." That's the tricky problem for us to solve, and it requires discussion. I assume that your new cats, as well as JPL's and Obi-wan's are all in good faith, but the issue has been raised by many and should be discussed before we continue our editing.

Obi-wan, I know that from the experienced editor POV, Category:American novelists does not equate to Complete list of real American novelists. However, this controversy demonstrates very very clearly that (1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list. If the question is, who are you gonna believe, me or the next random reader who sees/reads about the page, the answer that should guide our development of the site is the random reader. Many people have told you this; stop saying, "I didn't hear that." Also, I think recursive enumeration could be a lovely solution, if we avoid the "residue of real novelists" problem, or explicitly disclaim the idea that the list is the list of all American novelists in providing the link. But again, that's what the RFC is for. Please be willing to put some of the energy you have for editing into crafting a consensus everyone is happy with.--Carwil (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about "winning"? I sure didn't. No one in the media was criticizing sub-categories in general so I don't see how it is escalation to create them so editors can move men and women out of the parent category and into those sub-categories. Editors are trying to boldly resolve the dispute in a way that should satisfy everyone's concerns. So far no one has given a substantive objection to the creation of these sub-categories or their replacement with the parent category on articles. It is basically invoking a misrepresented CfD or complaining about how it makes us look. Should the editors doing that recategorization actualize their intent then it will basically look to outsiders like editors responded to the controversy by pursuing a course of action with categorization that did not emphasize gender and I doubt many who commented in the CfD will see a problem with the result either.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering" = adversarial use of wiki policies; thus my reference to "winning." | I think there's a productive conversation going on right now. Maybe it will result in subcategories that empty AmN's; maybe there will be some other solution.--Carwil (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Carwil, You said "(1) there is a public desire for an all-inclusive holding place for American novelists; (2) so long as Category:American novelists has novelists at the root level, people we will think it is that list". Which is this "public" you are talking about - I assume the general population of people who come to the website? If so, is that "public" also interested in a all-inclusive list of British novelists? And Canadian novelists too? Did you ask them? Or does this public *only* care about American novelists - not journalists, non-fiction writers, chefs, politicians, or any other job under the sun - just this _one_ category, which is more special than ALL the rest. What do you think? Personally, I think consistency is the most important thing - so if we need to create a template that we stick ontop of EVERY CATEGORY that says "the articles below do not represent the complete set of XXX, if you want such a link, please click here", I'm totally fine with that. If Jimmy Wales will stand up and say "media wiki category display does not recursively enumerate categories", that is fine too. If you want to pressure WMF to develop an option to recursively display all sub-cat members on any given category page, FINE - do that. And finally, if you want to say "For certain categories, we don't want them to diffuse, like Category:Presidents of the United States - that is also fine with me. But none of those things have been proposed, and no-one is talking about generic solutions - they are still focused on one special snowflake category - instead of spending time de-ghettoizing, which is what we all should be doing instead of this discussion. Any appeals to "users" should fall on deaf ears if you're not talking about addressing issues in a generic fashion, and not just for this one special cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Obiwankenobi per this edit. There is too much WP:IDHT going on. Set up an RFC and confirm that your position has consensus, or stop disrupting articles in this fashion when that consensus is unclear. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The outcome of the original CFD was not as sweeping as some seem to be assuming and it would be wrong to try to enforce anything but the actual close relating to the speciic category. A proper informed discussion is needed for the tree, not a confused mess where people are contributing without understanding what the arrangements and status quo antes are. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• comment I have already stated that I will not be further diffusing the bio that was the subject of this ANI, nor any other women's novelists bios. I think, as Tim states, extending the definition of consensus wildly beyond the original CFD, and then punishing me for violating it, is not very fair. I also note that ~300 bios were diffused out of American novelists in the past few days, and I was not responsible for at least 299 of them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Pitchforks down, please

• Given the amount of bickering between the two groups involved in this debate, I would like to kindly ask those involved to step away from the WP: DEADHORSE, have a nice cup of tea, and remember WP: CIVILITY. We're here to discuss the enforcement of a RFC, not to try and synthesize it's results. That's WP: DRN territory. This thread began with a simple call to restore order to this heavily disputed category, and now the debate has spiraled into politicking and ridiculous calls for a topic ban. With this terrible media assault, this is no time to be turning on our fellow editors. These are the kinds of threads that tend to blow up in everyone's face, and someone ends ends up blocked or banned, usually to the detriment of the 'pedia. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 02:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  It's definitely not a DEADHORSE, and blaming the media is equivalent to circling the wagons and encouraging groupthink. Yes, the media got the specifics all wrong, but the general problem is recognized as valid. Meanwhile, "our fellow editors" caused the problem, and it's probably time for a few topic bans to be awarded to the more obsessive, IDHT users in our midst. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

  Er, it isn't ridiculous at all, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the discussion before commenting. We have two editors here who edit-warred against a clear consensus reached at a Categories for Discussion close, that is why I brought this here. Since filing last night, these two have done nothing but politick and browbeat everyone in this conversation, attempting to re-argue the debate that was already over and done with. A topic ban is more than appropriate to call for for otherwise productive editors who cannot seem to avoid disrupting a particular topic. And for the record, I did not weigh in at all in the CfD. Tarc (talk) 03:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please explain to us then, why issuing a TB to two editors in good standing because they wanted to step away from the project for a breather. What policy does that violate? This is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Making WP: POINTy edits like that only serve to dilute the topic. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 03:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

One point is that AN/I is not the place to be having a discussion about how we should be categorising articles - having a discussion/argument on policy here only inflames the issue and creates more behaviour problems. AN/I should stick to editor behaviour. And people really need to calm down so that a proper discussion on the policy can be had at the appropriate placedNigel Ish (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right that it isn't the place for a policy discussion, but a policy discussion is essentially the basis for the filer and those supporting his complaint so it is pertinent. They claim the CfD consensus meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to gender-neutral sub-categories is against the CfD consensus. I would contend that it meant moving articles from the gender-neutral parent category to a gender-specific sub-category is not to be done in a manner that makes the ostensibly gender-neutral category the de-facto category for a specific gender. So, by my estimation, the community consensus was being respected and thus there is no basis for the complaint.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So, basically

We need to diffuse all the men first. Got it. I'll go help out with that then. Silverseren^C 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

By that, I mean diffuse them into their novelist specific cats, but not the gender ones. I'm not even touching the men novelists and women novelist cats, just the genre ones and the century ones. Silverseren^C 06:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as they all stay in "American novelists" as well, knock yourself out. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not what diffusing means. It means putting them into the multiple specific cats they belong in and not the higher cats. There's absolutely no reason that the American novelists cat should get special treatment in this regard compared to all the other cats, especially since the question again is raised that, why stop there and not keep going higher? And then you run into the problem of having dozens of cats on an article, it looking extremely ugly and also being extremely useless. Silverseren^C 15:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful comparison: Category:American novels, which is fully diffused. User:Truthkeeper88 opposed diffusion there too, but ultimately consensus was to diffuse. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus appears against diffusion. Again, please stop. Viriditas (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

consensus is as consensus does. Today, there are over 3000 novelists not in the main cat. Thus up till now, consensus has been pretty clear that diffusion is aok. You've made assertions but have not backed them up. Can you point me to the rfc or other dicsussion that says diffusion - for novelists, or for anyone else - is now not allowed? If you like, start one - but then, i dont see a consensus against diffusion of this or any other cats. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am only diffusing men and I am not diffusing them into the American male novelists category (which may be deleted soon, from the CfD). So, basically, I am diffusing them the same exact way we have always done, via century and genre. And there is most certainly no current consensus against doing that. So, in short, no. Silverseren^C 01:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A useful way to determine whether or not to diffuse could be determined by this: is there literature discussing this diffusion? If there are books discussing as a topic American female novelists, by all means we should have a topic on that. If literature discusses American male novelists as American male novelists, then we should have one also. Sometimes literature about a topic puts more emphasis on one gender, and not another, and naturally Wikipedia would go by this. For instance "female incarceration" is treated as a special phenomenon. Most prisons house men and most prisoners are male, and so female prisons and prisoners are treated specially. Therefore I created the article incarceration of women. On this topic it is 100% acceptable to make a "women prisoners" category and devolve women to that category, and not devolve men as male prisoners. But this may not be the same for all topics. Examine the literature and see how it treats gender. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So a decision was reached as a result of wide discussion - "The result of the discussion was: The result, by a fairly large margin in both numbers and arguments, is in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, while keeping the women novelists seperate Category:American women novelists because it is a recognized field of study in the literature" and this is interpreted to mean that "Category:American novelists" should be "diffused", ie emptied out so that there is nothing in it. I doubt that a single person who supported merging "Category:American women novelists" with ""Category:American novelists" had that in their mind, but the editors who deal with categories just insist that they are going to do what they want, because they understand the system and others do not. This is a ridiculous mess.Smeat75 (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Smeat75. there are basically 2 interpretations I can see:

1) all women novelists should always be in American novelists. fine, but this is mum on the men. If men can be diffused, the eventual result is, only women in American novelists - thus absurd. If men can't be diffused, the result is, every single novelist should be in american novelists, meaning, bubble up not only American women novelists, but every single other sub-cat which has been diffused for years. this is also an absurd result from a ruling on a single category.

2) All women novelists should always be in American novelists *OR* a non-gendered sub-cat. This is much more in line with the rest of the tree, everywhere in the wiki, and that's the interpretation some of us have been following.

Note: no-one, anywhere in the CfD, ever challenged the general notion of diffusion - just the idea of diffusing only based on gender.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What I said above is that gender should be diffused based on the distinctions between gender made in literature. Study the literature about American novelists to see how the literature diffuses men and women. For instance, in articles about prisons, the subject of women is diffused from the general body, while the subject of men is not diffused, because men are the default in the prison systems in various countries (in terms of prisoners and guards). "Incarceration of women" is treated as a distinct topic while "incarceration of men" AFAIK is not. So prison-related categories should diffuse women and not diffuse men. However it may be different with novelists. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Someone has now decided to fight the dispersion of Raymond Chandler on the grounds that Filipacchi has not been dispersed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Someone" is me. Actually, I would describe the situation as "someone has decided to remove everyone from Category:American novelists except for Amanda Filipacchi" given the edit summary on this reversion. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• You gotta love this, people get all bent out of shape because someone was moving women out of the American novelists category and into a sub-category and not doing the same to men. So, people start moving men and women out of the American novelists category, but people object when one of the women was the person who pointed out the previous action. As a result people decide to just leave Filipacchi alone and focus on other novelists, yet people object that only she is being given special treatment. Do any of you realize that this is an absurd sequence of events?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 14:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

DA, you left out a teensy little element in that sequence of absurd, I quite agree, events - there was a wide discussion on the matter and the result was in favor of merging the categories back together at Category:American novelists, not moving everything out of that category so there is nothing in it. The clear result of the community consensus is being flouted, I do not understand why an admin has not intervened. Smeat75 (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

By "the categories" what was meant was Category:American women novelists, not all sub-categories of Category:American novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this. The community consensus was to not move the women out of American novelists and it is being flouted. Treating Filipacchi as sui generis is ridiculous. Thus people decided to start moving only men out. This looks just as stupid as moving only women out. Just imagine if the mens-rights press gets wind of this. There ought to be a moratorium on taking anyone out of American novelists until the policy is figured out. Moving women out of American novelists at this point goes against community consensus, so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"so if the editors who are doing it won't stop someone ought to stop them until the discussion is done." You raise a good point - what discussion? Where? We need a proper RFC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No-one is treating Filipacchie as sui generis - I tried to edit her categories, was reverted and brought before ANI as a result. So if you have an issue with Filipacchi's bio, ask those like Tarc who are defending the sanctity of those categories. Finally, I really want to emphasize again, for the millionth time, that no-body is being classified as a "no-longer-an-american-novelist-but-something-much-worse" - most bios have been placed in Category:20th-century American novelists, which contains the words "American novelists" - so moving a woman (or man) to that cat, which is non-gendered, is a completely different affair than moving someone to Category:American women novelists and not putting them in any *other* cats. It is simply a more specific, by-time category, the sort of diffusion that happens by the thousands every day here on the wiki - anyone in there is still an American novelist, in both word and deed! Before this whole thing blew up, Category:American novelists was a diffusing category - it even had a big tag on the top labeling it as such.

If you think the by-century category should be non-diffusing, or deleted, then bring to CFD. If you want to start an RFC, please be my guest - but don't throw editors under the bus for failing to comply with the as-yet-to-be-determined consensus of an as-not-written RFC on a as-yet-to-be-determined scope! A sample RFC is being drafted at talk here Category:American novelists - I do note though, that the Category:American novels category was fully diffused a few years back, by consensus of the novels wikiproject. In any case, if we do an RFC, I think we have bigger fish to fry - like how do we clean up the endemic ghettoization, which is what the hoopla was about! - rather than worrying so much about whether X is an Category:American novelists or a Category:20th-century American novelists (which was *not* what the hoopla was about), and going on witch-hunts after editors who were in good faith trying to clean up a mess by following long-extant editing guidelines like WP:Categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That's the same wikilawyer logic giving priority to the admin close over the actual community perspective. You look over all the various votes and it is pretty clear that people weren't voting "no moving anything out of the American novelists category", but "we shouldn't move anything out of the American novelists category if it gives one group exclusive representation in the category." In other words, the consensus was against unequal diffusion, not against diffusion in general.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I was not treating Filipacchi differently. I was going through the categorystarting at A, and was partly through C. I was not where near F, that was several pages ahead of me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL - a little word to the wise - don't attempt any recategorization/diffusion on Filipacchi's page. I did a single edit, and was brought before ANI as a result. Let someone else deal with it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Now Koavf has added Upton Sinclair back to category American novelists, citing the CfD in his edit summary. Wouldn't it be better to call a halt to all this until the best course of action is decided upon? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Diffusing Evidently, Category:American novelists is going to be a container diffused by century, ethnic origin, genre, and sex. So nothing should be in there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you put him back into it? — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems he added the cat at first to a bunch of articles, sometimes adding it to people who didn't even have it before this began, and then started removing them after a conversation on his talk.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Admin intervention requested. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• I just thought I should point out the novelists by century cats are based on when the people had novels published, not when they were born. That is why we have a fairly substantial Category:21st-century American novelists, many of the people in that category are not in the related Category:20th-century American novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Agree with Viridatas that admin intervention is required to stop edit warring, discussions that go nowhere, and a group of eager editors who are now diffusing although consensus to do so hasn't been established. An RfC has been proposed here: [6], and until it's up and going (if that happens) would like to see all categorization stop until consensus is established. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

All categorization? Plz be specific: categorization of special snowflake American novelists? Categorization of other novelists? Novels? Writers? Books? Journalists? Basketball players? What is the scope of your hoped-for-freeze-of-categorization-efforts? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

American women painters

There is a list of American women painters. Please fix it. I don't have time. -Aerolit (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Add it here --> Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_bias_task_force#List_of_categories_that_need_to_be_de-ghettoized. It may get fixed by someone. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines

User:Darkness Shines has repeatedly inserted the same material into the article British Pakistanis, after I deleted it as a gross misrepresentation of sources. Specifically, the article claimed that there were riots in Bradford in 2001 "between the city's majority white population and its visible ethnic minorities". None of the sources cited state this: [7][8][9]. The 'majority' of the population, (regardless of ethnicity) took no part in riots. The initial flashpoint for the riots was a march by fascist BNP and NF outsiders, and a counter-demonstration by (mostly white) anti-fascists. Though later there were ethnically-driven disturbances (started by white youths attacking Asian-owned businesses), it is entirely misleading to present these events as a simple ethnic conflict - and highly questionable to include such material at all in an article about a particular ethnic minority. Given this clear and fundamental breach of Wikipedia policies (i.e. regarding neutrality and accurately representing sources), can I ask that appropriate action be taken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Boring Do the sources say this? Why yes, yes they do. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

More sloppy sourcing - though I'm glad to see you have conceded that your earlier reverts were invalid. Now how about explaining why an article on British Pakistanis needs to cover this at all? Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources are just fine, and I am conceding nothing, I added references for content you removed. As to why an article on british Pakistanis should cover this, I suppose because the majority of the Asian lads rioting were, you know, British Pakistanis. But as that is a content dispute it has no place here, in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Please use WP:DRN for content disputes. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Already the editors are under 3RR, please be careful and discuss it. Agreed with Andy's point. Faizan -Let's talk! 10:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: Darkness Shines is now citing off-topic Google-mined material from sources entitled 'Culture Wars in British Literature', 'Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics' and the like [10] to justify inclusion of the disputed material - a clear violation of WP:NPOV, in that he has selected sources not for their general content, and not in order to present the opinions of the authors, (Personal attack removed) He is refusing to accept the developing consensus on the talk page, and insists that he will include the material, regardless of the comments of others. I note that Darkness Shines was previously blocked for "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing despite streams of requests to stop", [11] and suggest that at this point in time a topic ban might be more appropriate, since he singularly fails to get the message that his POV-pushing isn't welcome. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Note ATG has already begun to use his usual fallback position of implying I am a racist, above and here in violation of WP:NPA. BTW, that block notice was given by an admin who was WP:INVOLVED and is bullshit. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• BTW, it would be nice if ATG looked at the sources for a change. Cultural Wars in British Literature: Multiculturalism and National Identity written by Tracy J. Prince and she writes directly about British Pakistanis and the riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you can cherry-pick material to suit your aims doesn't alter the fact that such cherry-picking of off-topic material is a violation of WP:NPOV. Incidentally, I didn't call you a racist (and I don't actually think that you are one). I did however use the same language that was used in your block log, where you were described as engaging in "Anti-Pakistani POV pushing". Which you self-evidently were, and still are. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"Anti-Pakistani POV pushing" is not an accusation of racism. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was, although it is a personal attack. However this most certainly implys I am a racist & from above "pursue his self-evident anti-Pakistani agenda", an obvious attack on me. And as this is not the first time Andy has resorted to such low tactics I feel a lack of good faith in him, strange that. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What about this comment by DS about Andy: "in fact this entire thread is just your usual drama mongering Andy.", Isn't it a Personal Attack?

• Comment: Majority white doesn't mean majority of white. Also Can you point to articles on other ethnicities that single out such local incidents? sounds OSEish. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
• Darkness Shines has repeatedly had problems with POV pushing, sometimes with misrepresenting sources but oftener by picking weak sources with extreme statements: The history of Rape in Pakistan is troubling. DS mis-represented a statistic on domestic violence as a statistic on rape, which was pulled from the DYK queue. In my experience, DS writes as if pushing an anti-Pakistani POV; I don't recall any instances where DS made a mistake in a pro-Pakistani or even soft-pedalled direction. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And you have of course checked all my edits? [12] [13] Supporting Mar4d, a Pakistani editor. Saves the article Pakistani English from deletion[14] Majority of keeps came after I went and found sources. Votes keep on Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad [15] Went looking for the sources needed. Ya, I am so Anti Pakistani I even created Pro-Pakistan sentiment. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The solution is simple: indefinite topic ban from all articles related to Pakistan or Pakistanis, broadly construed.--В и к и T 22:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is clearly a content dispute, once again brought to the ANI to get rid of a content opponent. My very best wishes (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I am not really convinced that Darkness Shines is guilty of POV-pushing. However, the filer of this complaint is indeed engaged in POV-pushing and edit wars. For example, he repeatedly removed a large portion of well-sourced text with an edit summary requesting discussion [16], however his own comments on this article talk page [17] do not qualify as a meaningful discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Did you engage in 'meaningful discussion' yourself before restoring the material? Nope. Anyway, if you wish to start a thread on my deletion of what was self evidently coatrack material from the Victim blaming article, feel free to do so - but don't be surprised if you get told to stop wasting everyone's time with nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the problem. One can reasonably argue that well-sourced and notable examples of victim blaming belong to article about victim blaming. By removing this good faith work by another contributor [18] that belongs to the article, you create a conflict. By "explaining" your edit simply as removing a coatrack (sorry, but this is not convincing at all), you increase the conflict. Perhaps your conflict with Darkness Shine followed the same scenario? By bringing someone to ANI without a sufficient and clear evidence, you involve a lot more people in the conflict. Doing so is disruptive. My very best wishes (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempting to derail this discussion is disruptive. You failed to engage in talk page discussion before restoring the material to the Victim Blaming article: do so. I have no intention of discussing this irrelevance further here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not talking about victim blaming (although this frequently happens on the ANI), but about a behavior problem as I see it. How many ANI threads initiated by you failed and how many of them succeeded? Here are results of search. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"their views do not matter"

Having failed to obtain support for inclusion of disputed material in the British Pakistanis, article (so far seven people have commented: five have opposed inclusion, and only two support it), DarknessShines has apointed himself judge and jury of the talk page discussion, dismissing the opinions of those opposing with "their views do not matter". [19] I'd like to see comments from uninvolved contributors regarding this unilateral declaration of 'authority'. Is this indeed the way Wikipedia works? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent what I have written. "No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content." And that is policy, you cannot keep content out of an article without giving a reason within policy as to why it should be excluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There are several policies involved here: possibly the most significant one being WP:NPOV. You have singularly failed to explain why an article on a significant ethnic minority must include material relating to events in a northern English town over a few days in 2001. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have explained it to you a great deal on the article talk page. How about the source which says "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" and your response to that? I am misrepresenting it and taking it out of context. It is not possible to take that out of context at all. Again, this is a content dispute you wish to win by drama over discussion. This needs to be closed out for what it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have already pointed out that the source in question makes it clear that when referring to people 'involved in the riots', it is referring not just to active participants, but the local community in general (and not all those involved were local, as you well know). You are cherry-picking a phrase to suit your purposes. Anyway, this issue regarding the precise proportion of Bradford rioters who were a British Pakistanis is rather beside the point - the real issue is whether the Bradford riots merit inclusion in the article at all. And concerning that, your assertion that you alone can decide what is or isn't eligible for inclusion in an article isn't a content dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. That content does not belong there as it is irrelevant REGARDLESS of how well it's been sourced because it violates the neutral point of view of the article. You saying "their views do not matter" is to my mind a personal attack. I see that it's already been reverted, but if I see it there I will remove it myself.--Launchballer 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant to have a few lines on British Pakistanis rioting in Bradford in an article section about British Pakistanis living in Bradford? Feel free to use the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to explain why you are asserting the right to determine who's views are relevant, here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I already have, no argument within policy, no point in listening. Same as at an AFD. BTW in response to your other shit exists question British African-Caribbean people mentions every riot which involved them. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"no argument within policy, no point in listening". Once again, Darkness Shines asserts his right to decide who's views matter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So now you think that following policy is wrong? And that not wasting my time responding to people who use emotive arguments over policy is a bad thing? I follow policy, if an editor choose to say ILIKEIT or IDONTLIKEIT I will ignore them. You are the only editor on that talk page who has tried to cite policy, if the others choose not to then no, I will not bother with their arguments. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The more you two yap amongst yourselves, the harder this thread is to follow. What are we seeking here, again? Doc talk 16:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe Andy is after a topic ban. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What am I after? At minimum, that Darkness Shines is told in no uncertain words that he isn't the sole arbiter of what constitutes NPOV (he's just slapped a POV tag on the British Pakistani article because it currently doesn't discuss events occurring in a northern English town over a few days in 2001). Beyond that, I think we need to ask ourselves whether DS is suited to editing articles relating to Pakistan in general - he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material to such articles, and failing to consider the opinions of others when the inclusion is questioned. He also seems to have a habit of claiming that sources say things that they in fact don't. So yes, I think a topic ban might well be appropriate... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

At least a week's block for disruption, wasting editors' time and for violating the NPOVs of articles, because that's about how much of his and our time he's wasted and a six month topic ban.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How the hell have I wasted a week of your time? You only just got involved in this content dispute. How am I violating NPOV? Adding well referenced content to an article is not a violation of NPOV, removing it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Our time = the time of every editor involved, if you cumulate all the comments in this thread. See? Misinterpreting sources.
2. What you have added to the article is too badly biased to be included in the article. If you have to put it on the site, bung it on the article of the event. It doesn't matter how well referenced it is - it isn't encyclopedic. Now drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.--Launchballer 17:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If we move it to an ivote stage, and end the "jibber jabber", it may get somewhere faster. Doc talk 16:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please.--Launchballer 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think Andy made three points above. (1) "he seems to have a predilection for adding negative material". Adding well-sourced "negative" materials to any articles is not a problem, unless this is an obvious violation of NPOV or BLP. I do not see it. (2) "failing to consider the opinions of others". There is clearly a disagreement on the both sides. (3) Misinterpreting the sources, which means placing content that is clearly not in the source while referring to the source. This is a serious accusation. This should be easy to prove with a few diffs. Unfortunately, diffs above do not look convincing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Specifics? Take a look at this diff[20] I'd asked for a source that stated that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. DS cited The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy, p275. It simply doesn't say that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. [21] There are further examples on the article talk page, where DS quotes part of a sentence in such a way as to mislead. Unfortunately, since I'm only looking at the same Google-mined snippets that DS is, I can't quote the whole sentence either, but DS qoutes Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (p.75) as "A crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" (note the capital A, implying this is the start of the sentence). [22] From what Google shows us (incomplete, obviously), DS has omitted what came before: "...demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police..." It is simply impossible to use an incomplete sentence as an assertion of fact in the way DS does. Elsewhere, DS uses a statement regarding the proportion of local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters were British Pakistanis - a statement that the source doesn't make. [23]. Not everyone involved was local, as DS is well aware (there was a fascist march and counterdemonstration, which brought in many from outside), and we can't simply assume that the proportion of rioters equals the proportion arrested and charged. The real problem here is that DS engages in Google-mining to find 'sources' to back up his predetermined opinion, rather than looking for sources and then representing the views of the authors. An appallingly-bad practice if one is attempting to provide a neutral perspective... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, again you misrepresent what I have said. You know full well that the majority of the protestors not local had left, I cited and quoted the source on the talk page. And BTW "demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" obviously supports the edit in question. I did not say that any of "local people who were arrested and charged to support a claim that the majority of rioters'" should be used as a source for the content in dispute, it is an example (which you asked for) that the majority of those arrested were BP. Of course had you left me to finish editing rather than starting this dramafest all this would be quite clear. I am not posting here again as it is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I know (or at least presume) that the majority of non-locals left at some point, I have no reason to assume that none of them were involved in rioting before they left. A quote from a sentence from which you haven't even read in full cannot possibly support anything. And where exactly did I ask for information regarding the proportion of people arrested? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"What became an ethnically diverse crowd of men and women at the anti Nazi league demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p73 I had read it in full, and quoted it to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

That still doesn't support any general claim whatsoever regarding the proportion of rioters overall from any particular community. It says nothing regarding later incidents such as when white youths attacked Asian-owned businesses. A narrative relating to one point in time cannot be used to generalise regarding a whole series of events over several days. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see just one point in the whole thread. Have a content dispute with someone -- take them to ANI and try to solve the dispute by getting the opponent banned. (Well, good use of ANI. No?) OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban for DarknessShines

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

---

• I think this is the last straw. One-year ban from editing anything related to race, broadly construed. The drama just isn't worth it. --John (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban - to include Pakistan and Pakistani people. I've seen a general tone of anti-Pakistan bias in DarknessShines' various ethnic disputes before (and he's had a block for it). This case looks like cherry-picking in order to include undue anti-Pakistani material (badly misrepresenting sources in the first instances). Adding the POV tag was just belligerence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, on second thought, I'm going to keep out of this - don't have time for the drama. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Darkness Shines can be a big pain in various unmentionable regions of the human body but this is really a content dispute that is spilling over onto ANI. If a tag is unwarranted, that should be discussed on the article talk page. If the tag is restored against consensus, the editor should be blocked. We have admins with the tools to block editors and protect articles so that we can properly harness the fact that this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we're going to lose the set of editors who care passionately about difficult and contentious topics and will likely be left with an encyclopedia that documents every detail about every minor character in Doctor Who but will have little to say about the real things that life is all about. A battle between editors on controversial subjects is a good battle, it produces evidence in the form of sources and weight that other, more dispassionate editors, can examine and comment on. I suggest that we ask these editors to move on and seek dispute resolution where this weighing, examining and balancing can properly be done. --regentspark (comment) 20:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose per RS (well said!)NE Ent 09:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my suggestion of one week block, six month topic ban.--Launchballer 21:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I see absolutely nothing wrong with the material DS was adding. When you have a list of different communities with a high number of a specific ethnic population and fail to note that there have been notable disturbances in some of them involving said ethnic population, that is a legitimate POV issue. Granted, the mention of that community is in the context of demographics so that is not exactly the right place for it, but it certainly seems appropriate to mention that there have been major civil disturbances involving an ethnic group. This could be presented elsewhere in the article with more meaningful context. However, that is strictly a content issue, not a conduct issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. What RegentsPark said above, basically.If this trend of issuing bans every time something becomes a bit of a bother continues, we're going to lose the set of editors who care passionately about difficult and contentious topics and will likely be left with an encyclopedia that documents every detail about every minor character in Doctor Who but will have little to say about the real things that life is all about - yep. Smeat75 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. This started out as a content dispute between Darkness Shines and Andy the Grump, and it has been pointed out above that it should not be being discussed here at all. It has caused a few people above to say what a waste of time, and that seems to be cited as a reason for a topic ban. However, why is DS being considered for the topic ban as it was brought here by ATG? I am most definitely not calling for a topic ban on ATG on this, but it seems unreasonable that someone who is brought here by another user and gets threatened with "action" should get a topic ban because they are wasting everyone's time in responding to the threat. Also people have raised the issue of "cherry-picking" by DS. I find the use of that term problematic, either a source is good or it isn't, so attacking sources as being cherry picked is prima facie POV. Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's a content dispute only in the sense that DarknessShines has misused sources (if that's clearer to understand for you than "cherry-picked") to promote an ethnically divisive POV in a way that he has been blocked for before. I'd say it's more of an editor copnduct issue now, hence my proposal. --John (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

    John, if DS is pushing a cherry picked source (and there is consensus that the source is cherry picked) then just block him. If he does it again and again, issue escalating blocks. Topic bans are a lousy way to deal with specific situations because they only lead to more drama. --regentspark (comment) 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that WP is an uncensored encyclopedia. I wonder since when ethnic divisions/promoting ethnic harmony/political correctness have become our concerns. If you have put up this t-ban proposal because you see the material in question as ethnically divisive, I would say that you have put up the proposal for the wrong reason.OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

John is putting up the proposal because he's claiming that DS is misusing sourcing to push a POV - which would be a valid reason to put it forward. Whether it's "ethnically divisive" or not is irrelevant. (Note that I'm not supporting the proposal, just clarifying it). Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

If "ethnically divisive" etc. is irrelevant, the only thing that remains to be discussed is "misuse of sources". I see no misuse. And even if there is a dispute regarding misuse, the article talk page and DRN would be appropriate places to thrash out the issue? Bringing it here before establishing that there is misuse seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose As of what I know, topic bans are imposed only when the things go out of control. I liked the way User:The Devil's Advocate described this whole case - "that is strictly a content issue, not a conduct issue." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Snow Oppose - this looks like a content dispute that's been blown out of all proportion. Neither side are perfect, but I fail to see how "cherry picking" of sources is a valid complaint in this case - surely the whole reason you look for a source is to support the edit you intend to make? I've not spotted any misuse of sources either. As the majority of those whom haven't been involved in the dispute said prior to this, DRN would've been the place to go, not here looking for blood. I suggest an admin closes this entire thread before any more of this sort of silliness occurs, and indeed points them to DRN. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Anonymous IP on Kurgan hypothesis

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

---

Hello. An anonymous, IP has been posting long, rambling posts full of ad hominem attacks and eyebrow-raising ideology on Kurgan hypothesis for some time now. Just look at the talk page and article space history. Can someone go ahead and ban this troll and protect the article to the fullest extent it can be protected? This is getting pretty old. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please. It's gone beyond "routinely annoying".Volunteer Marek 02:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the IP for WP:NPA, rather than for WP:TE. If consensus is to extend the block for WP:EW or other reasons, go ahead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding me? Out of the all of the policies that this user was breaking over and over again, he or she gets a simple WP:NPA block? :bloodofox: (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You're welcome to request an edit warring block. I would have to do more research to support a block for edit warring. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Actually, Bloodofox, the main problem very much was the personal attacks, in the edit summaries as well as on the talk page. The editor without an account had a valid point to make, but was seemingly incapable of making it in a manner unaccompanied by insults to everyone around xem. This is actually very sad, because if the editor without an account had actually had good communications skills, xe would probably still be here, citing academic sources to make a talk page argument. I've read the analysis of the Kurgat Hypothesis by professor Endre Bojtár, and I recommend reading it to all editors of that article. Yes, there is a problem that the article doesn't adequately cover the problems with the Hypothesis that other scholars have put forward. I see no mention of some of the linguistic problems, for example, in the article. There is a neutrality issue to address, by making the coverage of the subject more rounded. I suggest, Bloodofox, that you stop erroneously confusing blocks with bans, and actually read some of the sources that the editor with an account so hamfistedly and self-destructively put forward. There is actual work to be done, and a block of an editor for being such an all-round fool in dealing with other people that xe even thinks Arthur Rubin of all people to be a sockpuppet should not be taken as some sort of administrative endorsement of the article content, the positions on the talk page, or any failure to read scholarly sources that are cited down to the exact page number. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone disputes that there are legitmate criticisms of various forms of the theory, but the IP consistently confuses this with opposition to Gimbutas, who indeed had some very fringey ideas, which likewise, no-one disputes. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    • You aren't getting the point that I just made. The problem was not anything to do with the article-related part of the talk page discussion. The argument, sans the namecalling, rudeness, and patronizing attitude, was a valid talk page argument to make, especially given what Professor Bojtár et al. turn out to actually say when one reads the sources cited. The problem with the editor without an account was things like "trolling asshats", "teenage assholes"/"dumb pigs", and this. Arthur Rubin's block for personal attacks was addressing the real problem, despite the reaction of Bloodofox above. The actual content-related argument made by the editor without an account, once stripped of the insults, idiocy, irrelevant posturing, and general incompetence in dealing with other people, wasn't a problem in any way meriting administrator attention, and indeed had a point about the article neutrality. And if the person making it hadn't been such a unmitigated twerp in xyr interactions with other people, xe would still be pointing to scholarship to bolster a talk page argument. The right thing to do now is not to think that because the edit privileges have been removed, the content question raised against the article is thereby rendered invalid. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You aren't getting the point I just made. If you are telling us that he is blocked for being an ass, and that if he hadn't been an ass he wouldn't have been blocked for it, I fail to the the value of this "information". If you are telling us that it is legitimate to raise questions about the theory using reliable sources, then again, I fail to see the relevance of this "information". We all know that. The point I was making is that the way the editor refers to sources mixes up various aspects of Gimbutas's ideas, making it an obsession with Gimbutas, not specific ideas. In this respect, the editor does not have "a point about the article neutrality". He/she (or Xe if you prefer) does not make sufficient sense to have any clear point. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I repeat: The editor without an account's content argument wasn't the problem, despite your going back to it repeatedly as if somehow it were, certainly not one relevant to this noticeboard. Arthur Rubin hit the nail on the head, and if you don't see the value in explaining that given that it was questioned immediately above, then you aren't even following this discussion. If you want, similarly, to hit the nail on the head, then you need to read the editor without an account's argument again, because there is a valid point about neutrality in there. I found it. You could too. (It doesn't take that much effort.) You're making exactly the error I'm cautioning against: trying to dismiss a valid argument simply because a fool made it offensively. As I've already both demonstrated and noted, it's quite possible to make it without calling complete strangers names. It's a common mistake to think that blocks equate to ending a dispute in favour of the non-blocked parties. And you can see people, like Bloodofox in this case, think that just going back to the status quo ante is just fine because the editor without an account has been "banned". A personal attacks block, however, really is for personal attacks, and doesn't imply that the person making the personal attacks is automatically wrong on the substantive content issue. That's just as much an ad hominem fallacy, ironically, as that made by the person who made the personal attacks. Uncle G (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• I've restarted the talk page discussion, collapsing the nitwittery, in support of the point that the content question is valid. Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this. Uncle G, what are you rambling on about? Are you new to this topic? From what you've been typing up, you certainly seem to be. Obviously the article needs work. A lot of work. I've repeatedly tagged it FOR work. Had you dug into the article history and discussion there, you'd have seen that. I suggest you apologize.

Second, the anonymous IP is back and, yes, needs to be banned. Not blocked. This has gotten far out of control. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

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

SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to talk page

A discussion regarding SuzanneOlsson topic ban and usefulness of continued contributions to this talk page was started today by User:Raeky who is not generally active on that talk page. The rationale was that although the topic ban from February 2013 on user:SuzanneOlsson allowed access to that talk page, no benefit from it can be detected, and it may in fact need to be viewed in the liability column given the cyclic nature of the discussion. I agreed with that assessment, and another user observed on that thread that since the ban Ms Olsson has not "supplied a single useful piece of information which would improve the article". And I agree with that statement too. In fact, as I stated there, we have not seen one WP:RS source from Ms Olsson. Not one. All we continue to get are statements like:

• Promotion of the movie trailer for her book

• Continued defense of original research as a strategy when blogs are questioned as sources

• Repeated source free discussion of the same inscriptions

And I again had to joke today that I was tempted to suggest a reading of WP:RS. I said that because as stated on the ban discussion before, back in 2008 she was quoting Jimmy Wales on sourcing and was told to only use reliable sources by User:Paul Barlow and told about self-published items by user:Dougweller, etc. Now, it is just too ironic for me to weigh if I should suggest a reading of WP:RS again. We have all recommended that more times than I can remember.

The situation in February was this:

• The ban was put in place due to her clear conflict of interest on the page because she has self-published a book on it and it was agreed that she is just too close to the topic and treats it with a personal element.
• The idea of allowing talk page access was to obtain the benefit of information she may have which would help that page of the encyclopedia.

As user:In ictu oculi stated on the talk there, we have seen no benefit at all from anything Ms Olsson has typed since February, and none seems likely. Not "one piece of information" that can be used has been provided. Not one.

And I have come to see her closeness to the topic as a reflection of the fact that she believes the article is about her "private family tomb", as I mentioned on the talk there. I think Ms Olsson genuinely believes that she is the 59th descendant of Jesus of Nazareth, and according to The Times of India has even attempted to excavate his body in India to compare its DNA with her own to prove it. So it would be an understatement to say that she is too attached to the topic.

I think User:Raeky's suggestion that the topic ban should extend to the few related talk pages is a good idea. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support Full topic ban extended to all pages including user space. — raekyt 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with this. It's hardly ever good to leave article talkpages as the only outlet for the energies of a topic banned SPA. If those energies are considerable, we're likely to get what we have here: the user owns the talkpage through insistence, repetitiousness, and passive resistance to Wikipedia's rules and principles. And, I'm sorry to be blunt, but please let's do it right this time, so the editor's agenda doesn't resurface at, say, Talk: Unknown years of Jesus and we have to open another thread about that in a month. This kind of attrition is very bad for talkpages and for productive editors. So, I support a topic ban from Roza Bal, related articles, and related talkpages. (Not sure about user space, though. Why, really? Have there been problems in user space?) Bishonen | talk 21:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

I am not aware of any issues in user space. I agree with your characterization, and wording of the ban extension. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support The editor needs to gain experience with other areas on Wikipedia to understand that relentless POV pushing on any page is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Bishonen is always very friendly, but I fail to see why leaving any wiggle room would be desirable, unless user space blogging on the topic is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• She does only one thing here. What's the point of keeping her around? Why is she not simply banned for self promotion, disruption, not getting the point, et cetera? Drmies (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - It's no secret that I've had some fairly in-depth discussions with Ms Olsson over a lengthy period of time and was jointly responsible for publishing her BLP at Suzanne M. Olsson. I know she has certainly been frustrated with the terms of her topic ban (having begrudgingly agreed to them in the first place) but has, as far as I can tell, complied with those conditions entirely. She has not edited the Roza Bal article directly, nor has she edited her own biography directly since it was moved to article space (though she has posted what is effectively an edit request on another user's talk page and on her own talk page). In both cases she has attempted to clarify why she made the claims she did and what she was attempting to do by making them. She has been given some advice about providing sources to balance the claims. It would be unfair, I think, to ignore her multiple clarifications and continue to claim that she "genuinely believes" something she has clearly disputed. I would urge editors to assume good faith and acknowledge that while her talk page contributions might not be particularly valuable, the editor in question is complying with the conditions of her topic bans and is contributing material that she believes is worthwhile. I think it would also be worth noting that during the period outlined above, Ms Olsson struggled with some major personal events that she fully disclosed to editors here. I've worked with History2007 in a number of contexts and I have faith that he wouldn't have brought this here except as a final resort. I totally understand his frustration and I'm certainly not suggesting this be swept under the carpet, so to speak. I only ask that editors and admins tread lightly and be conscious of past history. Stalwart111 01:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe she even remotely meets WP:GNG, and although she's kept to her topic ban, shes been nothing but disruptive to the Roza Bal talk page with 70 edits to it since the ban and nothing helpful or aimed at improving the article to our standards. — raekyt 02:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The question of her meeting WP:GNG was briefly discussed when the draft article was put up for deletion. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, GNG hasn't really be questioned with any depth. I've been keeping an eye on Talk:Roza Bal and while I can certainly see content there that would be frustrating, there are a number of editors making all sorts of claims and providing all sorts of commentary, balanced out by the ever-calm clarifications of a few. Certainly I would agree that the talk page has somewhat strayed from its primary purpose of improving the article rather than discussing the subject. But those extensive discussions, useful or not, have produced a fairly balanced and well-written article that deals fairly analytically with a subject about which a good many people get very emotional. Given she is obviously not contributing directly to the article (per her topic ban), would it not be a better option to simply ignore her posts/threads and deal with those from others that you believe to be worth your time? If there's "nothing helpful" in her suggests/requests/comments why not ignore them? Change the timing/counter on the archive bot and if nobody responds within a few days, the thread will disappear. Stalwart111 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• The AFD was for a non-article space page Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts/Suzanne M. Olsson, and therefore was a XfD, so not nearly as well looked at as an AfD would of. The sources stem from a single event as best I can tell, where she got herself thrown out of a country for trying to dig up some tomb to prove it was Jesus or something, hardly "in depth" coverage that meets WP:GNG. Theres a reason why we don't let people continuously disrupt talk pages see: WP:NOTFORUM, WP:HERE, WP:COMPETENCE, etc... — raekyt 02:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, as I say, it was briefly discussed, but certainly not in depth. The articles are a bit broader than just that one event and cover a number of visits, to different countries and at different times, and some are more about her books, from memory. Anyway, that's not really the point of this discussion but I'm more than happy to have that discussion with you elsewhere. As I said, I can certainly agree that the talk page has strayed from its purpose, but I don't think it is entirely the fault of one person and I'm not convinced that good faith attempts (even misguided or mistaken ones) should be considered disruptive. Stalwart111 03:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the BLP issues about Ms Olsson's own Wiki-page Suzanne M. Olsson have no impact on this ANI thread. A user may meet WP:GNG and not be active on Wikipedia, or not meet GNG and be active. So I think the GNG issues are probably not part of this thread which discusses the Wikipedia editor as an editor not as the subject of an article. History2007 (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed; a bit of a side-track from my commentary in response to your thread but I don't think that was User:Raeky's intention in raising it. I've had my say about the issues raised here and am more than happy to discuss the other stuff somewhere else. Cheers, Stalwart111 08:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, but regarding the statement that she genuinely believes she is the 59th descendant of Jesus, I read her last response from today on the Roza Bal talk page now, and in one place she admits that she wrote a letter to claim that she was the descendant of Jesus in order to get into the tomb, then that she recanted it later. Is that really so? If it is, then it will look even more confusing if that turns out to be a fake claim admission. Or is it the recant that should not be believed now? Pretty confusing overall, I should say... History2007 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, confusing perhaps, but I think that is exactly what she has said in a number of places. She made certain claims in the past to gain access to a site she believed was under threat. Those claims were published in reliable sources and so have been mentioned in her BLP here. She has since suggested that such claims were only made to gain access to the site and to give her efforts to protect it some legitimacy. I know she is working on publishing a full account somewhere to correct the record and has, in the meantime, attempted to explain it for the benefit of fellow WP editors and has apparently given a partial account in her most recent book (which I have not read). Stalwart111 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, now the situation is that the claim was made up, and she has now retracted it. Between you and me "the end does not justify the means" in my book, but that is another story. And this whole real/fake claim issue may be beside the point here anyway, and may relate to her BLP not this thread. The way I see it is that user:Drmies summarized the situation pretty well in just 2 lines above here. History2007 (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, I understand that. I suppose my original point was in response to the suggestions (including the one you highlighted) that this was a matter of WP:COI/WP:PROMO rather than WP:NOBLECAUSE/WP:GREATWRONGS. That doesn't justify anything, but I think that Ms Olsson genuinely believes she is contributing productively and her contributions come from a place of good faith and misunderstanding rather than disruption and malice. The community still needs to deal with everything as it sees fit, I'm only asking that they take some of the context into account. We're talking about someone who retired 20+ years ago and who (despite lengthy discussions) still doesn't understand how WP works. Her responses to this thread in various places should be proof-positive of that. Competence is required and a lack of it is very frustrating. But let's please deal with it in that context, rather than suggesting a overly passionate retiree is here to break WP. Stalwart111 03:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think we agree on the "someone who despite lengthy discussions still doesn't understand how WP works" part. The long and short of it is that this editor provides no benefit to the encyclopedia, as user:Drmies summarized. She just repeats the same source-free statements again and again and again. This editor still thinks "she is the source". How can anyone deal with an editor who after 5 years still thinks they are the source? The only way to deal with that is a ban. That is all. History2007 (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Response - I am deeply saddened to see that all this is the direct result of harassment by History007. He has followed me relentlessly, always making negative comments to or about me or anything I contribute... and he undermines every contribution to Roza Bal page because apparently this is not in accordance with his personal religious beliefs. Just recently he is editing at least 14 pages on Christianity, a topic which he seems to regard himself as an "expert" whose opinion must prevail. Further, in his long rant above, he refers to my belief that "I am 59th descendant from Jesus"- knowing full well that I explained this in careful detail- why I made the statement in kashmir, and why I retracted it as soon as I left Kashmir... In other words,,,he is misleading all of you and not including all information. About my not contributing "anything valuable" on the Roza Bal page, that too is untrue..as seen by the comments from other editors. I have made several attempts to contribute valuable info, much of which History 2007 shoots down...I dont see this from any of the other editors there...I submit that History2007 has an agenda...a personal dislike of me that makes it impossible for him to be fair or impartial. Please ignore him. Thank You. SuzanneOlsson (talk) 2:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Please ignore him"? Judging from some of the above comments, it doesn't seem like a simple one-sided attempt at smearing you. Doc talk 02:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When I was in Kashmir seeking the DNA, it took many months of planning and meeting with many officials. The final permission came after I had four meetings in the Cheif Minister's office, Farooq Abdullah. It was nothing we approached lightly or carelessly. Great thought and careful planning went into every phase. It was only due to the indidscetion of one local chowkidar who thought he was left out of backsheesh that the negative versions started being fed to the newspapers by him and him alone. He can also be seen in various documentary films bashing me, bashing Ahmadaddis..and generally ranting for fundamentalism to prevail. That was the time the letter was written to try and regain the tomb from his influence...however he had a lot of local relatives, young males who would then back him up and threaten anyone who approached the tomb. This is the same man who was selling off tomb artifacts to Pakistani agents. Holger Kersten bought a piece of carved wood relic from this same man..who began regarding Roza Bal as his own personal ATM machine. .had there been no intervention, the entire tomb would be destroyed by now. There's a big difference in the way these events are portrayed here through ignorance, and what the truth is. SuzanneOlsson (talk)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well at least thank you for not suggesting that I am the person in Kashmir who asked for undue amounts of backsheesh. But I did not know that your claim to be the 59h descendant of Jesus was fake. If it was fake, my apologies for assuming it was genuine. But in any case, as you can see on the talk page there I did not start the thread that suggested the ban extension and I was not the only person to say that we have not seen one piece of useable information. And as can be seen from the lengthy new discussions there which started after this ANI post and have taken place without my participation, other users are still asking you for sources. Given that after these 5 years of discussion on sourcing in Wikipedia your last response today starts with "I am the source" when you are asked about a source, I will have to leave it at that. I do not really see the point in asking for a reading of WP:RS again. History2007 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for action due to lack of opposition It seems that the suggestion for ban extension is not getting any opposition to speak of. From what I see, myself, Raeky, Bishonen, Johnuniq and Drmies are in favor of extending the ban and no one (excluding the user in question) has actually opposed it. Stalwart111 has been sympathetic about her intentions, but even he agrees that after 5 years of policy explanations, Ms Olsson still does not know how WP:RS works. This became clear again today, after all this, when we had to explain that Wikipedia "needs sources" and we can not operate by emailing people to ask their opinions. After 5 years of explanations, and repeated discussions, we have had to explain WP:RS again today, more than once. I hope this will be the last time I have to suggest a reading of WP:RS in this case. The fact that this is user is far too close to this topic to be involved in it, and the lack of familiarity with basic policies such as WP:V and WP:RS after 5 years is obvious. I suggest action should be taken to extend the ban as suggested, given that there is no opposition to it to speak of after 2 days on the noticeboard. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support extension of topic ban to all pages per Bishonen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • ...excepting her own talk page is OK with me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but leave access to Talk:Suzanne M. Olsson and own Talk page - with regret Suzanne just doesn't seem capable of relating to the most basic concepts of sourcing, though it's the libelous attacks on an Indian government official that are a more immediate concern. Any utility Suzanne might early have had in identifying (I use the term very loosely) leads and clues has been made redundant by the appearance of a capable Urdu-speaking Ahmadi believer User:Dr Ali on the article talk pages. However I believe Suzanne should retain access to her own talk page because of the BLP. And yes the BLP passes GNG, just as Suzanne's German and Spanish esoterist equivalents do... ironically more GNG than the sober German and Swedish academics pouring scorn on the wild misuse of Arabic and Persian sources. But that's how GNG works. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Weak oppose, but with an understanding of the frustration felt by supporters of the extension. She is frustrating, absolutely, and you only have to go back and read some of my earlier conversations with her to see that I, too, have been incredibly frustrated with her at times. I supported the original topic ban, but I'm a bit at a loss as to what it is we're trying to prevent here, given the point of sanctions is to prevent damage to WP, not to simply punish those we're frustrated with. I get it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. Anyway, H2007 and I had a good chat about it above and I think people know where I'm coming from, so I'll leave it at that. Stalwart111 07:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that other editors such as myself get so frustrated with having to deal with "policy free" and "source free" discussions for ever that they just say: "Forget it. Just forget it. This website is too frustrating to use, there is no point in wasting my life here when policy means nothing, sources mean nothing and the value of time means nothing. Let me move on." Then the web site will be inherited by those who do not understand, or follow policy. That is the problem. History2007 (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. I'm not quite convinced that the semi-religious ranting of a retiree that most people have ignored anyway, will be enough to drive good editors away from WP, but hey... And as much as those discussions might have been "policy free" and "source free", the article those discussions have produced is pretty good, well-sourced and policy-compliant. So that long and frustrating road has arrived at a productive destination. But as I said, I get where you're coming from, it's just not my first-choice course of action. Stalwart111 09:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've changed my view/note above. I wasn't excited about extending a topic ban to protect a talk page or quell the frustrations of a few experienced editors. But the edit-warring in article space is a step too far, even for me. Stalwart111 21:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Molon labe!

• Support extension of topic ban to main space talk pages - as the Admin who first implemented the topic ban back in February 2013. I thought that allowing talk page access would be constructive - I was wrong. GiantSnowman 08:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support extended ban. The diffs show substantial problems, GiantSnowman's demonstrating the failure of a previous effort, and Suzanne has turned into Randy in Boise apparently, judging by History2007's statement. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Per Nyttend and the picture on the right. The last thing we need is more WP: RANDYs trying to insert this kind of problematic material. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 13:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a problem with extending the topic ban for Roza Bal and related articles, but I just wanted to clarify that this should not include the Suzanne M. Olsson, should it remain. It was raised at WP:BLPN that this topic ban would extend to commenting on the BLP about here, including at the noticeboard [24]. This is something I'd strongly oppose, as banning a subject from raising concerns about an article about them on-wiki, especially at appropriate noticeboards, isn't something we should make the mistake of doing. That said, I don't have any issue with extending the topic ban in other areas. - Bilby (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is the case, and as I stated on the Afd for that page, WP:ABOUTSELF maybe her best avenue for pointing out things about her own entry. So it would make sense for the extended ban to include all Roza Bal related topic and talk pages, but allow for comments about her own bio on her talk page. History2007 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

She's now starting to edit war over blanking her biography page because there's reliable sources that don't portray her in a positive light. So... either extend a topic ban to also include a page on her, or blocking may be in order.. She really doesn't get sourcing. — raekyt 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that you just had to yet explain WP:RS again in response to the "wrong is wrong" comment suggests that the extended ban plus some block may be called for. The user is told that she has breached the ban, and that the source is WP:RS and still says "wrong is wrong". In the original ban discussion, user:KillerChihuahua said that the ban was all about WP:GREATWRONGS and I think she was pretty observant early on. There is no hope for a remedy or rehabilitation here. However, given that this proposal was for an extended ban, I think it is better to keep it as such, for it will have the same effect as an indef, but will have been done through a community decision by consensus. And consensus is uniform and unopposed now that Stalwart111 changed his vote. So I suggest a closure with an extended ban based on consensus now to cut back on drama. History2007 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Should also point out that she in the past used User:Kashmir2 to edit from 31 December 2005 to 5 July 2010, she created User:SuzanneOlsson on 21 May 2008 and made her first edit then too, so she effectively broke WP:SOCK and was contributing to the same articles at the same time with two separate accounts. — raekyt 22:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In fairness that was before she knew what sockpuppets are, and had other accounts it seems - NewYork-something. But that is old news. But let us face it, there is clear consensus for an extended ban here. So that is the easiest way to end the drama that has now erupted on her talk page and own article. This is just eating up life... And we all know where it is going to go. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea some more info at: User_talk:Katchu2. Just saying, I found it when I was digging up the old AFD's for her bio page to add to the talk page list. — raekyt 22:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

To add that discussion was in 2008, she continued editing on both accounts until 2010, even though in 2008 she was warned about sock puppets..... just to point out that slight discrepancy there with "not knowing" — raekyt 23:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right... There seem to be more skeletons buried there than I realized... pun intended... But then no recent sock puppet activity has taken place. And I told her about WP:MEAT sometime in the recent past, so I think that aspect may not be as prominent as the need for the extended ban (including talk pages) else the drama on her own bio talk page will persist as long as that Times of India article is mentioned anywhere. And I think she may not yet know that the same link exists as item 7 in the lede of the Roza Bal page. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this was all raised previously - I remember there being a discussion. WP:COIN I think, but I'm trying to find it. The claim, I think, was that one of the accounts was registered by her grand-daughter, then taken over by her when the grand-daughter stopped editing, then she started her own. So one of them was a joint account then it was explained that shared accounts was a no-no and she has stuck to her named account since. But yeah, pointless drama years after the fact. Time for someone to close this. Stalwart111 23:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, except I do not know why you need to spend effort digging up her old accounts. Unless you want DNA of course... But I agree that this aspect is not important now and it is time for the whole thread to close with an extended topic ban based on the clear consensus. History2007 (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha. I don't think anyone is digging, just that Raeky found something that had previously been raised. I'm just looking for the discussion to recall what people had to say about it at the time. But there's probably not much point. Stalwart111 23:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. Interesting to see how your minds work when making decisions. History2007, You made misleading and untrue statements above- to persuade others to join you in this ban. Example one: You said I did not use sources and you reprimanded me for emails as a source. You made that accusation on the Roza Bal page, knowing full well that I sent an email to Joe Cribbs asking where the published sources were for use of the word Asaph. It was highly relevant to that discussion. But you preferred to blow it off and demean me again. There are other examples, but is this about getting to the truth or about supporting your own POV? Yes, I am the source. How dumb is it to write a page about me yet say that I cannot be the source? I told you the man who contributed to TOI was not being truthful. You say the TOI takes precedence over the truth- knowing full well that newspaper articles are only as good as the source. I am not the source of that information. Mr. Amin is. You damage not only me, but those who would come in the future to Roza Bal for research and perhaps for DNA. That's why I fight so hard and risk so much. It's not about me, nor my book. Is Wiki about the truth? I haven't seen much of that when History2007 comments about me- follows me around Wiki to make disparaging remarks no matter what I say or do. History2007, You have not portrayed the facts honestly, nor even the conversations between us. You have belittled me and discredited me at every opportunity. I have placed this issue up for resolution at one of Wiki's resources for Biographies- I trust we can expect their response soon.SuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)Suzanne OlssonSuzanneOlsson (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised how long some of these threads on this board stay open without any admin action being taken, this one should have been dealt with a day or more ago as it just keeps getting worse. Ms Olsson has now used her user talk page to call someone named in the Times of India article about herself "a liar and a thief".[25] There needs to be some admin intervention!Smeat75 (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And now she is making apparent legal threats "if I am blocked from correcting it or commenting on the talk pages then I will pursue this further'.[26]Smeat75 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yea that's clearly a legal threat... — raekyt 03:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ms Olsson is leaving messages in various places begging, demanding that the article about herself, Suzanne M. Olsson, be deleted immediately. I put an "admin assistance needed" template on her talk page for her, as she was not sure how to, but I do not know if that will actually get an admin to pay any attention to this. I do think an admin should try to deal with this situation.Smeat75 (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

That's only a legal threat if she intends to pursue it through legal means. That is not a legal threat if she intends to use OTRS or another, similar, avenue. - Bilby (talk) 04:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that she hasn't taken the time to learn the basics of how wikipedia works from her own statements, it's HIGHLY unlikely she meant OTRS... but still.. it's a vague legal threat, but still can easily be construed as one. — raekyt 04:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And unless this entire thread is concluded soon, there is a serious chance that the person buried at Roza Bal (whoever he may be) is going to dig himself out, walk to the WMF chapter office in Delhi and make demands of his own... History2007 (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Concerns about User Kaiser von Europa (sources from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals)

User Kaiser von Europa[27] (which means "Emperor of Europe" in German) has been repeatedly inserting publications from Nazi Germany and by Nazi war criminals involved in plunder and ethnic cleansing into articles about Polish cities and history to support his claims about German presence in Polish cities. I discovered during the course of my interaction with him that he is already indefinitely blocked on German wikipedia after engaging in sockpuppetry, pov pushing, and edit warring[28], an there is in fact a whole list of sock-puppets noted on German wiki(including ones where he made claims that modern Germany has right to Polish territory)

Two examples of inserting publication from Nazi Germany into article about Polish city(more can be presented):

• introduction of Der Große Brockhaus, 15th edition, Vol. 18, Leipzig 1934
• Der Große Brockhaus. 15th edition, vol. 20, Leipzig 1935, p. 25

• Example of inserting publication by Nazi war criminals and ideologists supporting ethnic cleansing of Poles and extreme nationalisminsertion of source labeled Ernst Bahr, Wolfgang La Baume, Kurt Forstreuter et al. (1981), pp. 72–73.

The source in question is a reprint of a book from 1966 by former Nazis involved with ethnic cleansing, abuse of Jewish slave labor and war plunder. Kurt Forstreuter is a known Nazi who was responsible for war plunder in Poland, Other people in the book are Erich Keyser who was a Nazi racist ideologist connected with supporting and organizing ethnic cleansing in Central Europe during Second World War and trying to re-invent German nationalism post-War by exploiting Cold War conflict with Eastern Europe. Wolfgang La Baume was responsible for propaganda claiming that most of Poland is German territory. Do note that much more could be added on Nazi background of the authors if needed. Also this is basically a simple reprint of an earlier book by Nazi Erich Weise who was responsible for exploiting Jewish slave labor and plundering Polish archives.

I discovered the background of the authors and list of them by myself-user Kaiser von Europa repeatedly evaded questions to reveal their names when asked on his talk page, instead posting statements like " I strongly recommend that you buy the book(...) The price of the book is only about 15 $, and you would own a really good book from which you could learn quite a lot indeed"[29]

Other actions besides adding Nazi and nationalist literature as source to Polish related articles include for example:

• Inserting claim that Nazi Germany in 1939 "integrated" Polish territories to Germany and removing information that they were occupied by Nazi Germany[30]

• Removing information in the same edit that Polish minority was persectued in German Empire and changing it from "Polish population suffered from heavy Germanization" to the "Polish minority complained about Germanization"

[31]

• Inserting information from 18th century German Protestant source to claim that all inhabitants of a Polish city taken by Prussia were actually Germans even if they spoke Polish language[32]

I have repeatedly asked user to change his stance and use modern, reliable sources instead of Nazis25 April Request,30 April request,1st May request to which he refused and in fact went as far as calling them absolutely reliable sources[33], while restoring sources from Nazi Germany and by known nationalist and Nazi authors(one example[34])

I am afraid the user has so far refused several friendly attempts to cease using Nazi sources and publications on Wikipedia and repeats the behavior that led to his ban on German Wikipedia. I have notified the user about this discussion[35] --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This has already gone to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, where claims by MyMoloboaccount were already addressed by Herkus Monte [36]. As of the moment of writing, this discussion is intentionally not linked to by the OP.

I know of Der Große Brockhaus and I believe so do most German speakers. It's the German equivalent for Britannica and of highest quality. The year of publication is certainly not perfect, but for legal reasons Google Books cannot make more recent versions accessible. Calling the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie a "Nazi source" is highly inappropriate! --walkee^talkee 01:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

No, actually at Reliable Sources Noticeboard, all the uninvolved users (all two of them) agreed with MyMoloboAccount/OP that this was not a reliable source. While the modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable encyclopedia, the editions from the Nazi era, which are the ones Kaiser von Europa used, are, obviously, not reliable.

More fundamentally, the User account Kaiser von Europe has been indefinetly banned from German Wikipedia for exactly this behavior. In particular [37] [38] for spamming unreliable sources and sources which are more than two hundred years old (in violation of WP:PRIMARY), for misrepresenting sources and for making POV claims and edits. Per the linked comment it apparently took quite a while to clean up after this editor. Subsequently Kaiser von Europa ran an extensive sock farm on de-wiki to evade the block with over forty sock puppets identified (in addition to IP addresses) [39].

The bottom line here is that the book edited by the Nazi archivist Erich Weise (who was also in charge of looting Polish archives during WWII and using Jewish slave labor) which Kaiser is spamming into dozens of articles is unreliable and this has been pointed out to Kaiser, here on en-Wiki.

Even more problematically, after Kaiser was questioned about the use of this source/requested not to use it, he began inserting the same source but without attributing it to Erich Weise, for example here [40] (lots more edits of this nature can be provided), in an apparent attempt to hide the association of the source with Erich Weise and make it harder to track down. And then it gets worse. When I asked him not to do this on this talk page he began inserting the same source but now attributing it to the historian Udo Alrnold, claiming that Arnold, not Weise, was the editor of the 1981 "edition" (in actuality, just a reprint of the 1966 work, not a new edition). This is false. Arnold merely wrote a very short blurb in the 1981 reprint stating that it's just an exact replication of the 1966 work. Neither Worldcat, nor google books, nor any library in the world lists Arnold as the editor of the volume. Kaiser willfully and deliberately began misrepresenting the source further (after attempting to obfuscate its origins by omitting Weise's editorship) by attributing it to Arnold. That actually gets us into WP:BLP issues, but nm.

So what we have here is a user pushing an extremist POV, obfuscating and deliberately mischaracterizing sources in pursuit of that objective and completely unwilling to change his behavior. The extensive sock puppetry and long term abuse at German Wikipedia don't exactly inspire hope either.Volunteer Marek 01:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise. Note how the German article makes no mentions of war crimes at all, and how the article here reduces Erich Weise to a war criminal. It sure looks like his historical work is widely used by other historicans. I can't form an opinion on this but this content dispute is not for ANI anyway. NPOV probably lies somewhere in between. Now look who is the author of Erich Weise. I have not looked at Kaisers edits but maybe Molobo et al. are on a mission... 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare Erich Weise here at en.wp with de:Erich Weise - you mean the version that a sockpuppet of Kaiser's POVed [41]? And you are ...? Volunteer Marek 03:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the German version looks good to me. But neither does your version here. Do you agree that he is used as source by other historians ? 80.132.72.31 (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

as I was asked i want to add some insights from de-WP.

The User Kaiser von Europa ist indefinitely baned on the German Wikipedia in january 2010. (see log.

He was appealing this ban see here without success.

He afterwards was (and is) using a large group of sock puppets.

It seems after having trouble editing on de he switched to en

(main) reason for the ban; POV-pushing. so it seems to be pretty much the same as here. He will not change that. After some talks he might pretend to change his mind or leave the topic alone; but he simply is waiting a while and probably hoping that the attention gos down.

if you have questions about the ban and actions on de please leave a not on my talk page on de. I'm not the admin who banned him first or had any influence on that ban, but I'm quite familar with him and banned a lot of his sock puppets

...Sicherlich ^Post 06:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This is obviously a concerted effort by Mymoloboaccount and Volunteer Marek, both identified as a group named WP:EEML. MyMoloboaccount was several times permanently banned in THIS project [42] and Volunteer Marek was topic banned for the WP:EEML scandal under the name Radeksz.

I see that Kaiser is involved in the Copernicus article too and I wonder if it's a coincidence Volunteer Marek and MyMoloboaccount target him. Kaiser fixed the POV-pushing phrase that Copericus spoke Polish "with equal fluency".[43] Copernicus probably had some knowledge of Polish too but "with equal fluency" is an UNDUE opinion.[44] Volunteer Marek reverted it [45] with an edit summary like a threat. Had Volunteer Marek actually analyzed Kaiser's edit, he would have seen him also inserting a pro-Polish argument. On this Wikipedia Kaiser has to clean up after them like a one-eyed does among the blind.

As for the sources used, the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie is a highly reliable source. Calling it a "Nazi source" remains unacceptable. Volunteer Marek's use of sources from Poland under the Communists is happening on a larger scale... --walkee^talkee 12:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek 13:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems that when Sicherlich above says "He will not change that." that seems to be the case. Kaiser has continued adding the sketchy source in question to multiple articles [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51] (and many others) even during this discussion, and he continues to false present it as edited by another person rather than Erich Weise.Volunteer Marek 00:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This is past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. One more time:

• The modern Der Große Brockhaus is a reliable source. The Der Große Brockhaus from the Nazi era (1934 etc) which you insisted on using is not.
• "Handbuch der historischen Stätten" was NOT edited by Udo Arnold. You came up with this lie after it was pointed out that the actual editor, Erich Weise, was a Nazi war criminal. You came up with it because you thought that nobody else had access to that source. [52] As it happens Arnold only wrote a short blurb in the book stating that the 1981 reprint was an exact rendering of the 1966 edition edited by Weise.
• Your von Braun analogy is completely irrelevant.
• You were indef banned from German wikipedia, by German editors, with bona fide "Teutonic" credentials for pushing extremist POV, abusing and misrepresenting sources and making offensive nationalist statements. So your claims of "Teutonophobia" (wtf that's supposed to be) are nonsense.
• You have been engaging in exactly the same behavior on en-wiki that got you banned on de-wiki. And your statement about von Braun pretty much confirms that you are still sock-puppeting extensively in evasion of your ban on de-wiki [53].

Given that Kaiser is still spamming the source by a Nazi historian into multiple articles, as well as abusing WP:PRIMARY (with other sources) and edit warring to keep it there, can someone please deal with this? The longer this takes the longer will it take to clean up this mess (ask folks at German wikipedia about the time wasted cleaning up after Keiser and his socks there).

Volunteer Marek 13:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And now we have the user repeating Nazi propaganda about Polish borders being a crime[the establisment of the Polish Corridor itself could be called a crime, defending Nazi war criminal and Nazi plunder of PolandYou should also refrain from calling Weise a "war criminal"(...) are you unwilling to accept that Weise, when supervising Polish archives, had serious doubts that these documents actually were legal property of Poland? and insinuating that people researching Nazi war crimes have "low motives"If the full truth is told - I do have nothing against it - then the reader is not forced to speculate on possible low motives of the authors of the accusations --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mobile edits

Has there been a sudden upsurge in the number of mobile edits lately, or is it just something I happened to notice? I haven't been RC patrolling a great deal recently, so maybe it's always like this. I wouldn't really consider it a problem, except that the overwhelming majority of those edits (about 90-95%) seem to be vandalism. It's nice that we want to make Wikipedia easier to edit, but we really don't need to make it any easier to vandalize. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed the same upsurge. Perhaps it was some change with the tagging that made it more noticeable or a change with the interface to make it more common.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about this also. A change in the tagging system makes sense. So far all the ones tagged this way on my watchlist have been vandalism. Hopefully that will change. MarnetteD | Talk 01:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I frequently browse WP on my Android phone, and in the last couple of days the UI has been updated to include edit links next to every section header. Previously I had to use en.wikipedia.org rather than en.m.wikipedia.org to edit. Now I can access the editing feature straight from the mobile site. I haven't tested it out yet, but I bet that new feature is why you're seeing an upsurge in mobile edits. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I bet that Cymru.lass has figured it out. I, too, often edit by Android and have never used the mobile site because I can't edit. I just pull up the standard site on my Droid RAZR. If the mobile site now accepts edits, it is logical that mobile editing has increased and will surge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the change on my droid device, but this would indeed make a difference. Editing on a mobile is very difficult--lengthy sections, tables, info boxes, other areas almost impossible. If you could access the mobile site and edit through that interface it would make it much easier. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are you guys investigating that many IPs you rv? British Telecom seems to account for a large majority of the IPs I rv (this is a function of the times I patrol more than anything else) and they IP hop all the time... the verizon (I am guessing that's the vast majority of android users in NA) IPs I see are a very small piece of it. Just curious. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Just went back and checked and of the two from yesterday one was from Abingdon in the UK and the other was from Wisconsin in the US. MarnetteD | Talk 15:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, today there doesn't seem to be any mobile edits. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The devs have definitely been mucking about with the mobile version of the website over the past few months. For the longest time it was near impossible to make an edit with the mobile interface. In the last few weeks however, the edit buttons have re-appeared, as has a very prominent link to the talk page of each article. I endorse Cymru.lass's theory. p.s. if said devs are reading this, could they pretty please add an option to stay signed it? it's really irritating to sign in once a day on mobile Sailsbystars (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass removal of references to soccerdatabase.eu website

• soccerdatabase.eu: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• playerhistory.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hello. I recently came across an anon editor repeatedly removing references to soccer stats website soccerdatabase.eu with the edit summary "Removed soccerdatabase.eu link. Site is a scam. Please don't add these links". I went to their talk page and suggested that if they had a problem with the site, they take it up with the owners or hosting company rather than disrupting Wikipedia, and also directing them to Wikipedia's help pages.[54] They replied that they owned the site playerhistory.com, of which the other site was a ripoff, and they would continue removing links to it.[55]

While I doubt that either site is a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, I don't think mass removal of links to one of them apparently by the owner of the other is a constructive approach to editing Wikipedia articles. Appreciate someone taking a look. Will go and notify anon of this thread. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to open a thread at WP:RSN. If the source does prove to be unreliable, but is used numerous times, then it can go into the Mass Cleanup section. Not that we have completed any of the previous Mass Cleanups, but we did make a start on all of them and there was a distinct improvement. I'm sure that WikiProject Football will have useful things to say. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

109.189.235.57 (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I am the one removing the links. I have been in contact with Kevin Rutherford at Wikipedia and will continue the talks with him. Just to make a point. Have a look at the domain, it says soccerdatabase.eu, then look at the logos, all says playehistory.com, then look inside the donate button, it says my email haakon@playerhistory.com. send me an email and i'll answer you to proof it. So please stop adding these links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.235.57 (talk • contribs)

So it does! I suggest we either delete these, or modify them to point to the original site. -- The Anome (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• As far as I am aware, the IP is the owner of the defunct website 'playerhistory.com' (he has a registered account, Polarman (talk · contribs) as well) - and 'soccerdatabase.eu' is nothing more than a mirror site. I believe legal action is being taken against 'soccerdatabase.eu' by the owner of 'playerhistory.com'. GiantSnowman 09:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Then let's delete the lot of them. Perhaps replacing them by {{fact}}, if there are no other sources, might be better than outright removal? -- The Anome (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that approach, if it's clear that the site is one we shouldn't be using. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Any remaining links to both 'soccerdatabase.eu' and 'playerhistory.com' should be removed, probably easier to get a bot to do it, and then add to Blacklist to prevent them from being re-added by good-faith editors ignorant of the context. GiantSnowman 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, blacklisting them would be best to avoid editors using as a source, much like falling rain should have been, which sadly still hasn't been blacklisted and is even used to reference population data shown to be grossly inaccurate.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld

This probably needs to move to the bot noticeboard so we can sort this out. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

11:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)109.189.235.57 (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Because of this issue i have taken down the original site to sort all security problems, hopefully by the end of summer the original site will be available again. If a bot can remove both playerhistory links (since they are dead anyway) and soccerdatabase.eu links it's highly appreciated. Will this mean removed in all languages? From what i can see there are 151 links to soccerdatabase in French language.

No, this will apply to English-language Wikipedia only. GiantSnowman 12:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps the IP should take the discussion to meta, to see if we can get a global action that matches the enwiki one? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Playerhistory.com and Soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#soccerdatabase.eu. GiantSnowman 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

109.189.235.57 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Lukeno94, what can i do to take this global?

Per WP:COPYLINK, we should not be linking to pages on external sites that violate copyright. If most, if not all of an external site is violating copyright, then I would suggest global blacklisting (i.e., on meta) of the whole site (otherwise blacklisting of the individual documents could be considered).

Is it established here that soccerdatabase.eu is a site that we simply should not be linking to because of such issues?

From an initial scan of the database of the last year-and-a-half, there have been many recorded additions (2418 to all wikis) of this site, some editors have added a huge number of them (one has 728 of them; but that is also true for playerhistory.com, added by someone 574 times) - I presume that the data is really useful and that some editors recognised that, unknowingly of any issues (i.e., I can not quickly identify any 'obvious' spammers - the big 'adder' above seems to be a regular on football pages on a foreign (cs) wiki). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Taivo continues to adress me as Anti-Christian

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

---

Occurence: NPOV noticeboard

Warning issued at Talk:Dravidian languages

Request a block, that let's him rethink the words he uses.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

He is saying that you are seemingly trying to discard a reliable source based on it not conforming to your own religious preference. And that seems to be correct from my own reading of the events. Your claims about ethnologues classification itself being religiously biased are incorrect and can be based either in bias or in ignorance of how the ethnologue is in fact elaborated.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

What has been reported here isn't even close to a blockable offence. I suggest someone close this. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not even religious. I had initial doubts on the neutrality, but that was long time ago. Taivo is just using that to discredit my stand on Ethnologue wherever he feels the need to defend it. I've gave him the warning for that behaviour and he continues to accuse me for a non-existing bias.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Observation from someone who's not involved at all: You don't have to be religious to have a view on religious things. You appear to have a view on Ethnologue as a religious thing, and it's in question whether that view is justified or needs to carry weight. Saying that you yourself are not religious is irrelevant, and looks misleading. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I said that to reduce the tention. Ethnologue is headed by a Christian NGO; i would be stupid to have no initial doubts. That was my point here.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from involved AndyTheGrump). Can you clarify what your 'stand on Ethnologue' is? I asked at WP:NPOVN (where I've been trying to help sort this dispute out - my only involvement) whether you were questioning its validity as a source - and suggested that if you did, you should raise it at WP:RSN. So far, I've seen no sign of any clear answer on this, and you appear not to have followed my suggestion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is, it's a reliable source like any other, but not more reliable than mainstream experts.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you then clarify who you were referring to when you wrote of "the views of tiny minorities" here:[56] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I was refering to the origin and only source of the terms in the discussion: Ethnologue.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be self-evident at this point why other contributors are getting frustrated with DravidianHero. A source is reliable one minute, but only represents 'the views of tiny minorities' the next... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Both are true! Please try to follow me.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And your source for the assertion that the otherwise-reliable Ethnologue only represents the view of 'tiny minorities' regarding the issue at hand can be found where exactly? Please provide proper and complete citations. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Concur nothing blockable has been presented, however, it's not necessary for Tavio to describe DH as "anti-christian" (or as anything, actually) in order to discuss DH's contributions, and DH should endeavor to seek consensus in a more postive manner. NE Ent 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of Dravidianhero's links regarding Ethnologue and the people of SIL to illustrate his opinion: [57], [58], [59]. --Taivo (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing this as "hands slapped all around and please get back to the point". There's more than a trace of distaste for Ethnologue's American low Protestant connections in Dravidianhero's responses, so while I don't entirely condone Taivo's "you say that because" rejoinder, calling it a personal attack is something of an exaggeration. I'm not at all a participant but it's pretty clear which way the consensus is developing, and I'm not seeing anything that would make me want to overturn it; but I am seeing a patter of forum-shopping here. Mangoe (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'd like a second opinion on the goings-on at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Ethnologue appears to be not reliable for Dravidian languages. I'm about to blow my top... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see some forumshopping allegations, which should be clarified: Initially my request to move Talk:Sauria Paharia language was removed without Talk. I then came NPOVN to report it. Is this forumshopping? At NPOVN I get attacked as Anti-Christian, and I reported it at ANI. Is this forum shopping? And finally Andy directed me to open a case at RSN. Is this forum shopping? I want answers, thanks.-- Dravidian  Hero  05:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you were forum shopping or not, you have wasted a great deal of our time. I suggest that you let it drop, rather than attracting more attention to your behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Slowking4

Resolved

 – indeffed NE Ent 09:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Slowking4

Would any other admin editor like to suggest (or action) the next step with this user? They are quite clearly stating that they are not going to follow our non-free image policies, or WP:NPA. I don't think I'm too involved, but more suggestions would be welcome. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Only admins? That's unfortunate cause I would have suggested a indef block until user agrees to follow both policies. NE Ent 22:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I do apologise. I have no idea why I wrote that. Fixed. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Enforcement of civility can be a sticky issue, and one that would likely wouldn't end up well. Our policy on non-free images on the other hand, is very enforceable. If they refuse to follow relevant policies on non-free images, enforce with escalating blocks until it's fully understood that it is unacceptable. His last block was for 48 hours on April 17, 2013 and after that there was about fifteen more notices about problems relating to images, so his uploads do need a look-through. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember seeing this username before, but I have no clue in what context; I'm definitely uninvolved, so I'll handle it. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; I made the NFCC issue the primary thing, but I made sure to reference NPA also. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• NE Ent has the right idea and I fully endorse Nyttend's block. Slowking4 appears to be here for his own purposes, not for those of the project. --auburnpilot talk 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please complete a move

It is a mess. In the end, I'd like to have:

• page Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C with current content (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C
• page (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to have content Template:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C plus content (to be provided)
• page List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension C to be a redirect to (main) CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C

Keep whatever history can be saved. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think we can do this by reverting CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C to my last edit version, once the template gets the content that is currently there. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear lord, this is so screwed up now. After editing by JPaestpreornJeolhlna, CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C now appears correct, but I actually cannot determine where the actual chart information is stored, since the transcluded template {{CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C}} just redirects back to the article it's transcluded in. But somehow it contains the right content. Can an experienced please admin jump down the rabbit hole and figure out what the heck happened? VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've got the content sorted out, but attribution still needs to be checked. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have the same goals in mind—and was, indeed, trying to help. — |J~Pæst| 01:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

All the moving has made things really confused; I've fully protected it for the moment. Nobody's been editing in bad faith; this is purely to ensure that just one person is working on it, since edit conflicts and move conflicts right now might cause big problems. Please ping me instantly upon finding any mistakes or thinking of anything specific that I should do. Nyttend (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you've checked it out and we haven't managed to completely destroy attribution, then I think we're fine. I don't think that anyone was acting with any sort of bad faith; indeed, we were all trying to fix the same problem, but ended up getting caught up in the loop of all these stupid things. I'm going to start up a conversation at talk:CJK Unified Ideographs Extension C about which templates and articles we actually need – the problem seems to be that we have about three extraneous locations for the content, so nobody actually knows where it's located. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 01:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I definitely understand; the only reason I protected was to ensure that we didn't accidentally make that loop even worse. Think of it as a good-faith edit war, with nobody at fault :-) I'm marginally confused about where we want things to end up, so I'll comment at the talk page you mention. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For consistency (see Category:Unicode charts), "List of CJK Unified Ideographs, Extension D" must be moved to "Template:Unicode chart CJK Unified Ideographs Extension D" as soon as possible. DePiep has been messing with some of these should-be templates lately… — |J~Pæst| 02:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's worry about the Cs now and the Ds later. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I started the mess-up. Sorry I caused you all this trouble. Best thing I could think of afterwards is: don't touch the keyboard for a while. Thanks for cleaning up, sorry for starting it. -DePiep (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User Erpert Harassing, Ownership, Canvasing and Policy Shopping Issues

User Erpert has continuously harassed me by posting rude comments, false accusations, erroneous warnings and multiple banning threats to me since my first edit, as well as continued to post about me on multiple pages/sections well after I have tried to end our debate and asked him to stop. He has policy-shopped and canvased his attacks all over, in order to justify his inaccurate and poorly-sourced article (one of several articles by him that have been proposed for deletion). He attacks anyone that disagrees with him and tries to own his original articles. This is not the first time that he's had issues with other contributors, or arguments on notice boards, and I've seen him make similar dismissive comments when other editors make changes to his articles.

It started with my corrections of his original article of Vanilla DeVille [60], which has several inaccuracies and is poorly sourced (it has since been deleted by consensus and then reverted to his user pages by his request). As a new contributor and at first unfamiliar with all policies, I admit that my initial corrections included some text that was too promotional and fell under COI. However, instead of working with me on those edits to make the article better, Erpert blanket deleted every change, including non-controversial edits allowed by COI such as grammatical changes, corrections of inaccuracies for BLPs and the addition of more reliable sources. I welcome feedback and thanked Erpert on his talk page for his original comments [61] and tried to correct my edits. Again, instead of assuming good faith and working with me, he accused me of not reading (on the Vanilla DeVille talk page that has since been deleted) and immediately took the matter to COIN (where he spent more time attacking sources and corrected information instead of COI) [62]. My issue was never with the COI portion of his comments (to which I have identified myself, had my identity confirmed, refrained from any further edits, requested feedback from other editors and offered any COI-compliant assistance I can provide). Besides his abrasive attitude and personal attacks, my problem was with his blanket reverts of all edits, including COI-allowed non-controversial edits, as well as his comments about sources when he was using similar sources (or in some cases the same exact sources) that I had cited. If my sources did not work under the guidelines, the same can be said for most of his sources (which was confirmed by comments from other editors in the article deletion discussion) [63].

Even after I addressed the COI issues, he continued to accuse me of breaking a ridiculous amount of policies and refused to admit any problems with his writing, sources or his actions overall. When the COIN discussion did not work to his liking, he took it to the Admin notice board (archived and cannot find reference), and when he didn't get the response he wanted there, he took the issue to the deletion discussion [64] and related talk pages (all well after I addressed the COI issue). After he brought me up again on the deletion discussion, he erroneously warned me again for responding to his comments [65]. I posted my first warning to him for his continued harassment [66], and asked him to stop posting about me, but instead he ignored the warning and threated and accused me again, this time with vandalism [67]. After chatting with other contributors, I decided to let things cool down, and left the discussion alone for a week or two. In that time he has posted accusations and false statements about me in more locations, simply reinstated his inaccurate text, and continues to use my COI as an excuse for his poorly written article. [68] [69] Overall, he has policy shopped and accused me of breaking policy every he could find ( Wikipedia:BOOMERANG ), denied any mistakes or wrong doing, and has continued to threaten me and post warning after warning on my pages. I have never started a conversation about him, but have only responded to his posts about me (I even tried to stay out of the article deletion discussion until he brought me into it).

As for examples of his civility during this situation:

• "Did you even READ the talk page?" (his second comment to me)
• "Sheesh, grow up."
• "...you're going a little crazy."
• "...I'll also have to conclude that maybe you're not mature enough for Wikipedia."
• "It seems more like you strategically added information in the article right near sources that were already there to give the impression that said information came from those sources."
• "...so you're the one that isn't paying attention."

I believe that Erpert has issues with working together with other contributors and despises anyone changing his work. It seems as if he believes that can write whatever he likes wherever he wishes, but anything I or others post is not allowed. I have admitted my fault with COI and have tried to make amends. I would be happy to put this to rest, but honestly don't think he sees any problem with his behavior. I believe that he should stop using me as an excuse for his mistakes, plus he possibly needs a topic ban, not just due to his continued attacks, but also since so many of his related pornography articles have been recommended for deletion. Stewiedv (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, my God; will you knock it off already? Other users have been explaining the same things I have said to you, and to them you say something like, "Okay, thanks for the help." You can't just say it's a problem when I say it. And for the record, just because I simply mention your name somewhere doesn't mean I'm canvassing or forum-shopping; in fact, considering you started this thread over a week after everything else was over, you're the one canvassing. And as for some of the articles I created in the past being deleted, that happened because I created them back when WP:PORNBIO had more lenient rules (for instance, scene-related nominations alone were allowed for performers in the past). I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here, but this goes far beyond the scope of your wanting to preserve an article about your wife. I understand you wanting to hype up info about her but you're going about it all wrong.
• One more thing: it's interesting that you claim to be a new editor yet you already know how to make such a thorough AIN report. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked you several times to stay away from me and stop using me to justify your mistakes. I dropped everything and stayed away from wiki for a several days to let this all calm down, and in that time you kept posting falsehoods against me (such as "The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia)" and you continue to try and use my COI as an excuse to revert to your inaccurate and poorly-sourced article. I'm not trying to save the article at all - I'd rather have it deleted than have it full of incorrect and out of date information. You didn't correct any inaccuracies or poor sources, but simply reverted back to your original text, removing some non-COI verifiable facts and sources. Plus, most of your text is based on a 9 year old interview that came from a user-generated message board. It's also not true that your articles were only deleted in the past. You've had several proposed for deletion in the past couple weeks, including one right now for Alyssa Reece. As for learning how to make a thorough AIN report, that was easy: I just read all of the polices you continuously quoted to me without justification ( Wikipedia:BOOMERANG ) and let your actions provide the rest. Stewiedv (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, your comment above about me politely thanking everyone but you proves my point about how you communicate. Of course I thanked the other contributors because they offered legitimate edits and constructive advice without malice. You have only tried to control, intimidate and threaten in your posts. Stewiedv (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"It's also not true that your articles were only deleted in the past."

• I clearly said "some of the articles I created in the past"...

"I asked you several times to stay away from me and stop using me to justify your mistakes."

• That's what I said to you. (An established user being harassed by a new user is probably pretty rare, but...)

"You have only tried to control, intimidate and threaten in your posts."

I don't recall controlling, intimidating or threating anyone ever, nor do I ever plan to. If that's what you think I am doing, maybe you're a little oversensitive.

Also, I can guarantee you that I will not get anything close to a topic ban. We may have a disagreement, but that doesn't mean I have done anything wrong; in fact, this discussion should signal to you that I am not the only person that had problems with the later version of the article -- and for the record, I didn't necessarily revert to my version of the article; I reverted to the last version before all your COI edits, which just happened to be the version I last edited (and yes, there is a difference). And on your talk page you said I won't leave you alone, well, all I did was mention the COI problem to people in the WikiProject who weren't aware of the discussion. You can't possibly expect me to walk on eggshells and not even make an unnamed referenced to you because you might get offended.

I'm not even going to comment in this discussion anymore because your behavior has gotten very tiresome. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 02:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again you avoid the glaring points against you, but I will respond to your comments in order:

"I clearly said "some of the articles I created in the past"..."

• You are correct, I misread your original statement, but that doesn't change the fact that you have had numerous articles for deletion, that you did nothing to correct them after the standards changed or that this is not your first issue with other contributors.

"That's what I said to you. (An established user being harassed by a new user is probably pretty rare, but...)"

• I will state again, up until this notice, I have never started a conversation about you but simply replied to your posts about me (or other users comments about this situation, which were mostly in response to your notice board and talk page posts). You continuously post about me and falsely accuse me of every violation you can think of so you can use me as a scapegoat for your poor work. I stayed away for almost two weeks while you continued to post about me.

"I don't recall controlling, intimidating or threating anyone ever, nor do I ever plan to. If that's what you think I am doing, maybe you're a little oversensitive."

• You have tried to control this document, as well as others that you created, since the very beginning, including your refusal to keep a single source or non-COI edit I provided, even when they validated your work. You have tried to threaten and intimidate with multiple bogus warnings, false accusations of breaking every policy that you could find, threats of banning and posts to multiple notice boards and talk pages. You can call me oversensitive if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the facts.

"Also, I can guarantee you that I will not get anything close to a topic ban. We may have a disagreement, but that doesn't mean I have done anything wrong; in fact, this discussion should signal to you that I am not the only person that had problems with the later version of the article -- and for the record, I didn't necessarily revert to my version of the article; I reverted to the last version before all your COI edits, which just happened to be the version I last edited (and yes, there is a difference). And on your talk page you said I won't leave you alone, well, all I did was mention the COI problem to people in the WikiProject who weren't aware of the discussion. You can't possibly expect me to walk on eggshells and not even make an unnamed referenced to you because you might get offended."

• Once again, you're acting like you're an admin. I don't know what the decision will be, but you will not be the one that makes it. True, there were several people that have issues with the article, and some of it were promotional changes that I made (remember, I stopped editing the article once I became aware of the COI issues, which was several weeks ago and before it went to COIN). However, many of the contributors in the discussions also had problems (and still do), with your portions of the article including grammar, facts and sourcing. Bottom line, COI was not the only issue with that document, but instead of trying to work things out and correct it, you hide behind COI and finger point. Plus, there is no difference between reverting to the last version before mine or your version of the article since you were the one that created the original text and were the only major editor prior to my changes. As for you "walking on eggshells" or "mentioning the COI problem to the people...", you seem to be trying to justify your actions. I wouldn't have had a problem If you had said "there were COI and promotional issues with the document", but you didn't. Instead, after I tried to leave the disagreement and asked you to leave me out of it, you said "The article seemed to be fine until the subject's husband showed up and added all the COI edits (and he was an obvious SPA because after he was told about it for the last time, he apparently left Wikipedia)". That doesn't sound like someone trying to stay out of a disagreement to me, but more accusations. Plus, everyone here can read the revisions and history of every page without your assistance.

"I'm not even going to comment in this discussion anymore because your behavior has gotten very tiresome."

• I agree that this has gotten very tiresome, but it is your behavior that is the problem. I hope you stop commenting about this, but unfortunately, you've said the same thing in the past, but some how you keep posting about me on more and more pages. None of this changes the fact that your writings are inaccurate, or that you've been harassing me and trying to use me as an excuse for your edits and actions. Stewiedv (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I referred Stewiedv to OTRS from the COIN dispute. Stewiedv has been confirmed as seen on the editors talk page. The experience of the editor does not matter anymore; Stewiedv is who he claims to be. Whatever the reason for the experience is moot. Moving on, Bbth of you are emotionally involved and need to step back and breathe. The issue as I mentioned before should go to the WP:BLPN and it will be out of BOTH your hands as to what happens. Stewiedv should explain the factual errors clearly, for the intention is for good. Does anyone else remember the Phillip Roth matter? While WP:ABOUTSELF covers self-disclosed material, if there is some evidence to the contrary we should be open about addressing it. No more fighting, Stewiedv should be allowed to be heard and raise the objections. The community (not just Erpert) will decide whether or not to act on those issues in accordance with policy. Okay? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisGualtieri for your input. I will review the BLPN board and procedures as you have suggested and respond accordingly. Stewiedv (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As suggested, I have requested assistance with the article on the BLPN board. [70] While it doesn't address Erpert's inappropriate behavior, I hope it will help end the situation with the document itself. Stewiedv (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

---

• Will any admin please do something to get this user to leave me alone? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Constantly being reverted by article owner

I uploaded an image for the Chloë Grace Moretz infobox photographed this year, and was instantly reverted by Oz Steps for this reason: "Photo changes should be dicussed first on the talk". I understand this situation on, maybe, a featured article, but on a C-class article, where the lead image was already heavily damaged by oversharpening and is not that flattering of an image, I see no problem in doing what most editors do on Wikipedia: improve the article, move the article forward, keep it updated. He did start a discussion on the talk page, which is great: but my image should have remained in the infobox which would have helped (possibly) draw people to the discussion on which image is more suited as lead image. There is absolutely no rush in removing my image since it doesn't break any BLP protocol. I responded to the discussion on the talk page and waited a day. No one else participated in the discussion; so I re-added my image to the lead, someone else came along and moved images around which goes to show (to me, at any rate) that the lead image was not problematic and not even worthy of discussing on the talk page as controversial. Oz Steps returns today and reverts my edit. Ok, if I was vandalizing a page, then I would understand this constant harassment. Why am I using that word? Because this is not the first time. In the last example, I took my allowances of up to two reverts (I was not going to push three). But this user is hindering my editing; it's crampin' my style. I want it to stop and I am now convinced that a third image I am waiting to upload would be reverted yet again by Oz Steps. So I'm simply not going to add it at this time. Please note that on Oz Steps's talk page, User_talk:Oz_Steps#Dakota, a user named User:Mareklug basically agreed that Oz Steps is owning articles. I have no idea what to do; I'm coming here for advice. Both Oz Steps and Mareklug will be notified of this discussion (Mareklug only because he or she was mentioned; they do not need to participate in this discussion). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 03:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mareklug is a happy he, as in Marek Lugowski. :) I confirm and reaffirm what talk:Keraunoscopia is complaining about. Furthermore, I had exactly this run-in with Oz Steps on Liv Tyler, see talk:Liv Tyler#New Image for more substantive assessment; I care not to repeat myself. Naturally, I, too, will notify Oz Steps of this discussion independently of Keraunoscopia's notification, to fulfill notification requirements. --Mareklug ^talk 03:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This certainly seems endemic with the user, who I note does this so often that he frequently copy-pastes his revert summary ("Undid revision 552671906 by XXXX (talk), This picture since YYYY, please, do not change infobox image, before opening a discuss on talk page"). I'm also, well, sceptical regarding the babelbox on Oz Steps's user page where he claims to be a native English speaker right across from an assertion that he frequently "retrieves vandalism" from pages. This is well-intentioned, but he really shouldn't ever be re-reverting after someone has engaged him on the talk page. I'll wait to see if he responds here; otherwise I'll leave him a note to that effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I only brought up two examples (or "run-ins") in my opening discussion, but this has happened three times—I'm including this so to prove I'm not jumping the gun too much. The very first time, on 22 April, was on Rachel McAdams's article here. This time, I was the one who started the discussion on the talk page and someone even spoke up saying the newer image should be in the infobox, but I didn't know Oz Steps at the time or his habitual pattern. The McAdams article is GA and I was very willing to back-down in this case. I noticed his userbox about being a native speaker of English and it's more than obvious this is not the case, but I didn't think it important to mention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 16:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Aside from some talk page edits, it seems as if the vast majority of this user's edits are reverts. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User talk:68.231.15.56

This is an extreme case at this stage. See here. I think "yesterday" would have been adequate. The user is engaged in long-term harassment, the merciless hounding of others for no apparent reason, typically involving the use of "puppet" in edit summaries to attack other editors, constantly reverting for the most pedantic of reasons. The deception, disruption and violation of community standards and policies as referred to in PUPPET actually describes their own conduct rather well. When told to stop they delete responses and warnings, shout, throw strops, call others liars, etc - it's completely ridiculous what they're allowed to get away with. Just look at the talk page - calling people vandals who aren't, advice to read CIVIL, completed with "Given the way you interact with others and the snide remarks you've made in your edit summaries, sooner or later, someone is going to take issue with it." Well I am. This person has only recently been reported. At that stage they were referred to NPA, to AGF, told about dynamic IPs, and to "Stop your personal attacks, or you risk being blocked by an admin." Well they've continued as before, as they've been doing all along. They were blocked for this in January. I can see no way of way of dealing with this person. To make matters worse they are an IP themselves, and make a complete mockery of HUMAN and give the rest of us a bad name. Quite frankly I would not want to meet them in the street. I certainly have no desire to contribute any further while they continue as they are. --86.40.192.203 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

the user above is a sockpuppet vandal whom endlessly changes his IP to avoid ban - this is as opposed to my own IP which I have used for over 5,000 edits - that he came over here to complain only proves that he will attempt to decieve endlessly - in 2 days from now his IP will vanish again and a new vandal IP will be created - thus 86.40.192.203 is just a ghost that wont exist in 2 days--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

his sentence above "the merciless hounding of others for no apparent reason" is at best laughable since he is the main vandal i see each day changing his IP each day to avoid ban - and "apparent reason" is he continues to vandalise wiki which he well knows he is doing--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

i like the laugh above how he says that "another?" user previously "quote - unquote" reported me as a bad user when it was 86.40.107.69 which traceroutes to the same guy = prove of sockpuppetry since he has made a statement that he is someone different but is just trying to create subterfuge of his real IP address--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

i see above that the bad user sockpuppet as tells of an incident where i go banned - it is true - another sockpuppet used multiple account IP's to create a war that an admin falsely believed - meanwhile that puppet continued to vandalize wiki will i was banned--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

and again i ask if you 86.40.192.203 - are you not all of these different puppets that traceroute to the same location

86.40.111.203
80.116.73.145
86.40.194.82
86.40.107.69

--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Non-admin comment: interesting how an IP doesn't realize another user may well be a dynamic IP... and from the evidence shown here, that seems to be the case. Also, didn't we have an IP on here a couple of weeks back, with the same modus operandi of calling another IP a sockpuppeter without any evidence whatsoever? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

no we are the two from before - he came on here and tried to get me banned before - if you look back you will see that he says repeatedly that he IS NOT THE OTHER IPS that i listed thus it is not that he is a dynamic Ip that HE is saying - and yet i say it is a dynamic IP as a means of sockpuppetry - the this same dynamic Ip repeatedly vandalizes wiki and yet if you ask him if he is all those other IPs he says no he is not - yet they all trace to the same location--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've never seen anywhere any evidence of inappropriate conduct of the IP you say is "repeatedly" vandalizing Wikipedia. In fact, at least on this current IP, I can see some very good contributions. You, however, constantly make baseless allegations, some of which are ludicrous. Read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and stop making frivolous accusations against people here without evidence, backed up by diffs. People don't usually choose to have dynamic IPs, so bear that in mind. To the OP of this thread: I suggest you get an account, as it'll keep all your contributions in one place, and will stop this IP from being able to accuse you of socking without any evidence. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I have just reverted some outing here - revealing of personal information - try it again and you will be blocked immediately. GiantSnowman 09:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, it's me again. I've been compelled once more to respond to the most sickening of slurs this person can come up with. I see I have a different number now again so I suppose that's another crime. Well I haven't asked for that and don't know how to stop it. The place where I edit doesn't leave the computers on all night - that might have something to do with it. That and the likelihood of others using the same IPs. If I'm obliged to have an account you can remove "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" claim from your home page - sometimes it is not easy to have accounts and passwords for every website, what with everything going on around me. If it has to be that difficult I just won't bother. I also won't bother if this IP continues to fire these outrageous remarks at me about things I know nothing about and cannot have done. I have never been banned unless I've completely lost my memory. I don't go around deliberately provoking others. I don't make wild accusations or call others "liar", "vandal", "puppet", "ghost", the list just goes on and on. Sometimes I think it's possible I might be wrong - this person doesn't, they're always right. I have even had the decency to refer to them as "they" since, unlike them, I am not certain I am dealing with a male editor. And for what I hope is the last time - though it is like whispering into a gale force storm and expecting to be heard - I am not all the above. How can I be? I've checked one of them at random and it isn't even in the same country. I can't even see anything obviously "bad" in any of them. As for outing, quite a new low, but it sounds just like what this person would do so can't say I'm surprised. If it involved name and date of birth as they claim here I don't know who they've outed because I don't distribute these details and can't recall ever having done so. If I wanted Facebook I would have gone to Facebook. It is interesting that the user thinks they know all about sockpuppetry (when the evidence suggests they don't), yet claim in that same edit to another user to never have heard of outing. This is worrying, sad, dangerous, discouraging and sets off so many alarms regarding my ability to be an able contributor to Wikipedia, particularly as so much of what they do is so hostile to others. This is a clear case of an IP who, for some incomprehensible reason, wants to OWN various sections of Wikipedia, including Portal:Current events, and is prepared to scream murder until they've seen off any rival, either by scaring them away or having them banned. Either way this is bad for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not NOTBATTLEGROUND. How many more policies is this person going to be allowed to flout? --86.40.105.31 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• OK, that's a lot of words. At any rate, I have warned the other (static) IP: this has gone on for long enough and it's silly, disruptive, and insulting. Any next violation (I specified sock accusations and false claims of vandalism, but other violations may be added to the list) is sufficient reason for a block, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome Foursome

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

---

Could someone review the recent postings of Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and perhaps explain to him why his behavior is inappropriate (and not helpful to his cause). Myself and a couple others have warned him about personal attacks ([71][72][73]) and he has toned it down some, but continues to accuse people of being stupid and/or lying. I am NOT requesting a block (like I said he has attempted to tone it down after being warned), rather I am hopefully that if someone uninvolved explains why he needs to calm down the message will get through. (He dismissed my advice because I apparently have no clue what I am talking about.)

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also a bit of a WP:DEADHORSE issue as well. For the record, I have supported the same thing he has, but when your edit history shows several dozen unique posts to the same thread, it's gone a bit off the deep end. There's no extra emphasis to be placed on one's opinion on the 25th post which wasn't clear at the 24th post, and adding additional comments to that particular thread has gone past the point where it is useful to helping anyone decide how to close the thread. It's just noise at this point. --Jayron32 05:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

please dont get too mad at him - from what i can see he is mostly trying to do good work and - if you look at his creation date - is a new user trying to learn just how things work - and yes a little over zelous sometimes--68.231.15.56 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few of GF's recent contributions. (All from WP:ITNC.) I'd love to know how any of them could be construed as 'trying to do good work':

"Gaelic football is irrelevant shite too, it should never be on ITN ever or even have an article at all, because it's crap and nobody understands it."

"Jesus fucking christ. Which part of "Leaving the vote count ... aside as no decisive criterion" was impenetrable to you? There can't be a single person here apart from you who read that post and interpreted it as an appeal to look at the vote count. Quite the contrary, it pointed out that the arguments made by opposers (like you) do not stand up against the support arguments. The fact you both missed that and chose to make it IN CAPITALS AND BOLD TEXT is utterly contemptible."

"Are you fucking kidding me? So anyone can come in here and talk absolute bollocks, and to you, their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's? You can't be that incompetent, surely."

"why do you think it's remotely acceptable to lie like this? Right here on this very page there are several detailed explanations of exactly what has happened today that would show a moron like you that his retirement was considered notable, on the assumption that you really were so lazy or incompetent that you couldn't have found it for yourself."

"You seriously cannot be this ignorant. Had you read even a single news story about this, you would have come across a sentence or paragraph that detailed just how 'amazing' it was that he stayed on in the job to that age, given that it's so rare. Since nobody can be this thick and still be able to type, I think you're simply being deliberately obtuse..."

". It's no word of a lie to say every oppose argument has either been total irrelevant bollocks ... or a weak throwaway point disproveable immediately using evidence on this page ... or just stuff that enters the territory of complete and utter lies disprovable by the simple truth... It's really a disgrace that anyone gets away with calling this even a borderline case or that the overseers of the process can even contemplate 'letting it die' rather than justify their claims that there are opposes here with merits. Opiners here should not be able to prevent a posting just because they're too ignorant, obtuse, or lazy to argue their case, or worse, that that their mothers didn't tell them it's not right to lie your fucking ass off just to get your own way on the interwebs."

"it could have been up by 11am, if the rest of the process wasn't so retarded. And yet it isn't. It apparently gives equal weight to every moron and liar in the place. And even after a whole day of that sort of shite, the flat refusal of ThaddeusB to point to a single oppose he finds compelling enough to stop this being posted is nothing short of a total disgrace. He is an utter disgrace."

That's not a complete assembly of every harsh, rude, confrontational or simply unpleasant or profane thing he's said in the past 24 hours, either. Of his past 32 edits, 30 have been to that page. WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT are relevant here, even leaving aside the confrontational language and repeated accusations of poor faith, stupidity, etc. I suggest this person should be suspended for a week to give them an opportunity to calm down. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

of the items you just posted i admit it is a little overbearing but it still appears to me to be one human beings attempt to persuade another - it just needs a little toning down - and certainley does not appear at least to me a block for one week in severeity--68.231.15.56 (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Allowing editors to get away with flagrant incivility simply makes it impossible to enforce civility. Allowing editors to dominate discussions with multiple walls of text disrupts our decision-making process and thus the encyclopedia as a whole. It doesn't even matter if he's right on the subject matter (I'm inclined to strongly agree with his assertion that a story which is currently getting more media coverage than Thatcher's death is more notable than any random member of the public retiring): we have a framework for resolving these things and he's breaking it. We've ended up banning productive editors who couldn't control themselves before. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know about anyone else, but those statements from this editor listed above are awfully reminiscent of a well-known indefinitely-blocked editor ... Black Kite (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have great difficulty identifying blocked editors by writing style. I do trust you mean the white-knighting IP, rather than Thumperward, when you say 'this editor listed above', though. In any case, I'm not sure the IP's opinions have contributed much. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No, the IP of course - I'm not saying they are that person, merely that they both share a particular writing style and vocabulary... Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I still don't have clue #1 which former user you're talking about. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

'A little overbearing'? If a stranger talked to me or a friend like that in person, I'd leave the room so as not to be involved in the fight that would be about to break out. Online anonymity is a GIFT. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Just some context for the uninformed. The reporter, ThaddeusB, is the admin who claimed that there was only a weak consensus to support in that debate. When asked to point out even a single compelling oppose by way of explaining that position, he refused. He has since declined any and every subsequent query about why he thinks such worthless opinions as can be seen on that page should be listened to in any way, shape, or form. He has made claims such as nobody in that debate has lied, despite being given evidence of many blatant lies. And that brings me onto AlexTiefling, he is one of the opposers, and here is his vote in its entirety - "'71-year-old man retires' isn't news, it's business as usual. For big football news, I'm waiting for the Champions League final. I really don't see this as worth posting". For a start, the guy is 72, not 71. Second, this has been reported around the world and in depth, and it was top story on the evening TV news and all day in broadsheet websites like The Independent. So, is his claim that this "isn't news" an example of a valid opinion everyone should respect with equal merit? Clearly not. Similarly, the news prompted the BBC to put on a special programme on their prime channel that evening, and prompted reaction from the Prime Minister and the World and European heads of football. So, does that sound like he put any thought into the claim that in football terms, this retirement is "business as usual"? And finally, if he's waiting for big football news like the champions league final, fine, I'd only point out that the BBC Sport website has already dedicated more output to this news than it ever will for that final, and the final is being held in London!. I may have got a bit heated as it became obvious how little thought was going into that debate and how little that bothers people like Thaddeus, but as the IP points out, expecting "civility" in that sort of environment is not just unreasonable, it's downright counter-productive. If people can turn up at that venue and distort the truth so flagrantly for their own ends and not be challenged on it at all, then what's to stop people they can do the same to articles? What does more harm to the project, people seeing me be a bit 'rude' in that context (having had polite enquiries completely ignored by the propogators such as Alex and their defenders like Thaddeus), or people seeing me get ignored when challenging flagrant abuses of everything rational, intelligent and thoughtful in this world, in favour of people who clearly are either not reading sources, not acquainting themselves with the subject matter, or yes, simply lying their asses off, before giving an opinion there, and crying to mommy when pulled up on it. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not obliged to respond to your views of a story just because I've expressed my own! Whether something should be posted to ITN or not is a matter of opinion, not fact; which is why we agree it by consensus, not rigorous deduction. You're entitled to disagree with me, and there's no onus on me to answer that disagreement. If you don't like my reasons, so be it. If everyone responded as often as you (and several other editors) have done on that thread every discussion page would be an unreadable wall of text. I was much more concerned with Kiril's weird tangents than with your original !vote. Where did you make any polite enquiry of me at all, whether or not I ignored it? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Never have I seen someone misuse the term consensus so badly as you have just done. Just have a read of the actual page WP:CON, and see if you can see anything that remotely matches what you said. What you just described is about as far from the exercise of consensus building as, well, a simple vote count would be. The very idea that the process of consensus building has any time for people like you, who simply want to chuck in an uninformed opinion and leave, not caring whether that opinion flies in the face of logic or evidence, or whether other people in the debate challenged it or not, is utterly reprehensible. If Wikipedia was populated entirely by people who defined consensus in that fucked up way, well, it doesn't bear thinking about. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what consensus is. I think the consensus is in favour of posting the Alex Ferguson story; indeed, I suspect that (aside from reference problems in the article) the main obstacle to posting it has been the difficulty of reading the thread, as it is so littered with walls of text. I really think someone with the appropriate authority ought to get on and post it. But that doesn't change that my personal opinion was and is against posting it. And I expressed that opinion in a one-line posting because I honestly didn't feel the issue was worth more of my time and attention either way. I followed up with another short comment to the effect that Sir Alex's knighthood was not in and of itself reason to post. My other brief comments in the thread have to do with Kiril's remarks rather than the substantive issue. I don't think that shows I'm uninterested in building consensus; just that I don't feel the need to engage in long discussion on a topic that's of limited interest to me. I don't think that defending my position to the hilt would have shown any better commitment to consensus than what I actually did. Rather the contrary; a thread already filled with entrenched positions and mean-spirited tangents would not have been brought closer to consensus by me fanning the flames. And I ask again: you said "...having had polite enquiries completely ignored by the propogators such as Alex..." - where and when did I receive, much less ignore, any polite enquiry whatsoever from you? AlexTiefling (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Gruesome, I'll admit: I headed over to your talkpage for the express reason of blocking you. In a discussion about your incivility in front of the community, continuing your incivility really serves as a final nail in a coffin. I'll be honest: IMHO, something about Ferguson's retirement rightly belongs as an ITN feature - as an individual, he's been one of the most important people in soccer/football, and his retirement is a big deal. However, on Wikipedia we have 5 key pillars. One is be civil at all times (note: this does not say "except for times that civility would be counterproductive"). Secondly, we go by determination of consensus after polite discourse. The best way to get your point ignored is to act like a jerk during the discussion - even those people who are supportive of you and your position will bail like rats from a sinking ship (note: I called nobody a dick, nor did I call anyone a rat). Look, maybe it was only a bunch of Americans who !voted on that ITN discussion - and we all know that Americans rank soccer somewhere below tiddlywinks for the most part, and often show as much understanding of the game as they do quantum physics. However, nobody is allowed to jump in, call people names, and get their way. Period. You either need to re-read the 5 pillars and straighten up to the rules that you agreed to when you started editing this site, or else your "career" on Wikipedia will be a short one (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Civility is indeed a pillar alongside consensus building. Not above it, not more important than it. Expecting one before the other, or elevating one over the other, as you seem to be doing with this rather targeted comment, is foolish. There will never be any civility here if the starting point of every debate is that even the admins don't understand how to weigh up an unsubstantiated undefended illogical opinion against a polite fact based argument. It's a supreme irony that you made this post underneath the one by Alex where he explains what he thinks and believes consensus building is (ie, largely, say what you want, and ignore everyone else). It makes my point better then I myself have in this post. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the pure irony is that your post supports my - and everyone else's argument - far better. The fact that you're still lobbing insults really just proves it. I smell an indef happening (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Metaphorical rat here. The incivility reported here is blatant, and I'm in favour of enforcement in this and other cases. When civility is listed as a pillar editors should be entitled to a reasonable working environment. The reported user is not conductive to this. Conduct of this kind makes many content discussion unresolvable as it becomes a chore to discuss with such users. 85.167.111.116 (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• The pillars may technically be equal in standing, but there is a precedence. You can't judge consensus without civil debate. FWIW I'd be extremely surprised if this were not to be promoted and I reckon you're damaging your cause by creating so much drama over it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Gruesome Foursome has just made this post at ITN:

"Oh my god. Words fail me. First you want to see evidence that this retirement is notable, and now you dismiss at a stroke the only thing that Wikipedia uses to assess notability. And let me guess, the only person properly qualified to assess the true importance of this event is you, as you give unsubstantiated and factually incorrect views about the event? Brilliant."

It wasn't directed at me, so I'm not responding as someone personally attacked. But I don't find that a constructive contribution to the discussion. To post that while this discussion is underway displays something I can't really understand. HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

While strident, it's a) concise and b) within the bounds of what we would typically consider robust discussion. It could have occurred in a heated debate in a formal environment without anyone being fired or physically assaulted. I'd prefer if GF disengaged entirely from that for the time being, but his being taken to ANI should not immediately mean he's barred from participation in a discussion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was directed at you, in response to your "The reason for a lot of media coverage of this event is that there are a lot of fans of the game and the club he was involved with. That means readership and viewership for the media. it doesn't really reflect the true importance of the event." Whilst not condoning the IPs general conduct, you were frankly asking to be shot down there. Black Kite (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Let's assume that Gruesome now understands how to speak to other editors and won't resort to profanity again, lest he be blocked. ITN can be a very frustrating venue and it not the most civil place on Wikipedia. I can definitely empathize with a football (world) fan who shows up there trying to explain to a bunch of 'Muricans why a particular footballer's doings are significant. Jehochman ^Talk 12:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Unfortunately Gruesome's latest postings ([74], [75]) show the profanity and personal attacks have not yet stopped. To quote Kosebamse's law, "People of strong opinion are not banned or blocked for promoting strong opinions. Eventually, they are banned or blocked for violating social standards in the attempt to defend their views." Looks like it is pretty close to time for implementation of the inevitable results of Gruesome's efforts to defend his personal opinion? --Allen3 ^talk 13:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  I don't see anything majorly problematic there, the use of "fucked up" isn't aimed at anyone and the other one is exasperation at someone who, if that conversation was a fight with weapons based on knowledge of the subject, would be completely unarmed. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

  Notwithstanding, this editor has spent most of a full day making a mess of the discussion because they simply can't accept that other people may disagree with them. If nothing else, we are long past the point of WP:POINT and they really need to step away from the discussion - either voluntarily or by block. (and it would certainly be ironic if this story doesn't get posted because they trainwrecked the discussion.) Resolute 13:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That last diff has just earned him a 24-hour cluebatting, after which the nomination in question will hopefully have been closed. Regardless of to whom his vitriol was being projected, it plainly wasn't helping in the slightest. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And after this lovely prose, I have extended to indef and locked talkpage access. We "dickheads" and "fucktards" don't need to be reminded that we're "dickheads and fucktards" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

While that interesting outburst certainly validates the extension of the block, I have to be a bit of a procedural wonk here and say that there was no "abuse of the unblock process" as the template you added claims, since he hasn't actually submitted an appeal for unblocking.--WaltCip (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little uneasy about blocking somebody who is essentially arguing a correct position, and becomes exasperated at polite trolls or obstinate ignoramuses who argue against the obvious. Blocking this chap may just result in him going underground with a new account. Better to get an agreement that he'll stop crossing the line and then unblock him. Meanwhile, we all ought to go over to the initial discussion and see if we can set it right. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There were many people in the discussion who argued the "correct position" without throwing a temper tantrum that would make a three-year-old proud. As we always say, indefinite is not infinite, and when they are prepared to behave like an adult, the block can certainly be lifted. Resolute 15:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I really disagree. His position wasn't 'essentially ... correct', it was purely a matter of opinion. Who, exactly, are you referring to as 'polite trolls or obstinate ignoramuses'? And even if he had been arguing that the sky is blue, Gruesome's method was so confrontational that his contributions were of diminishing usefulness. And what do you suppose any of us might set right by wading back in at the ITN discussion, which has now (sensibly enough) delivered the result he was pushing for? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter whether he was right or wrong. The issue is that he continued his behaviour despite warnings and actually seemed to think that incivility was the way to get his point across, judging from his comments here. I would have preferred to see him disengage from that discussion voluntarily and end this matter without a block. However, when someone simply refuses to step away and resorts to personal attacks, it's pretty clear we're past the point where such a solution is possible. Chamal ^T•C 16:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

The harmful speech of Norden1990

I want to inform the admins about the uncivil speech and dubious agressive POVs of User:Norden1990 according to WP Conduct policy WP:NPA. What is considered to be a personal attack? 1) Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets 2) Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views. He recently called me in edit summary a "chauvinist user" [76], called my behaviour as "hysteria"[77] and named my edits as being frustrated or chauvinist [78][79]. When I complained about this behavior on another thread [80], Norden1900 was not sorry at all, but on the contrary: he replied that "I reserve the indicatives about you" [81] + he wrote "I'm sorry, but your activity is very similar to Iaaasi's." which is in fact similar to banned User:Stubes99 edits[82]. He also called the insertion of referenced text "vandalism"[83]. User:Norden1990 also used again pejorative provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor on my Talk page [84]. This looks like a some form of ongoing harassment. Slovaks associate the term Felvidek with the period of Magyarization and consider it pejorative used anti-Slovak, nationalist and revisionist chauvinists. "Felvidék nem Szlovákia" (Felvidek no Slovakia) from web site associated with Jobbik and Hungarism(Hungarian fascist ideologue) [85]. User:Norden1990 does not see a difference between Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary. Some unconstructive discussion with this user[86][87]. User:Norden1990 also claimed: "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century", unfortunately his demasked POV edits: Jan Jesenius - Slovak person [88][89] he wrote: "Slovaks had not yet existed." which is obviously an attack + also deleted info, Slovak nobleman A. F. Kollár[90] (Note: see edit summary manipulated with latin term Natio Hungarica...[91][92][93][94][95], it was a geographic, institutional and juridico-political category, regardless of language or ethnicity[96][97]) or another nationality was not relevant... edits: [98][99][100][101]... And typical behavior, User:Norden1990 wrote "The mention of Hungarian name only raises the quality of article. No need for paranoid."[102] and here deleted name Oradea [103] or [104][105]. Indeed quality of the article first. Or his contradictory edits [106]>[107]. In the past he also had this kind of unfriendly speech:

• "then read history books, please. And not only in Slovak."[108] .
• "No one can argue with a nationalist editor, just like you, Omen1229. You have strong Slovak POV, a typical example of the historical frustration" [109]
• "It is not possible to discuss with an anti-Hungarian chauvinist, you proved this yourself" [110]
• "typical product of Romanian chauvinism" [111]
• "So you can go to hell together with your threatening." [112]

.--Omen1229 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its definitely not civil behavior, but I don't think there is much that can be done at this time other then DRN. The edit of Rightful ruler which placed a false banner on the page and was possibly the worst offense here. It would have to go to WP:SPI, but Norden's edit warring has resulted in locking of a page before and this problem has existed for months. While not terribly disruptive, these are minor personal attacks and a warning about personal attacks should have been issued first. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• At the very least, Norden1990 needs a NPA warning, and probably a block. There are some absolutely inappropriate statements there, regardless of whatever the OP has said in the discussions. I'm not inclined to look deeper into it, and would leave that to an admin. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can see the most recent act of Omen's crusade against me. Dear Omen, do you think, the article of Upper Hungary is also a racist and pejorative anti-Slovak article, because it contains the word "Felvidék"? Felvidék is a Hungarian word, which means "Upper Hungary". This phrase marks the area, hich is today's Slovakia and which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary from the 9th century to 1920. "nationality was not relevant in the 15th century" - historical fact, They were nobles (natio Hungarica) and serfs, the modern national consciousness evolved in the early 19th century.

The other issues that you brought up again has already been discussed. I would like to ask the honorable court-martial that compare the edits of Omen and me. I hope you will see the difference. Since Omen is editing, there is only problem with him. Edit wars, POV edits, unsourced and malicious edits, there is need only look at his discussion page. I can only repeat myself about Omen's attitude and behaviour. Bye --Norden1990 (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Omen's conduct doesn't excuse your own. Nationalist debates require cool heads to resolve, and calling other editors names is not conducive to that. If you keep a lid on your own behaviour it makes it that much easier to report the misdeeds of others. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You used again provocative term "Felvidek" in English discussion with Slovak editor (me) on my Talk page [113] or in this discussion [114]. It was not in the article Talk page about "Upper Hungary". Nevertheless, also in the main article is: Any use of the word Felvidék to denote all of modern Slovakia is considered offensive by Slovaks.

I also dont understand your dubious POVs, you wrote [115][116]: "Felvidék (Upper Hungary) was an integral part of Hungary and has never had a separate territorial unit" and then here you edited article with this term + deleted Austrian Empire[117]. It looks like some form of poor provocation.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

My conscience is clear. I always strived for NPOV in my edits, and it is not my fault that Wikipedia is unable to filtering out nationalist editors, who call into question academic publications and historiographical works. I already created almost 900 articles (true, some of them are stubs), contributed in development of much, I do not think that I'd be in such a troubled editor. In contrast Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources, get involved in edit wars, and probably is not a coincidence that he was banned already at few times. I do not see a fault with my behavior. I think (and obviously I only proclaim my own opinion) Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult. It looks like that is enough to accuse someone and the person in question is banned forever. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've searched the archives and I noticed that is not the first time when Norden1990's name appears on this noticeboard. Four months ago the administrator User:Sandstein raised the possibility of a topic ban / other sanction for Norden1990: [118] 181.48.15.98 (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (note: a sockpuppet), first login and after that we can discuss, and if you see this incident, I was found not guilty. Omen reported me several times, but that does not mean that they should be taken as a precedent for continue this witch-hunt. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I always strived for NPOV in my edits... > this is only based on your personal thoughts, but your edits say something quite different.

I already created almost 900 articles... > And what is point? Some users created 10.000 articles..., but absolutely this does not excuse your behavior.

User:Norden1990 post is another absurd false dubious personal views/attacks with no evidence (Omen always push his Slovak POV, ignores academic resources...).

I do not see a fault with my behavior. > Norden1990 continue with personal attacks even on this noticeboard, in the front of the admins: "Omen is really a chavinist editor, and according to my knowledge this word does not mean insult". Accusing the proxy ip 181.48.15.98 of being Iasi is also a personal attack, because your allegation was not officially confirmed, it is only your supposition which must be kept for yourself in the lack of a SPI investigation.

He also bringing here false information (that I was "banned already at few times").

He also involved in edit wars, and not only with me (so in fact Norden1990's another false information...) [119] - here his opponnent was the user Inhakito. The result is that the User:Norden1990 is highly unreliable and only his dubious POVs are acceptable (for him naturally)...--Omen1229 (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that misconduct related to Eastern Europe is subject to discretionary sanctions per the arbitration decision WP:ARBEE. Without examining this in detail, it appears there is sufficient evidence for recent problematic editing by Norden1990 (notably, personal attacks by commenting about contributors rather than content, and mislabeling content disagreements as vandalism) to warrant a warning about discretionary sanctions, which I am now issuing. If this problematic editing continues, it can be reported to WP:AE for sanctions.  Sandstein  09:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do my kemetic.org links get deleted?

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

---

Dear administrator, Why is my link to page http://kemetic.org/zenethouses.html repeatedly deleteed by this guy ihardlythinkso? I have written a book on this topic and studied Middle Egyptian at Leiden University. I also have a board games background, some of our software reached the World Computer Shogi Chmpships in Tokyo, &c. What is this guys qualifications? Steve Nichols (Member British Psychological Society) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunny5000 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The link you keep adding has been removed by 3 different editors. One of thos editors gave you a detailed explanation on your talk page, User talk:Bunny5000#Senet link. The way to move forward on this is to start a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Senet. Also I have notified ihardlythinkso for you. GB fan 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to my User Talk before opening a thread at this cesspool venue. Oh! you forgot to discredit me, here, I'll help: "That user ihardlythinkso has been indef-blocked before. And Administrators report that there have been numerous chronic problems with him [120]." Ihardlythinkso His persistent deletes must be stopped, and Administrators might want to consider sanctioning this behavior as well. He deserves no apology since he is guilty for his own persistent deletion behavior as announced to everyone by the thread title, and probably deserves to be blocked as he has been dragged to ANI numerous times before, causing ongoing disruption to the Project. Perhaps a topic ban!? (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC) p.s. Let's keep this thread open!! Because it is a perfect case for ANI, it is clearly not a content dispute and attempts at discussion have failed, and demonstrates why ANI exists in the first place. And all the protocols have been met by the user opening the thread. (Other users can be turned down as coming to ANI inappropriately, but this user has clearly done his homework and should be encouraged to open threads like this in the future. A good example for other users to follow also, to see what ANI is for [incidents requiring immediate Administrator intervention] and how WP operates.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Steve, it looks like a question of reliable sources for that link. Also, as you are the author, you may want to also read WP:COI and WP:SPAM to get a further view of how wikipedia views these sort of things. — Ched :  ?  11:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Steve, our external links policy page says that we shouldn't link Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked. This definitely looks like such a situation; please don't restore it. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, while ANI is a dice roll, it is however in your best interest to bring the matter up as at WP:RSN and if so it could be cited in the article, but ELNO is fairly clear. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if he missed the messages on his talk page cause of the missing OBOD. :) Garion96 (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I've seen many, many times on this board, Administrators explaining to users that ANI is not for content disputes, especially where no attempt at discussion resolution has taken place, and even closing threads on that basis. (Which I thought was consistent, with the doc at head of the ANI saying the page is for Administrator intervention only.) I've also seen many times Administrators explaining to users that ANI is for use after all other venues have been exhausted. Apparently, all of those statements by Administrators, e.g. by Admin Dennis Brown, were ... not right/wrong/misguided/confused/erroneous?

Here is what user ChrisGualtieri responded to me, when I questioned him on the appropriateness of using ANI on the basis of an undiscussed content dispute:

Content issues can, have and will been resolved at ANI despite it being for conduct matters.

Are we following any rules here? Is there any consistency here? Should the doc at the top of the ANI board be changed? Does anyone other than me think this is a little confusing, that both are right and we can "have it both ways"? I invite Dennis Brown and other Admins who have numerous times in past instructed users on the misuse of ANI venue, and sending users off to proper venue recommendations, and close threads on that basis, to chime in here. (Is WP *totally chaos*, *all the time*? Others don't think the conflicting statements what ANI is for doesn't lead to crazy-making for someone innocently trying to follow protocol? Huh?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you have to link his name for him to get the notification; although he may read through this board on a fairly regular basis too: User:Dennis Brown — Ched :  ?  21:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not just Admin Dennis Brown making such statements at ANI. It is many other Admins as well. (So, those "Dennis Brown-like" Admins, who have in past rectified users' understanding when & how ANI is to be used, and when not.) As long as this thread is staying open, and I have been publicly falsely accused and my username put on an ANI thread title, I'd like to at least get a tee-shirt for it. I'd like to tell all you Administrators to find some consistency in your numerous statements when you espouse them thinking that you can preach what this board is for and what it is not for, when in fact you all contradict each other and are in conflict with your undrstandings, and never discuss the matter and reach some sort of agreement and consistency, to avoid confusion and crazy-making. (How about it?? Let's have some words about consistent expression what this board is for, and what it is not for. As if everyone knows! When practice and claims are 180 degrees divergent. A little consistency might be nice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

On a totally different topic: Did anyone ever stop to think, that it might not feel good, to have an ANI opened with your name in the thread title claiming misconduct, which is totally false and misguided, has no basis in any facts, and doesn't even belong at ANI??? (And that it might not feel cool???) Oh let's not tell Bunny5000 he has falsely accused an editor, and unnecessarily and unfairly opened an ANI thread against a user, on a very public board. (That would never be uncivil, right?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't read this thread until Ched linked my name. I generally avoid threads where you (Ihardlythinkso) are the primary topic as you've previously indicated a reluctance to consider me objective. That is fine and it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree, I just let others review those threads as it wouldn't be helpful if I involved myself unless asked. In general, I do stop threads that are really content disputes or over simple differences of opinions, but that is just how I do it, no one else is obligated to follow suit. That isn't even an admin thing, I did that before getting the bit. And to answer your question, it totally sucks to be the topic of an ANI report. I know because I have been a few times myself, typically over being "an abusive admin" by someone I've blocked. I could say "If you didn't do anything, don't sweat it and trust the system" but we both know it can turn into a drama-fest when you haven't done anything wrong. I get the feeling that the reason it hasn't closed is due to concerns over the reporting party and not you. That said, this looks like someone should just close this as "No admin intervention required." as I can't see anything you've done wrong here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I want to publicly thank User:Ched for taking my username off the thread title. (That helps. Thank you, Ched.) Meanwhile, the Bunny5000 user clearly has paid no attention, accusing me of "Why is my link [...] repeatedly deleteed by this guy ihardlythinkso?" when in fact I reverted his link *once*. (But, false accusations of misconduct on a public board are just the price one pays for being a member of WP, right??!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For some of us, sometimes, yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Category:Mary Hawkesworth

An article has been moved from User:Genandpoli1414 to the category namespace by mistake, and I can't move it to the right place. Can an admin please fix it. Thanks. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not possible; we don't get a move tab either. I'll just have to do a copy/paste move to Mary Hawkesworth, which will be much easier because there's only been one significant edit. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Aryanism and other drivel

I don't want to deal with this anymore, and I figure I'll just get told to come here anyway if I try AIV. Correctionperson (talk · contribs) is raising red flags with me for reasons I'm sure anyone who takes the time to check his/her contributions will understand immediately (Aryan/white/"Adamic" nonsense changes to race-related articles, removal of the word "false" from Blood libel, unsourced statements that certain individuals were Jewish, etc.). He/she has hit 5RR at Christian identity. I do not intend to notify the user that I am posting here, per WP:DNFTT and WP:IAR. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Note that I reported the user for edit-warring[121] without realizing this was already at ANI. These edits are obviously problematic for a number of reasons. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've blocked them for 48 hours since this edit warring is way out of bounds; in the meantime you can sort out the rest and see if this needs to be an indefinite block for warring, original research, soapboxing, writing indigestible sentences, and tendentious editing. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RevDel

Resolved

Can we get someone with RevDel permissions to fix up a few of these [[122]]. User is blocked not sure if I should notify still? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

User edit-warring at several articles concerning antipsychotic drugs

We currently have a new editor, Mandragua (talk · contribs), editing a number of articles on the "antipsychotic drugs are evil" theme. The articles concerned so far are psychosis, antipsychotic, thought disorder, and frontal lobe disorder. The edits are poorly sourced and blatantly non-neutral. When they are removed or modified by other editors, Mandragua either reverts back or makes a new edit that is equivalent to a revert. Attempts at discussion are blanked or met with hostility, including accusing another editor of terrorism. Numerous talk page warnings from multiple editors have been disregarded. The editor has also been doing numerous logged-out edits, and has created a duck sockpuppet, Momentarilylost (talk · contribs). I will notify Mandragua of this complaint. Looie496 (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Two accounts indef-blocked, am looking into IP edits. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. It looks like this is solved, for now at least. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I have tagged a couple of the obvious IP socks too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Guy_Macon

I have some problems with Guy_Macon. I want my talk page edit back: [123] that he reverted before. I need my very long talk on WikiProject Electronics addressable with sub-sections. I don't want to start an edit-war.

He is also watching my edits [124][125] in which i tried to de-escalate the situation with an administrator. He done the there proposed edits partly himself, which is no problem, but reverted my trials to write a neutral call for a discussion. [126][127] I hope i get support.

He is also not stopping to accusing me [128] [129], although i tried to de-escalate the situation.

Please help. Thank you. Tagremover (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• User:Toddst1 has already told you that his edits seemed fine, and now it looks like you are shopping this here. I don't see anything actionable in Guy's edits, what exactly are you claiming and what relief specifically are you asking for? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, what wrong with that, [130], and the neutral calls: [131][132], which were ok by User:Toddst1, can i re-revert all three?

No. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to ask you again: i read it and found nothing, but related to my first link: "Create subsections if helpful"[133], to both of the second, why should i not change it?Tagremover (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

'Subsections' might be helpful. New 'sections' for a single topic aren't. It is a normal talk page convention to keep discussions of a single topic in a single section, and your way will confuse people. Also, because of the way archiving works, you are liable to end up with some sections being archived before others, which will be even more confusing. As for not changing other people's comments, there are very few reasons to ever do this - and if someone objects, you should never make the same change again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

This are subsections. [134] It is mostly that discussions are in a single section, but long edits have and are structured. Subsections are archived separately? I never noticed that in many years!

Subsections here make sense, the edit is very long. And he reverted my text, too. Tagremover (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You have already been told that no action is going to be taken against Guy Macon. I suggest that rather than arguing about talk page formatting, you concentrate on the actual issue being discussed on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of User:Cresix

User:Cresix operated his sockpupped User:Dpanel to revert my edit to Hugh Jackman. See User:Dpanel contributions. This editor has 23 contribs, returned after Aug 2012 directly on Hugh Jackman article to revert my edit. Pls note that this sockpuppet had accidently edited his other account without changing log in, which prove that both accounts are operated by the same user. Thanks! neo (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally, reports like this go to SPI. However, I'll check into it. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. m.o.p 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here except I had a mild content dispute with neo about an image at Hugh Jackman and asked him to discuss on the article's talk page. I don't know if this is some sort of effort at retaliation by Neo, but I welcome a checkuser on this issue and will be happy to cooperate with that in any way. I still ask Neo to discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page, but this certainly is not worth me getting into an edit war. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

User:ChrisGualtieri

The issue is over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RFC my complaint is a personal attack by User:ChrisGualtieri against another editor User:Lucia Black: "Lucia, it is not up for debate. That is final. You do not respect policy and have control issues. I try to be as nice as possible, but you continue to persist and be disruptive and disrepectful to any editor who disagrees with you. Being loud and having the last word does not mean you win, remember Wikipedia not a battleground. You have been warned about personal attacks and your behavior before. It is becoming as childish as your essay which is all bad-faith and attacking. Consider this the last warning. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)" Saying someone has "control issues" and is acting "childish" really does not help a discussion. When I intervened and said drop the discussion I was given a level 3 warning about being disruptive for another thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not a personal attack at all, that is a comment about behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll drop a word on the editor's page. m.o.p 19:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Its not great wording, but that's a pretty weak personal attack...and from my interactions with her, and reading over her recent essay, not really that off base either... Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The warning I got was: "This is for the repeated removals of tags from pages like Shotacon and Lolicon and your uncivil comments and disruption at WP:ANIME." I only made one comment towards Chris in defense of Lucia, calling someone "childish" with "control issues" is still a personal attack and there are better ways of going about it than doing that. As for Shotacon and Lolicon I removed project tags which I thought were not under the right scope that I did once for those. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a personal attack nonetheless, and, while I understand that everyone gets frustrated occasionally, it's on every editor to not let that frustration get the better off them. There are no justifications for personal attacks. m.o.p 19:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I admit I did not word it the best when I said the discussion was closed but I felt the whole thing was blown way out there than it needed to be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those two (Chris and Lucia) have been arguing over issues for days/weeks, but much of it falls more under "time wasting bickering" than any breach of policy. I'm not against a warning or talking to or whatnot, I'm just saying that's such a weak breach of WP:NPA that its not worth anything further at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I clarified and have removed it now. The removal of the tags after I asked for it to stop is the problem, and I had warned at the project before, but not you personally. I let the behavior part slip in, out of my mindset it was bad context. The edits to the pages here and here occurred after over 100+ tags were reverted by Juhachi and yourself, mainly Juhachi. I had taken the issue to Juhachi and the WPP, but you didn't get a warning somehow, so I saw fit to make it formal. I've since removed it and I do apologize. The issue with Lucia is terrible, as Lucia made this essay in response to our dispute, but the issue with Lucia is her insertion of knowingly false information into a page. Such as this and even reinserting it by undoing my actionhere. The matter of Lucia is a big one, but I doubt we need to go over it again. I apologize again for the warning template and have removed it. We may disagree about things, but I do take considerable issue with the now successful drive to kill the budding project, but I don't intend for it to be personal. Even your filing report doesn't show your involvement in the matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:4lpg=PA3415, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I accepted your apology for the record here and just want to say that I think you should have a talk one to one with Lucia, there is no reason for this bitter feud to continue on forever. As for the Hentai project I do not see it as a dead project you are pouring a lot into it and with time who knows what may happen. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's the problem??? If an editor called you "childish", or tells you to "grow up", or compares you to his toddler children, that is not a PA if it is an Administrator saying those things, because as we all know, Administrators are guided by conduct of a higher standard, which takes them *above* all those petty accusations of personal attacks and whatnot. *Also*, if you go to User talk:Gregbard, you'll see that user was informed by an Administrator that his use of phrase "that is not helpful" in a discussion is interpretable as a PA, and that he was threatened with sanction over his use of it. User:Knowledge, I quote you at the top of this thread: "Saying someone has 'control issues' and is acting 'childish' really does not help a discussion", so as you can see, you are equally guilty of using that naughty phrase -- "not helpful" -- indicative of making a personal attack, and therefore, WE HAVE A BOOMERANG HERE! BOOMERANG!, BOOMERANG!, BOOMERANG! (I said it first, aren't I the cleverest editor! My mirror on the wall told me so. My mirror never lies.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC) What is not helpful is your editorializing about admin at every opportunity. We get it, you think all admin are scum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC) So when an Administrator personally attacks an editor by telling him/her to "grow up", because he/she is a "child" and lacks the maturity of an adult, that is not a PA, and even if I thought it was, I shouldn't say anything to object, or anything to point out the hypocrisy of it, because WP is not about a comfortable editing environment for regular editors, it is really here for Adminsitrators and hall monitors, who want the freedom to make insults and violate PA policy, without any restriction, because they are Admins!? So I should forever zip my lip, because it interferes with Administrators' unfettered rights to make PAs without complaints from the peanut gallery!? (Good one! And thanks for sticking words in my mouth once again, that I never said or meant, and making me responsible for them. How civil! [Oh I forget, you are "universally regarded" as a model of civility. Silly me.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The parties involved here aren't admin. You came in and are using this as a soapbox to bash admin, when that has nothing to do with this thread. You just got through complaining about being the subject of an ANI, and yet it is this kind offtopic commenting that prolongs threads. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Dennis Brown, you do realize that your comment ("we get it, you think all admin are scum") is also very unhelpful, not to mention bad-mannered? Besides, how exactly is pointing out the double standard that is taking place in this very discussion "offtopic"? It isn't. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not issue this report. However, long fueds should be discouraged. Meaning if an editor responds respectfully (regardless of history) the other editor must respond in a respectful manner. That said, most of the ANI reports get closed with no action, right? I noticed editor here don't want a block, but a third party to warn them. I'll be proposing something new so there can be more middleground for admins and editors.Lucia Black (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake and I apologize. I have been trying my best to work through the issues, but I will take leave of the matter with Lucia because I do not want any feuding to continue. For a week, I will avoid the subject of WP:ANIME and its editing areas, with the exception of the newly formed WP:HENTAI pages. Lucia, we do not agree, that much is clear, but I lack the ability and the experience to resolve this without a mediator of caliber who can take command of the situation and deal with it as it matters for Wikipedia. Lucia, continues to make matters very difficult for me. I dedicate myself to some tasks and not without reason, I respond respectfully yet receive none. It has worn on me, where mere existence of the Wikiproject is unthinkable for you, even if policy states otherwise. No one is perfect, but it seems clear that this grudge has affected me personally. I welcome assistance in solving our disputes, but I do not know where to turn at this point. I did something that I do not agree with, by templating him, he has forgiven me, but the shame for my action persists. It does not matter if this came to ANI or whether or not he had discussed it with me first; I should not have done it. The problem between us and this GITS matter has spilled into several areas, which is why my avoiding of that section is warranted at this point. Outside assistance in this matter is going to be required, and hopefully in a week or so, it can be addressed with some time spent apart. I am sorry for my boorish behavior, this is not who I am. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mass speedy image deletions without due process or rationale

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

---

Seventeen PD images, all used in articles, were just mass deleted summarily over just 14 minutes, without tags, warnings, notices, or any rationale of substance. I have asked User talk:Denniss‎ to explain, without comment yet. All of the deleted images had clearly verified non-copyright status. Any review would be appreciated. Thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• mb 20:58 Walter_Matthau_-_1973.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:54 Dirk_Blocker_-_1974.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:54 Faye_Dunaway_-_1967_-_Bonnie.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:52 Woody_Allen_-_Diane_Keaton_-_1972.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)<br.
• mb 20:51 Woody_Allen_-_Kup.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:49 Shirley_MacLaine_-_Yves_Montand_-_Geisha.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:49 Tom_Selleck_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:49 Robert_Redford_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:48 Alan_Alda_-_Mash_-_1972.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:48 Loretta_Swit_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:47 Uri_Geller_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:47 Hal_Linden_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)<br.
• mb 20:46 David_Janssen_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:46 Jane_Olivor_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:46 Clint_Eastwood_-_1960s-hat.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:45 Richard_Chamberlain-publicity.jpg, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)
  
• mb 20:44 Jack_Lemmon_-_publicity.JPG, it has been deleted from Commons by Denniss because: Copyright violation.)

Are they publicity stills? — raekyt 21:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher, these are Commons images, you will need to broach the subject there. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Will take the time over the next few days to update Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1.Moxy (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Aries no Mur

Aries no Mur (talk · contribs): Columbus origin theories + Croats[135]. Can someone please remind me, is this Brunodam or Velebit territory? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not really in the right place for asking questions, you should try the reference desk. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 01:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Lol? I think what he meant is that this user is probably a sock, just not sure who of. —Soap— 02:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a joke ? Brunodam or Velebit ? I'm not this person. I am a teacher in Rome. [136] I simply expressed my point of view. This is a crime? I repeat. I do not know these two users... I do not know these two users.... I do not know these two users. I just wrote a comment. My first comment on the ""Croats"". I didn't do anything wrong. I am innocent. I wish you all a good day at work. My Apologies If I've "Offended" Anyone... --Aries no Mur (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-wiki legal threat from blocked user User:Maxschweitzer

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

---

User:Maxschweitzer was recently indef. blocked by User:Bbb23, for personal attacks and harassment, aimed at me and others. I've since received an emailed legal threat from him: "you should get a lawyer and prepare for a discrimination lawsuit". It's laughable, but I thought I should mention it here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look up higher, you'll see that Max made the same threat on-wiki using a sock puppet (User:CourtofLaw). The puppet was indeffed for the legal threat. I tagged Max and his puppet.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, can someone please disable Maxschweitzer's email access? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems appropriate. Also when something like this happens does someone notify the foundation or just keep the email and wait to see what happens? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Long-term harrassment by User:Unscintillating

Unscintillating has been intermittently hassling me for the last two years and I want it to stop. He has apparently held a grudge against me ever since I reverted his edits of a long-closed AfD discussion, and has been trying to stir up trouble for me ever since. His latest tactic is to edit war over links to an essay that I have contributed to, not because he actually objects to its contents (he has flip-flopped repeatedly regarding his pretext), but because he imagines it annoys me. He's been asked to stop edit warring, but is still at it- this time he apparently thinks that stating his opinion on one page gives him consensus to do what he likes on another.

Unscintillating will frequently "flag" my edits and comments as being somehow inappropriate:

• application of a really petty home-brewed template. Edit wars to keep it there. Later the template is deleted amid much laughter as being grossly inappropriate.
• [137]- Let's play "hunt the adjective"
• [138]- takes great umbrage to my edit summary. His response when I object boils down to, essentially "I was talking about you, not to you".
• [139]- more obsessing over my edit summaries
• non-sequitur, and more flogging of the old "undermining or sabotage" WP:DEADHORSE

Not content to merely hassle me, he needs to nag and nag others to take action against me- which they never see as called for:

• Here Unscintillating complains about what another editor has posted to my talk, then complains about the way I archive my talk page. Nobody decides that but me. Then he flogs the old "banning policy" deadhorse again, gets told he's wrong, pretends to have asked a different question.
• On SarekOfVulcan's talkpage: "I want a third opinion!" "I want a third opinion!" "I want a third opinion!" "I don't like that third opinion!" "I still don't like it!"
• Lengthy discussion on EdJohnston's talkpage where Unscintillating dobs me in over discussions that involved neither him nor EdJohnston. This shows that Unscintillating follows my edits looking for things to object to. EJ repeatedly informs Unscintillating that there's nothing actionable in any of my conduct (even though EJ dislikes my forthright language), and Unscintillating steadfastly refuses to accept that.

I have repeatedly asked Unscintillating to stop following me around trying to pick fights with me. I am just not interested, but he refuses to leave me alone. I request that Unscintillating be topic banned from talking to or about me, and from commenting on WP:MUSTBESOURCES, broadly construed. Nothing useful has ever come out of his input on any of these matters. For my part, I will accept the current status quo regarding links to WP:MUSTBESOURCES and will voluntarily refrain from talking to or about Unscintillating. Since I do not follow him around from place to place like he does to me, this is not an issue for me at all. Reyk _YO! 04:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's about time to consider broader sanctions on Unscintillating. This is 2013, and I thought we'd left behind the sort of disruption present on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global James Bond Day after the majority of ARS's celebrities got themselves banned. This is about far more than his interaction with one particular editor. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationalist edits

Webvip (talk · contribs), previously suspected of being a sockpuppet of User:Acadēmica Orientālis has come to my attention recently for a couple of edits performed on Okinawa Prefecture and Ryukyu Islands. He added a sentence to each article with this as the citation with the claim that sovereignty over the islands is questioned ([140] [141]). I reverted on Ryukyu Islands yesterday, as his commentary was most definitely not supported by the text, and then I wrote a more accurate statement based on the news article. Today, after breaking the link to add the Chinese name of the disputed islands group to the article, he once again warped the text to a more nationalist view, which I reverted, and then also removed the article when it had been added to the Okinawa Prefecture page. It would seem that Webvip's edits have been problematic when he first began editing, but now he has been solely editing to bring this dispute between China and Japan onto the articles about Japan where they had not been prior.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

We're in luck -- he is not a subtle POV pusher but is kind of blatant, and can't be bothered to even find sources for his claims. He needs to refrain from further behavior like that. Shii (tock) 09:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

deletion of my remarks

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

---

thank you to User:Obiwan Kenobi for pointing out that female comments on this issue are being systematially deleted. the continuing outgrowth of WP's informal policy to squelch non-male, non-subculture remarks. -Aerolit (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

What issue, where? Whose comments are being squealched? What are you talking about, and what admin action are you asking for? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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