Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Tabarez = Reza.Piri

Hi everyone. I think it is obvious that User:Tabarez (banned indefinitely on 11 June 2013 for copyright violations) returned with User:Reza.Piri as his newest sockpuppet. It just takes to look at their contributions (mostly about Iranian politics and sport) to see they are the same person (WP:DUCK). It really looks like WP:SOCK to me, so I guess an admin should look at this case. Cheers! --Sundostund (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As can be seen, User:Reza.Piri appears to plan to engage in an edit war at List of Presidents of Iran, in the same fashion as Tabarez did with his main account, and after its indef blocking with his socks. Its a clear WP:DUCK IMHO. --Sundostund (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have filed a sock puppet report at WP:SPI (direct link). You should have reported him there, not here. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas, I really appreciate your opening of a sock puppet report, I hope it will help to finally end this sockpuppet nonsense by Tabarez. But, as can be seen, Reza.Piri is still unblocked and he's still editing articles on Iranian politics and sport, including his edit warring on List of Presidents of Iran. I think some admin should deal with that. --Sundostund (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise blocked Reza.Piri, so that sock is out. Now we need to see whether Tabarez plans another "comeback", with some new sock account or IP... ‎--Sundostund (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

As I suspected, he now uses another IP. I bet this is his newest block evasion - 2.178.185.80. ‎--Sundostund (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His newest IP is 2.178.77.198 - exactly the same behavior as before, including edit warring at List of Presidents of Iran... --Sundostund (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

And now he is 2.178.163.156, look his edit warring at List of Presidents of Iran and Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani... This really becomes pathetic. --Sundostund (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we REALLY need a rangeblock here, it appears this guy went mad at List of Presidents of Iran and Inauguration of Hassan Rouhani. --Sundostund (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

His current IP is 2.178.79.203 - again, same editing patterns as before... This guy is so stubborn! --Sundostund (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And now his IP is 2.178.160.190... --Sundostund (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Both articles have been protected by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed on the indefinite topic ban for Yogesh Khandke

Yogesh Khandke was given an indefinite topic ban on everything related to colonialism and Indian history here. I have asked the administrator for clarification on the scope of this TBAN but he has not bothered to respond. I would like to know just how far back in time is YK allowed to edit? I am of the opinion that the article Anti-Muslim violence in India falls under the scope of the ban as it covers Indian history from just before partition up to 2002. This needs to be clarified. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

(1)My topic ban was related to Aryan Invasion Theory some thing that happened thousands of years ago, my involvement in the discussion is limited to events taking place after 1983 and later, very much contemporary events. My topic ban was discussed during user:MRT3366's AN/I case and my editing was not considered inappropriate. My editing subjects have been at a barge pole's length away from the scope of my topic ban imo. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

YK, please could you provide a link to the discussion that delivered this result? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The topic ban terms are extremely broad, but in my opinion, Yogesh's edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India do not fall under the topic ban because he was alive during most of those times. In his own words, he was a teen in 1983. Events of that time are contemporary events, Yogesh has been staying away from the topics that actually initiated his topic ban, and so there is no need to nit·pick. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Contemporary history is also history. Yogesh has clearly violaed his topic ban. And he hs been doing so consistently over the past 6 months - exhibituing the exact same behavior pattern of tendentious editing and promotion of fringe views that led to the topic ban in the first place. I am extremely surprised no one has noticed, if I had knewn of the topic ban I would have requested enforcement sseveral months ago.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Last year's events are also recent history, going by the strict definition. So should Yogesh be banned from editing them too? Absurd. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 12:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Anir1uph. While I didn't read the entire ban discussion, it appears that the focus is colonialism, not recent events. Yogesh should be careful to avoid the bahvior that led to the ban, but I do not see that edits relating to events in their lifetime should be covered by the ban.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

When referring to history, the boundaries generally apply to anything prior to contemporary history (which, as explained by Anirluph, includes what happened last year and even yesterday). These "history topic bans" must be exact in their definition of history and not simply assume what is included into them.

In fact, with a TBAN on "Colonialism and Indian History", I would assume that any pre-Colonial and post-Colonial Indian history would be fair game.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say "History of Colonial India", it says "Colonialism and Indian History". And events in India after 1983 are very much "Indian History". Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. "Colonialism and Indian history" can be understood as a single topic. When making restrictions on history, boundaries must be placed on the timeline. Current events, which fall into the realm of contemporary history, are not what people have in mind when they refer to history. And the definition of a "current event" is different depending on the person.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Stating that history is whatever happened before one's lifetime is absurd. It means that for my grandfather a topic ban on history would still allow him to edit articles on World War I. History includes topics described by historians using historical sources and methods - and which includes recent history but not current events. The 2002 Gujarat Violence the 1983 Nellie Massacre, and the history of anti-Muslim violence in India (which deals extensively with colonial and early post-colonial examples) which Yogesh has been extensively involved, are obviously topics of relevance to Indian History - and his editing has been furthering the exact same political points of view that were problematic in his editing of Indian history. Furthermore Yogesh's behavior in editing these topics have been EXACTLY the same that lead to his topic ban. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, yeah. "Current events" are...current...not "within your lifetime". Would the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan be a "current event" for me? "Current event" does not vary and the statement that they do is...puzzling at best. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point. By that logic World War 1 would have been a current event for Frank Buckles in 2010 since he was the last surviving American veteran who died in 2011.--70.49.82.207 (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier on this, as the admin who originally imposed the restriction. I'm a bit on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I personally would have understood the restriction to be applied widely, including recent history, and I think I once told Yogesh I believed he was breaking the restriction when he was commenting on one of these issues. This is especially since it has been my impression that his conduct in this "recent history" area has been problematic in a similar way, and motivated by a similar set of political-ideological issues, as his conduct in the ancient history area (echoing Maunus' observations above). On the other hand, I can't overlook the coincidence that a similar case is currently under consideration at WP:ARCA, where the arbs recently topic-banned somebody from "Argentinian history" but are now telling him in a clarification request that he is free to edit recent history after 1983. In the end, we might just have to look more closely at whether and how Yogesh's behaviour in the recent history domain is independently objectionable, and if so, reimpose a more clearly defined/clarified/widened form of the topic ban under the discretionary sanctions rule (which wasn't yet in place when the original community topic ban was imposed). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Presumably the ARCA ruling is motivated by the fact that the topic that proves difficult for the particular editor to edit usefully ends in 1983, and is no longer relevant for subsequent periods of Atgentinian history. This is not the case in the case of Yogesh's ban because the subject matter that has proved difficult for Yogesh to approach in a useful manner is still present and in effect up untill the very recent history of India.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(1) @user:Kim Dent-Brown: During another editor's AN/I case my comments were hatted for being from a topic banned editor, in response, I said the 2002 events were contemporary events, I was not contradicted,[1] later on the same admin's page when "Darkness Shines" requested clarification, I presented my argument, I was not contradicted.[2] (2) @All: The events which I'm editing are contemporary events to me and a majority of Wikipedia editors, the examples given above: "my grandfather", Frank Buckles are extreme cases. 35% of prolific editors are over 40 years old. Statistically the average age of a Wikipedia editor is 32 years. Aren't these events contemporary ((meaning: belonging to the same age, living or occurring in the same age or time) for the average Wikipedian? Would an editor banned from editing American history and colonialism be banned from editing Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan too? Is his assassination an event in American history, esp. when deciding the scope of a topic ban of someone who was banned for his edits related to 2nd millennium BCE in North American history (3)(a) My ban area is Indian history; the disputed historical event was whether The Aryan migration theory is disputed or not[3] the time frame of this incident is 2000 to 500 BCE. (b) I was sanctioned for slow edit warring. (b)When I my edits were called garbage and reverted, I hit back by undoing those reverts and calling them vandalism.[4] That was the editing behaviour and editing area that caused me to be banned. (4) Since the ban (a) I've stayed many tens of centuries away from date of the dispute I was banned for. (b) Since my ban I've put myself on a zero revert policy, i.e I don't revert anyone who undoes my edits. (c) My last block was over a year ago, and I've made over three thousand[5] edits since on a broad variety of subjects. (d) Since my topic ban I've learnt that it helps the project for editors to be civil and have endevoured to be so. (4) I've made zero article space edits to Anti-Muslim violence in India so the question of edit warring etc. doesn't arise. (5) The said article discusses 1946, 1983 and 2002 as major events, in talk page discussions I've stayed away from 1946. (6) The ban didn't specify a date, I've given no reason imo since my last block a year ago, for the ban to be made stringent. I've tried to make positive contributions to the project as I enjoy doing so, I've taken my ban in the right spirit, by trying to address the causes of sanction, I leave it to the community to judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made 3 edits out of the 3921 edits to 2002 Gujarat violence and zero edits to 1983 Nellie massacre so I don't have extensive involvement as alleged above. I'd be happy to have any of my edits scrutinised for my inability to be useful in any area of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As a direct participant in the ARCA case, the topic ban was actually the broad Latin American history spectrum. Again the key word here is "history", and what the arbitrators meant by it was "non-contemporary history" (as is common by most individuals).

Bushranger and Maunus are unfairly looking for loopholes in my statement. Yes, obviously WWI is not a current event...but no respectable historian would call it "contemporary history" either. However, Reagan's assassination attempt is certainly within the boundaries of contemporary history (although not a current event).

I haven't checked Yogesh's contributions and in no way am I either supporting them or opposing them. All I am defending is the fact that the history topic ban is ambiguous and in need of more specific restrictions. Yogesh should not be punished for the ambiguity of the ban. I am also not blaming the banning administrator, who is acting based on what seems a common procedure.

The point of my statements it that there is a lesson to be learned from these events (for all administrators and arbitrators), which is that topic bans on "history" must either be specific or include a few more lines that also TBAN contemporary history and current events related to the topic. Perhaps a mention or discussion of this is worth at the WP:TBAN page.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I just had toRv the bot, this needs a resolution. Would an admin please give a timeframe which YK is OK to edit in? 10yrs ago? 20yrs ago? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

IBAN requested

I am requesting an IBAN between Dharmadhyaksha and myself, throughout all namespaces in english wiki. I have previously asked this editor to not follow my contributions, yet he persists. This revert proves without a doubt that he is both stalking me and reverting my edit for no reason, the article being an obvious fork of Martyred Intellectuals Day. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous observation: Looking at the talk pages of both parties and edit summaries, I think there's a boomerang about to hit. 2.121.145.49 (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The unilateral reversions are concerning - and the fact that they're at the brink of 3RR doesn't help much either. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

If all namespace interactions are banned, how would you guys interact on content discussions especially as this is not the first page you two have interacted about and had differences and would not be the last either. I guess the AfD will take care of whether the page in question is a POV fork or not. Are there any other recent edits/reverts which he has contributed only after you started your contributions on a page? Please provide them.  A m i t  웃  

He followed me here, two days after I had created the article, that revert is his reinsertion of OR which he added and I had removed. He followed me to Anti-Muslim violence in India, a new article I had created and his only contributions to the article are to add pointy tags and raise cain on the talk page, for no purpose other than to waste my time going by his comments, see this talk page section re both the tags and his actions on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I need some clarifications about WP:IBAN before we move to all these baseless accusations that i am particularly only following this user and not simply editing the article falling under WP:INDIA, which i have been editing all life long. So... Can i propose IBAN for any user? For example, can i propose IBAN with this IP 2.121.145.49? I have never interacted with them before so i don't care even if we were IBANed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• You can't have edited WP:INDIA articles all your life, that's simply impossible. You clearly have an issue with Darkness Shines (and some other users, for that matter), given how often you are listed in a thread against Darkness Shines. You also give every sign of having stalked their edits, and reverting based on who made the edit, not what the edit contained. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gross misuse of article talk page, immediate action requested

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

---

I request someone step in to read Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Proof-reading the lead, perhaps remove material which does not meet TPG, including my own, and perhaps notify editors involved of the appropriate talk-page guidelines. John Carter (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for having not notified the other combatant, BTW. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Folks, this is a little dust-up on the way to arbitration User:John_Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. Consider the incivility directed at me Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Question of POV from the top of the talk page on down. Ignocrates (talk) 21:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Since we are here, I won't waste the trip. Please consider removing the tag that was placed on the article Gospel of the Ebionites#Relationship to other texts resulting in this discussion: Talk:Gospel of the Ebionites#Neutrality tag. Ignocrates (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• John, so you're asking some random admin to get into this fray and start deleting talk page content? I suggest both of you try to limit how widely you spill your dispute around Wikipedia. This isn't a stop on the dispute resolution train. --Laser brain (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• John, to be quite honest with you, what I see here is one editor raising concerns about a featured article review, which is an entirely appropriate use of a talk page. I see inappropriate responses to that initial statement from two other editors, but you're one of them, as you're dismissing rather than addressing the concerns. If you feel they're invalid, say so, but also say why. Ignocrates, your responses to John are also inappropriate as they are personalizing the dispute, and "get off your ass and address them" is needlessly inflammatory and certainly uncivil. The both of you should be focusing on concerns with the article, not bickering. A trout for the both of you, and if either one can't focus on the content rather than the writer, stay away altogether. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I'm asking someone to ensure that the conduct meets requirements. There is a very long history of misconduct on both sides here, me among them. Unfortunately, honestly, I believe (think what you will about my beliefs) that personalizing matters is, per his history, pretty much the primary tactic of Ovadyah/Ignocrates for some time now. Honestly, I would appreciate firm warnings regarding misuse of the talk page to both parties, with the possibility of enforcement through standard measures should inflammatory, off topic commentary continue, and, possibly, someone to refactor the page should behavior continue to get out of hand. John Carter (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note similar uncivil interactions between John Carter and multiple editors: User_talk:Ignocrates/Archive 4#Opinion please and recently diff 1; diff 2. This is not an isolated incident involving two editors. Imo, TPG should apply here as well. Ignocrates (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Nor are false and irrelevant accusations against others even remotely new for you, as per User:John Carter/Ebionites 2 evidence. I also believe that it would very much help if additional editors ensured that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and other tactical maneuvers to avoid dealing with legitimate concerns be enforced, by administrative action if necessary. John Carter (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if I should make this comment here as it is not directly relevant to the issue under discussion, but I don't know where else to put it and I feel it needs to be discussed by the wider community. User:John Carter has what seems to me an extremely odd attitude to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. He says that one of the leading authorities of today on the New Testament,Bart Ehrman, has as much credibility as Tom Cruise talking about Scientology diff 1 and compares Ehrman's works to comic strips diff 2. Ehrman has had seventeen books published by Oxford University Press, two by Harvard University Press and has written three university textbooks, used to train other scholars and professionals in the field, on the New Testament. But User John Carter dismisses Ehrman as an author of "popular books" and says that he can only be considered WP:RS when he agrees with "academic sources", see diff 2 above where he says "But popular sources are in general less well regarded than academic sources, and if we can find an academic source which says what Ehrman says, they would be the better sources. If Ehrman says something that academic sources don't say, then there might be a problem". Apparently because Ehrman, in addition to his seventeen books published by OUP, has also written for a general readership and produced NYT best-sellers without scholarly apparatus such as footnotes and bibliographies,etc., this disqualifies anything he has written from being used on WP. It appears John Carter does not consider Oxford University Press to be an "academic source", which seems absurd to me. John Carter has been involved in long running disputes with User Ret.Prof and User Ignocrates and issues lectures and warnings to them about various policies and guidelines, just for instance diff 3 and see diff one above, but John Carter himself does not seem to me to understand WP:RS or WP:NPOV at all. Apologies if I have addressed these concerns in the wrong place, I have discussed it with John Carter on several talk pages, but he basically just repeats that Ehrman is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books".Smeat75 (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I messed up the link to Bart D. Ehrman above, now I hope it is correct and will direct to the WP page which says " Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, having written and edited over twenty-five books, including three college textbooks."Smeat75 (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I tried WP:Dispute_resolution noticeboard/Gospel of the Ebionites prior to this ANI filing; it just closed due to non-participation in resolving the content dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Dimension10 and page moves

Dimension10 (talk · contribs) pretty much took it on themselves to re-arrange the pages that used to be Standard Model and Standard Model (mathematical formulation). I created a thread at WT:PHYS about this, and asked them to stop moving things left and right so I can fix the mess, and make sure the old links point to the intended articles, but they just won't stop. Take a look at their move history to see the damn mess they left behind. Could an admin please block them for the moment, until they agree to stop moving things left and right and let the discussion of WT:PHYS come to it's conclusion? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Headbomb There is no mess. The mess only started after you started making some of the redirects redirect to Introduction to the standard model, and some to The standard model. It's clear that you' are the one messing up everything here, using vulgarities randomly, making a big fuss about almost nothing, and wanting the article's nameing conventions to be against all the other articles', just because YOU can't comprehend technical, mathematical, details, and YOU don't want the technical articles to be the main article? . . . Dimension10 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC) .

Could you please stop it with the personal attacks? I fully comprehend the technical details involved and the only purpose of the discussion on WT:PHYS is about the names of the articles, how to best deal with them, make sure we direct the readers where we actually mean to, and all that jazz. Your half a million moves makes it impossible to have this conversation about, you break a bunch of links in existing articles, and behave like a bull in a China shop. It's clear you won't be stopping anytime soon, and you need to be blocked so your disruption stops and so that people can have a discussion about things without pulling their own hair trying to figure out which article is which. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Look who'se talking (For others, please check the original version of this section.) . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You must be doing something wrong because even this page (WP:ANI) became one big mess when you edited it. Are you using some non-standard software when editing? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing happened to the standard model articles . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've fixed the formatting issue on this page, the result of {{curly brackets}} rather than [[square brackets]]. When a move is opposed like this, the correct thing to do is to revert to the names before the move, and then come to a consensus about what the page names should be. Indeed, major name changes like this should optimally be discussed at WP:RM or the talk page or the project page first. I think an admin will need to help sort out the moves now, lots of redirects got re-edited. I'm afraid I can't help, I need to go offline in 5 minutes, and I don't want to leave it half done. I don't think any blocks are needed at this time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved in this, but a few things strike me as problematic with Dimension10. The user page User:Dimension10 is using a protected template and adds, "If you edit it (the user page), the user will immediately die, and their ghost will appear in your house and kill you." On the talk page, the controversial moves of other pages have been brought up at User_talk:Dimension10#Controversial_moves. The Townsend string theory matter alone is a problem. Dimension10 has clear problems with this topic area and actually attacks editors when actions do not go their way, even if their claims are proven false. Even stating, "Stupid adminstrators who don't know string theory want to delete." in relation to the Townsend string theory page.[6] These moves were a bad idea and should not have been done without consensus. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention things like [7] Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with this topic? HUH?! If you can't stand a joke (the kill you thing), I think your comment is pointless . And the move was because the admins refused to check the refs, and they were happy with the move . Dimension10 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm also uninvolved, but most of the moves seem to be for the sake of personal preference, or "potential spelling mistakes". For example, it's really unlikely that someone will misspell "The Stranded Model" for "The standard model"...

I agree with everything Headbomb et al said. M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 16:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The ""Stranded Model"" page was however, really due to a spelling mistake , believe it or not . And I don't think that "Stranded Model" can be a "personal preferecence" s . Dimension10 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There are lots of editors who feel that jokes about murdering editors who comment on a talk page are in bad taste. But YMMV. As for the moves... you may have a strong case for your version, you might not. But clearly the moves have been disputed here - so now they need to be reverted until a discussion can be had and consensus can form. I do find it troubling that your first response when someone questions your moves is not "Well, I moved Standard Model because of reasons, and then moved Standard Model (mathematical formulation) because of these reasons, and this is why I think it is better that way..." and so on - Your first response was to attack Headbomb instead. You need to dial it back a bit, Dimension10. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I think nobody realised it's about Pauli Villar ghosts and critical dimensions getting rid of them ? I.e. Editing my User page = Not accepting the current state of the User page "Dimension10" = Not accepting 10 dimensions = Being plagued/Haunted by Pauli-Villar ghost statesj. You need to know a bit of string theory to understand, but it's a funny joke, and it's very uentertaining . : ) Dimension10 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we remove move permission from someone? That would deal with the situation rather effectively. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

And I still don't see what I've done ? Dimension10 (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, @Dimension10: please can you advise how/why/what re:your typing? The formatting and spacing is...bizarre, to say the least. GiantSnowman 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to me . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And I suppose vulgarities in the titles, randomly character assassinating, causing edit wars, ignoring move reasons purposely, but instead calling me a vandal, isn't personal attacks, but moving pages as to agree with other pages is?

On fixing the mess

In parallel to the above stuff, any admin that wants to clean up the mess (aka restore to the pre-move status quo) would have to

• Move Introduction to the Standard Model → Standard Model
• Move The standard model → Standard Model (mathematical formulation)

Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)

• Particle physics standard model
• Standard model (basic details)
• Standard Model of particle physics
• Standard Model of Particle Physics
• Standard model of the universe
• The Standard model
• The Standard Model
• The Standard Model of Particle Physics

Make sure the following redirects point to Standard Model (mathematical formulation) (or will, after bots deal with double redirects)

• Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model
• SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)
• SU(3)XSU(2)XU(1)
• Standard model (details)
• Standard model (technical details)

Then delete the following redirect

• Mathematical formulation of the Standard Model)
• Standard+Model
• The Stranded Model

Then WP:PHYS can have its discussion about what titles to settle on. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think I got it all. Anything else I need to do? NW (Talk) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as i'm aware, that covers everything that needs to be done concerning article moves at this point. Things may change after the discussion at WT:PHYS, but that can be handled through the usual channels of {{move request}} and similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Other Articles, like the intro to m-theory, and the intro to GR, and a few other articles, have the technical pages as main, and the non-technical as the "Introduction to the ... " . Dimension10 (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's nice, but irrelevant. You broke a fair number of pages and redirects with your actions, which clearly did not have consensus. For such an action in the future, please attempt to gather it ahead of time. There's a reason things were as they were before your actions, and while it may not be accepted by all, there was no need to change it without discussion. And could you please indent your replies properly? NW (Talk) 02:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Please block this troll (again)

The SPI has some additional examples of trolling from his old account [8]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think Dimension10 is somehow an expert, rest assured he is not. Read the conversation here and see that his understanding of math is that of someone who probably hasn't finished undergraduate college yet. (Also see [9].) Between his move mess with "mistakes" and the more obviously trolling templates he created 1 2, I don't see why this user—who was evading an indefinite block for vandalism and trolling while make all these new silly edits—was allowed to continue wasting productive editors' time. In his retirement message [10] Dimension10 has copied some material from the user page of User:Sławomir Biały, whom he had trolled previously; the material is certainly ironic considering who the WP:RANDY was in that case. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:CJK comparing academics to 9/11 "doubters"

User:CJK seems to consider a Wikipedia talk page an appropriate arena to compare academics who have expressed doubts as to the guilt of Alger Hiss to "9/11 doubters". [11] Can I ask that he be topic-banned from the subject matter until such time as he is prepared to adhere to expected talk-page standards, and to not violate WP:BLP policy in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Related reading (Arbitration request filed by CJK four weeks ago) for anyone who wants to get a bit of a background on this. NW (Talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful link, NW. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK does exactly the same thing again: [12]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban might be helpful here. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ugh, what an awful comment to make. I support the topic ban on CJK as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the talk page discussions and then the article for an hour (I have never heard of this article person before) I discover this to be a content dispute with several other editors just tired of arguing their points without any evidence in the way of references, against a tireless editor. I do see CJK as attempting to resolve these issues, after being insulted, poked and prodded for months to add mention of other possibly relevant rumor type factoids on the talk page. I also see some severe editwarring by a several editors, including an admin that subsequently blocked the article to all others except admins (severe COI?). I believe CJK has tried his/her best to discuss content disputes and I see a few other editors as using strawman arguments to intentionally not "get the point" and this ANI as a further disruptive attempt to avoid providing solid discussion. Very few, if any, references have been provided on either side but IMHO the consensus would side with CJK, despite the editor count. I suggest this article be locked down for about three months to let editors cool down and reconsider the bias (and maybe some ownership) of the article. Admins need to do a lot of reading to establish a fair conclusion here. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Barlas

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

---

I am once again reporting Ancientsteppe (talk · contribs). His edits in the above mentioned article are contraproductive. This comment on the talkpage proves that he is not familiar with WP:RS or other basic rules of Wikipedia. This is not a matter of scholarly dispute, but about a user who is distorting academic sources and is pushing for his own POV - without being able to privide a single reliable source. --Lysozym (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No reaction? --Lysozym (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's nothing in that diff that warrants any kind of admin action. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• As for their behavior in Barlass (where I happen to agree with you), I suggest you report them at WP:ANEW if they continue reverting. Just for fairness sake I have warned both of you for edit warring, as is clearly warranted by the history. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Steppe blocked for 48 hours for continuing to edit war after the warning. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Request to enforce NOR

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

---

This report does not concern a content dispute. This report concerns a pattern of long-term disruption of the March Against Monsanto article involving multiple editors restoring the same or similar sources in violation of our policy against no original research. These editors have attempted to impose a local consensus at March Against Monsanto in violation of our primary site-wide policy on WP:NOR and the typical application of FRINGE.

The "March Against Monsanto" is an international protest movement that demonstrated on May 25, 2013. The relevant policy and guidelines state that reliable sources about the protest may be used judiciously, however, these editors are adding off-topic sources from GMO articles that were published before the protests ever occurred and about a subject that has nothing to do with the protests or the reliable secondary sources about the protests.

The relevant NOR policy is very clear: "...you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia."

Similarly, WP:FRINGE states: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing."

Certain editors, namely A13ean, Arc de Ciel, Thargor Orlando, SpectraValor, North8000, and Tryptofish, have all engaged in similar editing behavior between May and August, repeatedly adding in the same or similar content after being repeatedly asked to stop doing this on the talk page and on their user pages.

Here is a list of article diffs showing this behavior:

16:38, 31 May

• A13ean (talk · contribs);
  • Removes wording sourced to the Associated Press article about the protest and according to his own edit summary, "expand with cites from Genetically modified food", a completely different article. A13ean then rewrites and replaces the AP source with off-topic citations to AAAS (2012), World Health Organization (2012), Preston (2011), National Academies Press (2004), Winter & Gallego (2006), Jaffee (Feb. 7, 2013), Ronald (2011), Miller (2009), Chang (2012).

07:07, 1 June

• Arc de Ciel (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

18:53, 12 June

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

22:07, 13 June

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

13:20, 18 June

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

02:03, 19 July

• SpectraValor (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean's off-topic citations

13:35, 19 July

• Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs)
  • Restores and adds to A13ean's off-topic citations from the GMO article

01:07, 20 July

• North8000 (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

19:37, 20 July

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

16:10, 23 July

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

18:30, 27 July

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

23:22, 28 July

• North8000 (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

17:56, 4 August

• Tryptofish (talk · contribs)
  • Restores A13ean and Thargor Orlando's off-topic citations from the GMO article

When the situation is politely explained to them, they ignore the explanation and keep adding the sources, all the while claiming that no explanation has ever been offered (WP:IDHT) When shown the NOR policy and asked why they keep adding these sources when we have perfectly on-topic, secondary sources about the subject, they avoid answering the question.

User:Petrarchan47 deserves credit for being the first editor to pick up on these overt policy violations.[13][14][15] As Petrarchan47 has observed, "this article is about the protest, and concerns behind it."[16]

I am happy to answer any questions as time permits. I have filed this report here instead of the WP:NOR/N board because that board is basically dead and receives very little traffic. Viriditas (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

All editors notified of this report. Viriditas (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (involved editor) This complaint is a continuation of the very lengthy thread above on this topic, and demonstrates the bad faith problems discussed there. Viriditas seems unable to accept that there can be a genuine disagreement between editors on whether/how this article is subject to WP:FRINGE guidance (by which it might be argued the addition of mainstream scientific views could be justified), or whether it should focus exclusively on the march (in which case they would not). Rather than try and achieve consensus we are seeing battles between some dug-in editors and Viriditas' complaint above (taking-in some experienced editors) of "a pattern of long-term disruption" and "overt policy violations" (while describing his own "side" as "polite" and deserving of credit) is just more of this. Each 'side' need to acknowledge the reasonableness of the other, assume good faith, and work towards a consensus. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This isn't about a content dispute, this is about a long-term pattern of policy violation, apparent tag team editing, and behavioral disruption centering on WP:IDHT, which you have adequately demonstrated in your response, as you know very well that the mainstream scientific opinion has been represented by the AP[17] and other sources since the beginning. There is absolutely no justification to continue violating our policy on NOR and it needs to stop. I can provide diff after diff of the above editors violating consensus after consensus, pretending discussions never took place and deliberately adding the same content over and over again after multiple discussions said otherwise. This is willful and deliberate disruption. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • QED Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm afraid I don't see were Viriditas commented about conduct. The subject of this ANI seems to be purely content-based. If you would like to discuss whether editors are being nice or not, this wouldn't seem the place. This type of off-topic comment tends to dilute, confuse and divert the discussion. petrarchan47tc 07:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And by "content" I'm referring to the diffs showing repeated addition of OR which seems a response to any questioning of GMO safety. But such a response isn't proper in my understanding of how to build a wiki article. See the changes I made by this comparison of diffs, where I order the issues in a common sense flow, and put the introduction the first section at the top (it was hidden at the bottom for some reason - and is again). Now after a few edits between User:Arzel, User:Tryptofish and User:Thargor Orlando, it looks like this. The information about MAM founder is missing mention (again) that she is a first time activist, as if to make her less sympathetic, the GMO controversy supersedes all else, and the non-MAM-related, pro-GMO science was added back, among other unexplained changes. Another recurring OR has been, from the early days of the article, a focus on attacking the well-sourced claim that the march had 2 million attendees. Yesterday the 2 million number was removed for a bogus reason, leaving only "200,000" - based on one single newspaper article which was written while the protest was still taking place. The number matches the estimated turnout in coverage prior to the march. Details here. It seems like vandalism of an article to me. petrarchan47tc 08:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you read Viriditas's comment - especially the opening words? FWIW, I think this is a content dispute that Viriditas is trying to address via behaviour complaints (since that is how he sees it - incorrectly in my view). And this would be the right forum for that. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Semantics. The content and conduct are married in this case. petrarchan47tc 08:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think this raises an interesting question. Is it impossible for this article to be neutral as reliable sources have not discussed it in sufficient detail? Is the very act of making this article neutral only possible through WP:OR by linking standard sourced statements of the scientific mainstream (or "Pro-GMO science" as Petra appears to call it, as though you can choose your "science") to the specific march? If that is the case, it should be deleted as sources have not discussed the topic in sufficient detail for it to be neutrally discussed on wikipedia. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

considering this, I've put the article up for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March Against Monsanto (2nd nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have raised no such question, and if anyone needed a working example of the exact kind of intentional disruption that has been going on here since May, IRWolfie's comment above is the epitome of the kind of disruption I've been describing. The article has never had a neutrality problem, has had numerous reliable sources about the protest indicating the scientific consensus, and yet, IRWolfie has constructed yet another one of his signature straw men to knock down yet again, this time nominating the article for deletion based on a deletion rationale that has no basis in reality. If you are looking for a good example of disruption on Wikipedia, please feel free to use this example, as I can think of no better one to illustrate the problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Not only is this a content dispute which Viriditas is trying to pretend is a behavioral one, but the entire foundation of their complaint / edit warring against everybody including the mediator-types is faulty, and a misreading of policy. In essence they are claiming that inclusion of a source that does not address the topic of the article is "OR" and mis-behavior if used. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Content dispute. GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• While I can't say I am very happy to see this here, it appears to me that Viriditas' diffs make a strong case. Anyone willing to examine them with NPOV may be edified by his points. Jusdafax 14:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• It should be noted that Viriditas has been blocked for three months for his continued conduct at the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am at a conference and don't have the opportunity to respond at length. However, I would point out that WP:FRINGE states "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." The safety of GMOs is a controversial subject. What I added was a single sentence supported with a number of reliable sources on the mainstream view of the safety of GMO foodstuffs. The line I used was a long-standing one at the GMO safety page. There's plenty of reasonable objections that could be raised about this change, but broadly accusing myself and other editors of paid editing, POV pushing, meatpuppetry, etc, is not a reasonable objection.

I reiterate my statement in the previous ANI thread: I do not have a conflict of interest in this matter; I have not communicated with any other editor on this subject off-wiki; I will gladly prove my identity to any admin whom I trust not dox me. a13ean (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:BOOMERANG. As Thargor noted just above, Viriditas has been blocked for three months. I urge uninvolved users to look at my talk page, and at the blocking administrator's excellent rationale on Viriditas' talk, for the reasons. (I was the editor who asked the administrator to examine the situation.) This ANI thread is a bogus attempt to use ANI to gain the upper hand in a content dispute, and the allegations of WP:IDHT actually apply to Viriditas and some of the few editors who are defending him. The claims of tag-teaming are without substance. Rather, the fact that multiple editors agree about reverting those edits merely demonstrates that there is some consensus against those edits, and the repeated reversions would not occur if Viriditas and Petrachan were not repeatedly adding them back.
• Let's get specific about this claim of WP:OR. The sentence in question is at March Against Monsanto#GMO controversy, and it reads: "There is a broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater health risk than conventional food.", followed by a long series of inline citations. The sentence comes from Genetically modified food controversies, where a content RfC now in progress is trending strongly in the direction that the sentence is reliably sourced and correctly written. The argument that Viriditas has made at the MAM talk page comes down to the observation that the sources do not mention the March Against Monsanto by name. However, look at the sentence that we are talking about here. It's one specific sentence. I offered my interpretation of the applicability of the sourcing on the article talk page way back on July 20: [18]. I said: "If the argument is that they are about GMOs but not about the March, then I think that's a false argument. The sentence that they support is about the safety or non-safety of GMOs, and they are directed at that. It's appropriate for this page to devote a few sentences to that, because the claims against GMOs are central to the reasons for the March. We should present what Canal et al. believe, but we must keep our presentation of their views in compliance with WP:FRINGE with respect to the science, as mainstream as they may be in politics and culture." I think that's reasonable. Agree with me or disagree with me, but don't deny that I said it. But Viriditas claimed that I never explained myself, so I repeated the explanation: [19]. And again: [20]. And again: [21]! In the real world, this isn't about editors repeatedly reinstating original research. It's about a few other editors doing WP:IDHT when they WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and coming here to ANI to make false accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: The named editors in the opening statement have legitimate concerns with stopping this article developing into a WP:FORK. The original stub definitely was, and this dispute should be seen in that light. From my perspective, both "sides" have been adding OR to this article - and as petrachan has noted somewhere above, this article should be about just the march, and just verifiable positions which can be directly linked to the march. Many of the diffs cited above are introducing OR to combat OR (e.g., statement of no harm from GM needed to balance claim that "advocates" want GMO labelling. This should be about the marchers, not what these advocates want.) From my perspective, the article as it is is pretty well balanced, and slowly improving. There are a number of conduct issues here, but that doesn't seem to be the point of complaint - and even if it was, IMO the blame falls more on Veriditas and some of the other more characteristic "anti GM" voices than (most of) the named group above. As a content dispute, I don't see what action could helpfully be taken by admin. This is just yet another forum for this ongoing bad faith argument to spill into. DanHobley (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Dan, you've been a very level-headed help at the page since you started helping there, and I realize that I shouldn't go too deep into content discussions here, but since your indent indicates in part a reply to me, I feel that I need to point something out. The protesters who are the subject of the page say that GMO foods are unsafe. The fact that they say it isn't OR; it's verifiably what they say, as shown in reliable sources. We certainly should report that. But (even setting aside the much-flogged references to WP:FRINGE) we need to apply WP:BALANCE to that. Thus this one sentence. A single sentence! It would be WP:OR if, hypothetically, the page said that the protesters are wrong because of those science sources. But there is ZERO OR in the sentence that I have quoted; that is the scientific consensus per numerous sources; the sources support the sentence that they cite, and the sentence belongs there per BALANCE. This really isn't adding OR to combat other OR. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's a little misphrased. I guess I mean more "These additions are no more OR than the text which surrounds them." DanHobley (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It would seem at first glance that WP:BALANCE wouldn't apply here because the article is about the march, not GMO per se. In this context, it doesn't seem that the policy is aimed at facilitating the introduction of commentary related to the truth content of the motivations of the protesters. The protesters are not being used as a reliable source making a statement on GMO, so where is the context for introducing the scientific consensus?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The page is also about the positions expressed by the marchers. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

From the AfD I see that Viriditas has shown sources that clearly state about the scientific consensus: "Genetically modified crops are the most tested and regulated crops, and the scientific consensus about their safety is overwhelming". Thus it is not original research to include citations about the scientific consensus as secondary sources make the connection, and NPOV can be satisfied. Thus I see that my AfD was correctly closed on the basis of these sources I did not have access to. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tryptofish's role in this article has been of an experienced respected Wikipedian who has no known POV here, who was asked to help here. And their work on the article has all been cautious middle-of-the-road moderator type work. The fact that Viriditas was even beating Tryptofish up speaks volumes. North8000 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but a minor correction: nobody asked me to go there. I was looking at my watchlist, and I watch several of the RfC pages, when I saw that the bot had removed an expired RfC at the MAM page that I hadn't noticed while the RfC was going on, because my attention had been elsewhere. I thought that the page looked interesting, so I added MAM to my watchlist, and from that I became involved in the discussions there. It stood out to me from the start that some of the allegedly pro-Monsanto editors were sometimes kind of clueless and stubborn, but they always seemed polite, whereas some of the allegedly anti-Monsanto editors seemed to be incredibly uncivil and given to WP:RGW. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(added later) Yes, my mistake. I meant / should have said asked/encouraged (after you were there already) to take a more active role as a "middle of the road" person. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, I can point out that a disinterested examination of the article talk page will find numerous instances where, talking about content issues, I explicitly said that I agreed with Viriditas, not that it was ever acknowledged by him. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Trypto old buddy, as you have observed the record shows I attempted to gently warn Viriditas that he was headed towards a block, and it has happened in spades. Since he is no longer able to defend himself here, if anyone is actually willing to debate his arguments and supplied diffs without further bashing his personality, fine. Otherwise, I suggest we close. The odium of a block will make his actual points moot for many, which I consider a shame. Civility can be a double edged sword, as I see it, and some of the most polite and seemingly friendly editors can be as dark as the deepest cavern, and twist words to mean what they want them to mean in the service of an agenda that is cloudy. I make no accusations and cast no specific aspersions, but based on what I have seen here, there is much to ponder. Jusdafax 00:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to highlight something that Petrarchan47 said earlier as it appears to have been overlooked: "The subject of this ANI seems to be purely content-based. If you would like to discuss whether editors are being nice or not, this wouldn't seem the place. ". ANI does not deal with purely content based problems, ANI is the place to "discuss whether editors are being nice or not". There appears to be agreement that the complaint was about content, Viriditas has been blocked, and so this discussion can be closed now. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem now spreading to another page

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

---

Please see: [22], reverted: [23], where the evidence-free accusations of shill editing are continuing. Further information is at User talk:Canoe1967#COI at GM controversies. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I was pretty seriously concerned about this also. Canoe1967 doesn't appear to have adequate (==any actual...?) evidence for his claim of COI, and more troubling, pretty blunt insinuation of corporate astroturfing against Tryptofish Jytdog (edited for brainfart). I discussed this with Canoe earlier today and expressed my misgivings (along with another editor). I recommended he take it down of his own accord, but nothing happened. Conversation, and Canoe's justification is here - [24].[25]. It is doubly provocative given the previous ANI on this same topic (melodramatic sigh),[26] which resulted in this notice being posted at March against Monsanto: [27]. I would certainly characterise this as a straight up and very disproportionate personal attack, as well as an attempt to gain leverage in content arguments. DanHobley (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Was there such an insinuation about me? I wasn't aware of it, or maybe you meant against Jytdog. (Although I will point out what Petrachan said about me in the last link you provided: [28]). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Same editor is making insinuations about people being socks: [29]: "You seem to be rather defensive of another editor here. I could think sock or meatpuppet but without looking into it further I won't". IRWolfie- (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Both COI tags are removed now. I removed the second one myself. The way I read the policy for applying them doesn't seem to agree with a few other editors. "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other..." The user's page states "I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both.'" (my bold) This added up to me as his POV/COI being reflected to 'the public interest' through Wikipedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't know that there was a second one, so thank you for self-reverting! I take the fact that you self-reverted as indicating that you are aware of the concerns here, and therefore I do not see any reason for administrator action any more. Thanks again. At your talk page, I and other editors have tried to provide you with explanations about why editors with an interest in a subject do not, de facto, have a COI about editing in a subject. I'll add that someone saying that they are interested in biotechnology and interested in the public perception of it could quite readily be interested in making sure that the public perception is accurate, including recognizing any problems with it. There's no reason to assume that the person is pushing any particular POV, and it's best to assume otherwise unless there is actual evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Possible legal threat on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera

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

---

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, Smerus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has accused another editor of libel. Despite a warning of a breach of WP:NLT, the accusation remains over four hours later. As the chilling effect of such accusations on other editors is widely acknowledged, can someone take appropriate action to ensure that Smerus retracts that immediately. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they are using the term colloquially, and its not reasonable to read it as a legal threat. Their response to the warning template also suggests they didn't expect the comment to be interpreted as a legal threat. That said, could be argued to be a WP:NPA issue. Monty₈₄₅ 15:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. People need to finally get off this idiotic meme that each and every mention of a word that could theoretically have some legal import ipso facto constitutes a legal threat. Saying "you did something bad to me" is not the same thing as "I'm going to sue you for doing this to me". Saying "you violated my copyright by uploading this image" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you for damages". Saying "you damaged my article" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you". Saying "you made personal attacks and insulted me" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you". Saying "you libelled me" doesn't mean "I'm going to sue you" either. RexxS, you ought to know better than to try and use this silly non-incident for sanction-shopping against your opponent in those miserable old infobox wars. For shame. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I note that Smerus has not actually even identifed who may have, theoretically, been "libelled". He just said "other editors". Can cases of libel be brought by third parties? Even if they could, I don't think Smerus is actually suggesting that this is what he would wish to happen. His question, even if a little pointed, seems to be largely rhetorical. This seems to be wholly unnecessary escalation. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

This is indeed nonsense. The editor Smerus was reacting to had called him "a nasty S.O.B." a month ago [30] and has since had the nerve to go around accusing him of "bullying and intimidation" on the basis of very little evidence at all. I think Smerus was getting a little sick of this, hence his comment "your pestering of me across different pages is getting ever so slightly wearisome". --Folantin (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Characterising Montanabw as "going around libelling other editors" is so far beyond the usual rough-and-tumble of discourse that I find it unacceptable on Wikipedia and I'm surprised that you feel it is. Please remember that the thrust of WP:NLT is to consider the effect on the recipient, not to play at lawyer by second-guessing what the originator may or may not have meant. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And I still don't think a reasonable editor could interpret that comment to be a threat of legal action, and it certainly does not appear Smerus intended to create such a perception. There may be more meat on the civility question, but I don't think your gonna get a block on NLT. Monty₈₄₅ 18:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not unless every editor who leaves Template:Uw-defamatory1 on another editor's page is up for a block as well. This is absurd. Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I want to believe Smerus' remarks were just hyperbole and heated rhetoric and I'm willing to let the matter drop if he's not pushing it any further, either. But if not, truth is always a defense to any such charges, but further, expression of a sincere belief or opinion is still protected free speech in America, last I checked. My concern is that yes, Smerus is bullying User:Gerda Arendt and also some of the other editors like Andy who are designing and promoting infoboxes. I responded directly to his remarks at WP:Opera and Rigoletto talk. Folks can evaluate our dialogue there for themselves. My concern is that he can dish it out but can't take it. He and his allies have been extremely unkind to Gerda in particular across multiple talk pages related to the ongoing infobox drama at WikiProject Opera. I've been appalled at their bullying and what sounds to me like intimidation of Gerda, who is the creator of the "Precious" award that she gives out on almost a daily basis and one of the nicest and most good faith editors I know on wikipedia. I hold a view, backed by evidence that I find convincing, that Smerus responds to anyone who disagrees with his views on infoboxes in this manner (and his friend Folantin above is clearly a part of the same Greek chorus with tone and content). Now, should he be less rabidly anti-infobox than I think, I'd be glad to alter my own views on the matter. And if he apologizes for being so mean to Gerda, I will also accept that as a good faith attempt to mend fences. If Gerda feels he is now working with her in good faith, I too would be willing to back down. But this was not a fight I started. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Preempting discussion of Jesus

Futuretrillionaire keeps trying to archive an ongoing discussion on the Talk page of Jesus that has barely even begun. He's doing this without any communication, so I'm not sure what to say to him or how to respond. It seems extremely antagonistic. Strangesad (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

He's now done this three times, which seems like edit-warring. Strangesad (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Archiving the thread and referring you to the FAQ was an appropriate response to the revival of a dead-horse discussion. Perhaps you should try taking this up at Futuretrillionaire's talk page before asking for admin intervention? - Cal Engime (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I left a message at his Talk page. Interesting you don't think he should be leaving messages at my Talk page. He is the one undoing other editors' efforts. I was not the only one commenting in the thread before the conversation was stomped. Regardless of all that, even if the content of the article is a matter of consensus, no rule justifies blocking discussion of the consensus. Strangesad (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. Also, removing a large slice of cited content (at 16:57) before starting the discussion (at 17:00) was somewhat provocative. Let's keep calm and discuss the issue on the talk page. --Stfg (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussing the issue on the Talk page is what I was trying to do. Strangesad (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

And then there was this. --Stfg (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg: What did it say? I'm just curious. That edit has now been deleted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to see there. Strangesad was making the "Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed..." edit that's now at the end of the collapsed section, but while making that edit, he inadvertently reinserted some disruptive text that had previously been posted by an unrelated vandal (the IPs in the edit history), so his edit had to be technically hidden together with those of the vandal. The legitimate part of his edit was later restored. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire: Like Fut.Perf. said. I'll just add that it wasn't directed at you (or any editor) personally. --Stfg (talk) 22:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

So, is there any guidance from admins on hiding discussions on Talk? The only presented argument is that the version being questioned is the consensus version. You are not entitled to stifle questioning of the consensus version of the article. By implication, these editors are proclaiming a right to invalidate any future discussion of these issues on the grounds that it is "in the FAQ" and WP:STICK. The civilized approach to such a thing is to ignore the discussion if you don't like it, not try to shut it down for everyone else wanting to pursue it. Strangesad (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing that was a kind gesture considering your argument about Michael Grant (author) was beginning to get into BLP policy for recently dead. Please be more careful espousing your opinion of real people as that could be seen as disruptive in itself.--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 04:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I said Grant was an expert on Roman coins. Strangesad (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

There is something very odd about the comments being made here. Here is the BLP policy on the recently dead that Mark cites above: "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died 9 years ago, and the policy says "two years at the outside." The policy refers to "suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." Grant died at the age of 90, although I don't know how. The policy talks about "particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead, and I said his expertise was as a numismatist and not in the general history of the period. That is exactly what the Wikipedia article about him says: "some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit".

So, what we have are utterly contrived suggestions of BLP-violations, and a lot of insistence that a certain discussion--in which several editors participated--should not be allowed to be seen on a Talk page. I am restoring the discussion, so that those who want to participate can, while those who don't still don't have to. That is how academic freedom works. Strangesad (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Academic freedom" is not how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That page is about legal rights, which isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about what it takes to build a healthy intellectual community. Is that how Wikipedia works? Strangesad (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that it seems this editor is bent of bashing legitimate historians because they are dead. Fine, then we can now begin bashing all those dead religious figures used as references here as well. Light your torches and pick up your pitch forks folks, there are reputations to destroy! --Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 08:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The entirety of what I said is: "The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins". Exactly how is that bashing?

Can I restore the discussion? The objections here are contrived. I'm puzzled by the lack of guidance. It appears I'm not going to "win" an edit war, but the implication is that only consensus views are allowed to be discussed in Talk, and that's not the intent of the consensus process. Strangesad (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The present wording of the article is firmly supporting by WP:RELIABLE sources from a variety of points of view. Do you know of better sources that say this is not the consensus of scholars? If not, then sorry, a vital article is not going to be edited to appease a WP:FRINGE view. - Cal Engime (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This thread is not about what the article should say. It is about whether a discussion of what the article should say is allowed on its Talk page. (It is also ridiculous to refer to views held by Harvard professors and Nobel prizewinners as "fringe.") Strangesad (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you'll have to explain what discussion there is to be had. You deleted important, well-sourced information based on your own interpretation of the words "virtually all" and "scholars of antiquity" (that phrase doesn't include Michael Martin). In your own words, "This has been discussed at great length", and "It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off". Explain why another discussion will not just take up space. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The way to do that is start a discussion on the Talk page, which is what I did. Nobody has to start a discussion about whether it is permissible to start a discussion, and the idea that ANI would be the place for such discussions of discussions is absurd. Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Strangesad (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

possible malfunction of MadmanBot

I newly created Cyclopygidae just now. User:MadmanBot now placed a tag on this page that its content is very much like cyclopygidae, a page that does not seem to exist. Someone please help! Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed that tag from the page. I hope Madman can shed some light on this, but it seems that it was a unique event. All other recent edits by MadmanBot seem to be correct so there's no need to push the shutoff button. De728631 (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict):That was really wierd... when I clicked the first link, I got the article without the image, then when I clicked the second link, (literally a second later) I Got it with pictures... different versions of the lead too. I then purged the cache, and they became identical... very odd... Maybe some bizarre caching problem that cause the bot to misbehave? Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a note at the Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate page moves by User:Captain Assassin!

Captain Assassin! (talk · contribs · logs) has been performing a number of page moved that I consider to be inappropriate. The latest is described here. On July 20, 2013, Tneedham1 (talk · contribs) created the article Outlander (TV series). On August 4, Captain Assassin! moved this page to Outlander (2014 TV series), then created a redirect out of it, which he pointed toward his own newly created article at the former location Outlander (TV series). The funniest part is that comparing the diffs of the 2 articles, [31] and [32], you will see that the articles are exactly the same. Captain Assassin! has just copied the work of Tneedham1 onto his newly created page. IMO, this is completely inappropriate and unfair to the other editor.

This is not the first time Captain Assassin! has moved articles so that he can create his own and get "credit" for it (and he does use the word "credit" often). Just over a week ago, he moved Hercules 3D, created by User:Mythoingramus, to Hercules 3D (film) and created a redirect so that it would point to his newly created version of Hercules 3D. There is no reason why Captain Assassin! could not add to/improve the original page.

Other recent examples:

• The Normal Heart (film) was moved to The Normal Heart (play) (then redirected to The Normal Heart} so he could recreate The Normal Heart (film)
• The Flash (film) was moved to The Flash (disambiguation) (then redirected to Flash) so he could recreate The Flash (film)
• Dead Island (film) was moved to Dead Island (video game) (then redirected to Dead Island) so he could recreate Dead Island (film)
• I could go on and on…

Looking at his talk page, there have been discussions regarding page moves like this with other editors, including a "feud" with Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs), which includes earlier discussions here and here. See also the history of deletions (8 within 2.5 months!) on this page: Into the Woods (film)

(On a separate but related note, Captain Assassin! has been under considerable scrutiny for creating inappropriate redirects. That discussion is for another day because I don't have the time to document that here right now. I will mention that at least 7 editors have pointed out problems with this behavior to him in the last 3 months: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40].)

Is it possible to block an editor from being able to move pages? I feel Captain Assassin!'s page moves are inappropriate and unfair to other editors. It definitely undermines the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I do not think that he deserves this privilege. Thanks. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: I am currently fixing the editor's copy-paste creations, so some of the links above may appear red. I will look at warning/sanctioning after that. Black Kite (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have fixed the Outlander issue by deleting the copy-paste and moving the original version back. I have history-merged the two versions of Hercules 3D together so that the original creating editor's edits are in the history. The others are not so straightforward, as the articles are either about different things or actually contain the user's own content. I'll continue to look at it. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

My analysis, seeing as I've been viewing his conduct since May when he swiped A Million Ways to Die in the West because he had the content, is that he wants the credit. He seemingly has no other motivation, everything is a personal attack to him. [[Into the Woods was deleted before. I recreated it, but he immediately swiped it again. Rusted AutoParts 22:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no way to prevent an editor from moving pages without blocking the editor entirely; all registered users are able to move pages once they hit the autoconfirmed threshhold. However, we could implement a pagemove ban on him; this would be something saying "You're not allowed to move pages anymore, and you'll be blocked if you do it". Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that probably needs to extend to creating redirects as well. Simply a glance at the user's talkpage strongly indicates someone who doesn't actually seem to grasp simple concepts, and then proceeds to completely ignore them once they've been explained to them. Black Kite (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would support a page move ban, as well as the redirect creation ban mentioned by Black Tie. Captain Assassin!'s edits are extremely disruptive, and he doesn't see any problems with his actions. Occasionally he does apologize for a "mistake", then continues to make it again and again. I do not feel this issue will go away without administrative action of some kind.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You see now, I'm not the only here. And we already discussed it, it was resolved and now he again moved it into some film project page. What now? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 23:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's only a minor issue. What about your redirecting of the Outlander article and then recreating it yourself with the same content? That's simply disruptive. What was the thinking behind that? Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not only disruptive, although that may also be block worthy, it is apparent copyright violation (and plain old deceitful), because there is not attribution to the original author under the license. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, won't happen again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 00:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't an explanation of why you did it in the first place. Why did you do it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, I created the redirect of Outlander, a user CSD it and got it removed on July 19. So on the next day some user created it, I was just in bad mood already so it happened that way. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 00:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In an apparent effort to collect "credit" for creating articles, Captain Assassin rushes to create redirects and articles, apparently merely copying info from IMDb. Palo Alto (2013 film) was created with one (and only one) source which directly and specifically stated that the collection of stories ("Palo Alto") was expected to be made into three films, none of which are named "Palo Alto" and none of which are likely to be released in 2013. The Winter Queen (2014 film) was created as a redirect with the target only stating that filming was expected to begin in 2011 (with 2010 sources); the IMDb page likely used has now been deleted. Just Before I Go was created as a nonsensical redirect to the director. Faced with the possible deletion of the redirect, Captain created an article based on one (and only one) source that only knows of the project as "Hello I Must Be Going". In general (supporting my IMDb as the only source theory) his film articles include substantial lists of names not found in any other source (seriously: where else do you find the editor's name when the film has just started filming?). In addressing this issue, Captain says, essentially, that he plans to find sources for the information he adds after adding it. In short, it seems Captain is frequently here to collect "credit", not to build an encyclopedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've just read the editor's talk page, and I think the problem goes well beyond creating bizarre redirects and unsourced articles about possible future films. I don't think a topic ban is going to cut it here, the real problem is a total lack of competency. I would support a topic ban if that's as far as folks are willing to go, but I'm afraid the real solution is an indef block until this editor shows some sign of understanding how things work, and how he can edit productively. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a good idea of indefinite block, am I doing wrong now? Redirects and unsourced problems are solved already, I'm not doing that again. Now the problem is moving articles or redirects, well you can have my word and see for the next time. There will be nothing gone of you if you'll just give me some time and see if I do it again. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 05:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be very pleased if you show me to be wrong. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 09:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

He could probably do with tidying up his signature a bit too. 529 characters to sign and date a post (especially when the I'll show you to be wrong, just give me time to show my improvements. comment is just 69 characters long). Nick (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm certainly going to support an indef, having looked at this. Captain Assassin's behaviour is flat-out wrong, and needs to stop, permanently. Moving around articles on your whim, and copy-paste moves to try and gain credit is bang out of order, and this is not what Wikipedia is for. Add in the inappropriate new articles you've created, and we're left with an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but is here to attention seek, by any means possible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How is my behavior flat-out wrong now? What am I doing now, I'm just saying that I'll show myself improved if you just give me some time and see. Is there anything wrong in saying that? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Capt. Assassin - recommend you post on the Film Project talk page to get other users opinions on page moves. For example, you recently moved Belle (2013 film) to Belle (2014 film), which I believe you did in good faith. I've moved it back, per WP:FILMRELEASE (the Toronto premiere makes it a 2013 film). Please read the FILMRELEASE guide I've linked to, and if in doubt, please head to the Film Project for futher clarity. The same with the redirects too. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Lugnuts, I'll discuss the films related topics there next time. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 22:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• • No probs. Rather than all this topic ban nonsense, I purpose a simple "do not move/do not create redirects" until futher notice. Captain Assassin has done some great work expanding articles and I think this is a bit heavy-handed (I can't see a previous ANI about the same issue). For page moves, if in doubt either go to the film project or log a request at requested moves. For redirects, there's no need to create them as they would fail WP:NFF and will be speedily deleted in any case. Of course, if you are actually starting a new notable article, that is fine. Any of the people who brought this to ANI disagree? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagfest

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

---

The Rambling Man has been engaging in a tagfest on small municipality articles: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86],

Many of The Rambling Man's tags make little sense. He has tagged articles on smaller municipalities for having an insufficient lead. In fact, many of these articles have little, if any, content other than Geography and Demographics, and it would be a stretch to add anything to their lead. (Examples: 1, 2, 3)

He also argues that maintaining "Notable people" sections of articles is duplicative of categories, and that the NP sections have no well-defined criteria. The Rambling Man admits that he himself has no criteria for where he places tags and has stated that he intends to continue his tagfest for as long as his time permits.

This mass, random tagging is neither productive nor useful. It is highly unlikely to lead to any improvement in the articles. Moreover, if there is a problem with the criteria used in the "Notable people" sections of geographic articles, then it would be much better to address that on a policy basis, rather than through a mass drive-by tagging campaign.

Please intervene to stop this disruptive editing. 71.139.148.165 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? An experienced editor adding valid maintenance tags to articles in dire need of a clean up? Call the police! GiantSnowman 10:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A tag like [87] is meaningless without further explanation; the article is seemingly well referenced, both in quantity and quality of refs and throughout the article. If there are many of such misplaced or hard to explain tags, then it indeed becomes disruptive. Fram (talk) 10:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fram, regarding the diff you have provided - again, nothing wrong. There is lots of information in the article which is unreferenced, and it is a more efficient way than individually tagging each and every bit with {{cn}}. GiantSnowman 10:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Fram, if you can see the sections of the article which are entirely unreferenced, then I can't help you really. As noted above, I could tag every sentence which needs referencing, or even every section, but I'm sure that'd be considered overkill. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's see: "Geography" is referenced to the Census bureau and the US Geological Survey; History has two refs; Climate has three refs; Demography has 2 refs; Government and infrastructure has 6 refs (but none in transportation); In popular culture has no refs; Notable people has one ref (for this section, often it is accepted that it is enough that the linked article has the fact included). So that makes one unsourced subsection. Hardly "overkill" to tag that specific one if you think it needs a source. Fram (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Whole paragraphs are missing references:

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 8.0 square miles (20.8 km²), of which 7.9 square miles (20.5 km²) is land and 1.07% is water. Eagle Lake is located 15 miles (24 km) north of the town.

The Census reported that 9,439 people (52.6% of the population) lived in households, 108 (0.6%) lived in non-institutionalized group quarters, and 8,400 (46.8%) were institutionalized. There were 3,833 households, out of which 1,357 (35.4%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 1,645 (42.9%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 499 (13.0%) had a female householder with no husband present, 233 (6.1%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 327 (8.5%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 16 (0.4%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 1,161 households (30.3%) were made up of individuals and 405 (10.6%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.46. There were 2,377 families (62.0% of all households); the average family size was 3.05. The population was spread out with 2,559 people (14.3%) under the age of 18, 2,547 people (14.2%) aged 18 to 24, 7,633 people (42.5%) aged 25 to 44, 4,024 people (22.4%) aged 45 to 64, and 1,184 people (6.6%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 33.6 years. For every 100 females there were 273.7 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 327.3 males. There were 4,256 housing units at an average density of 530.9 per square mile (205.0/km²), of which 1,974 (51.5%) were owner-occupied, and 1,859 (48.5%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 3.4%; the rental vacancy rate was 7.7%. 5,039 people (28.1% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 4,400 people (24.5%) lived in rental housing units

There were 3,516 households out of which 37.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 46.4% were married couples living together, 13.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 36.0% were non-families. 29.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.7% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.49 and the average family size was 3.10. In the city the population was spread out with 20.0% under the age of 18, 13.6% from 18 to 24, 41.5% from 25 to 44, 17.1% from 45 to 64, and 7.7% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 32 years. For every 100 females there were 198.3 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 231.6 males. The median income for a household in the city was $35,675, and the median income for a family was $45,216. Males had a median income of $29,973 versus $27,044 for females. The per capita income for the city was $13,238. About 11.0% of families and 14.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 14.5% of those under age 18 and 9.1% of those age 65 or over.

Susanville lies at the junction of California State Routes 36 and 139. Highway 139 heads north to the Oregon border as a direct route to Klamath Falls. Highway 36 runs west to Red Bluff, then east to where it terminates with U.S. Route 395 just outside Susanville's city limits. U.S. 395 connects Alturas to the north and Reno to the south. Susanville Municipal Airport, 5 miles (8 km) southeast of Susanville, serves as a public, general aviation airport. Lassen Rural Bus provided bus service within the city. The Quincy Railroad no longer serves Susanville on the former Southern Pacific Railroad line since 2004. A Union Pacific Railroad caboose has been placed on an intact section of track next to the rail depot.

Susanville is mentioned in the Quentin Tarantino films, Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown. In Reservoir Dogs, Joe states that Marcellus Spivey is doing 20 years in Susanville for "bad luck" and in Jackie Brown, the character of Louis says he served four years in Susanville, presumably at California Correctional Center. Actor Danny Trejo served some time in the California Correctional Center in Susanville. In the film Pink Cadillac, Susanville is said to be only 25 miles (40 km) from Reno, NV., not the true distance of 86 miles (138 km). On the Vandals album Slippery When Ill is a song called Susanville, about a trucker who has been driving for so long he can't remember what his cargo is or where he is heading. He recalls a girl called named Mary in Susanville, but following the lyrics of the song this could just as well be a girl named Susan in Marysville. Rapper Spice 1 mentions his friend serving time in prison in Susanville in one of his songs. Susanville is mentioned repeatedly in Slither (1973 film) starring James Caan, Peter Boyle and Sally Kellerman.

Hardin Barry, baseball player. Frank Cady, Played Sam Drucker, on Petticoat Junction, Green Acres, and Beverly Hillbillies, CBS Shows, 1960s Aaron Duran, Writer, Media ProducerJack Ellena, former Los Angeles Rams player, was born and raised in SusanvilleMike Leach, Washington State's head football coach was born in Susanville Kevin Mangold, Professional jockey, stunt double, actor, author Ryan O'Callaghan, NFL player for the Kansas City Chiefs and former New England Patriots Frank Shamrock, Mixed Martial Artist Ken Shamrock, UFC Hall of Fame, Former WWF (WWE) Superstar Mike Skinner, NASCAR driver.

See? That's a helluva lot of unreferenced material! GiantSnowman 11:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your first example starts with "According to the United States Census Bureau". This may not be a correctly formatted reference, but it is not unreferenced... Many of the other examples given also are clearly referenced if you are willing to look at the article in toto, and not read it sentence by sentence as if they are unrelated. The section that starts with "As of the census[11] of 2000" doesn't need a reference after every paragraph or sentence, that one reference is sufficient. Fram (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay so you'd prefer me to tag the transportation section and the popular culture section? And tag the unreferenced claims individually? I can do that instead. (Incidentally, did you check those references? The one used, for instance, for the 2000 census doesn't appear to back any of the claims up...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tag the sections if you feel it is necessary, it at least indicates where you see further problems. Tag unreferenced claims if they are dubious or controversial. There is no need to tag all unreferenced sentences in all articles... And the reference for the 2000 census are from 2008, but that website now shows the 2010 figures instead. That doesn't mean that the 2000 claims are wrong. Fram (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say the claims are wrong, I said unreferenced, which you now agree with. Okay, I'll add three or four tags then, rather than just the one at the top. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• A lot of fuss over nothing. If any statement in an article is unreferenced, then the tag at the top of the page is valid. Obviously, if there's only one or two statements that need refs, then tag those individually. If whole sections lack references, as is the case here, then there's nothing wrong with the tags. The IP would do much better to actually resolve the problems, rather than to raise a frivolous allegation of disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Nothing? Articles which are mostly referenced but have some sections still unreferenced are among the better ones on Wikipedia. Focusing the tagging (and filling of backlogs) on the larger problems may be more useful. And the IP also (probably correctly) complained that tagging individual articles with a "notable people" section is rather useless, having a general discussion to decide on inclusion criteria would be much more efficient than having the same discussion on thousands of articles,n with wildly varying results. Fram (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The {{famous}} template says what is required. How is that so hard resolve? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • It doesn't say what is required, it suggests that the WP:V is somehow related to inclusion or exclusion criteria. Of course there should be a verifiable link between the persons given and the placename, but that's hardly what is being disputed. Does everyone who spent two months in the place get a spot on the list? Only people born there? People who studied there? And probably more importantly, do we decide these criteria 50,000 times, or once centrally? If there are no criteria as of now, it is useless to ask the few editors of such articles to come up with them. That template should probably simply not be used, cretainly not in its current form, since the text of the template and the category it places articles in (Category:Unverifiable lists of persons) are not directly related. Fram (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Well it seems pretty clear that depending on the context, the inclusion criteria will be different, so there's no one size fits all answer. As for problems with the template, you'd need to take that up at the template talk page I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I have nominated it for deletion instead, as I believe the problems to be insurmountable. Fram (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
            • I saw that! Quick work. I still think a "general" rule cannot be determined, it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. After all, those lists are usually copied straight from the associated category of "People from X". Imagine the size of a list of "notable Manchester United F.C. players"? or "Notable members of the British Parliament". Still, we've got some fun to watch now, thanks for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
              • If a list of notable members is too large, you can just spin it off to its own article or articles, this is being done all the time where needed (and sometimes where not needed or wanted as well). As for the fun: don't forget the popcorn! Fram (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I'm there already! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Mo ainm

This user is reverting me on Ulster Special Constabulary. His aim seems to be to prevent me making changes to the article in compliance with the manual of style. His first revert was here [88] but I felt that as there were no refs to support what I had done I should put them in, so I did. Then I ran reflinks to ensure the article had no bare references. Reflinks found a number. He came along again here [89] and did a complete revert, wiping out the new references and the work done by the bot. He has then placed this message on my talk page accusing me of breaching WP:1RR. All my edits on the article page have been in keeping with the manual of style. Softening the language, correcting POV, reffing out links and running the reflinks bot. Just what I hope is expected from a hard working Wikipedian. This attempt at starting an edit-war is something I have become used to on articles relating to The Troubles but knowing it exists doesn't make it any easier to deal with when it happens - hence this report. I do not want to be dragged into a stupid and unproductive edit war. As my contribs will show I have been very active for some weeks without any difficulty, apart from misunderstanding some copyright issues which have now been largely addressed. I should add that his reverts have not been done as a result of any discussion on the article talk page. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This editor also know as User:The Thunderer and User:GDD1000 removed sourced content, this editor is well known for edit warring, look at their block log for their 3 accounts, and as can be seen by the history of the article reverted twice in 25 hours on an article that is under 1RR, WP:BOOMERANG anyone? Mo ainm~Talk 11:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Clean start and User:BigDunc. SonofSetanta (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Both of you added and removed sourced content, some of which contradicted each other. 1RR is within 24 hours, I believe. I'm not convinced either edit was more neutral than the other, either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. I removed content which alleged that the USC was hostile toward recruiting Catholics. I have the History of the RUC by Richard Doherty here, an official history. It quite clearly states on a number of pages the efforts made by the police and government to recruit Catholics into the USC and that a number of Catholics joined as a result, some of whom were later killed by the IRA for doing so. This can also be found on the web. My intention on the USC article is to more correctly reflect the truth. It is possible to find references in other books and on the web which suggest that USC was hostile to Catholics and it is a common trait amongst Irish republicans to do so. For some reason "My name" (his moniker in English) doesn't want the USC referred to as a "quasi-military" force either but the official history and other sources clearly show it to be such. Organised into brigades, battalions, companies and platoons, with military weaponry and tactics. I am somewhat baffled by My Name's opposition to this as these are well known facts and are included in the article. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I should also respectfully point out that the manual of style suggests we soften the type of language used in all articles to show neutrality. This is what I have attempted to do. I've done it elsewhere and currently have one similar article (very contentious) up for Wikipedia:Good articles review. It has been reviewed here and as you will see from the comments by the reviewer, it has no POV issues. That is my style of editing. It's not welcomed by editors who try to impose an Irish republican or Ulster loyalist POV on articles which is very common on the wiki, unfortunately. SonofSetanta (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• SoS drop it. Moanim reverted once on August 5th and then again on the 7th with a 34 hour gap between edits - that is not a violation of 1RR. You on the other hand waited exactly 1 hour beyond the 24 hour limit to revert him. You came to my page saying "Unfortunately I know from the many incidents of the past that talking to this individual makes no difference. Rather than having my extremely enjoyable time on here marred by getting involved in a WP:BATTLE I've decided to nip it in the bud."[90]. You both need to discuss this. You both are reverting without discussion. You are both walking the line. But I'll remind you SoS that trying to use process to win a content dispute WILL backfire.
  And as a point of order Moanim stop bringing up SoS's past accounts where it isn't relevant to discussion. SoS: clean start does not in fact apply to you. You are editing in the same area as those old accounts and have had run ins with policies and probation in exactly the same way as you did with those accounts. In fact you should link to them clearly as past and retired accounts of yours as per WP:SOCK#LEGIT. As should the former BigDunc - that account should be linked by its owner to their current account IF they are editing in the same topic area. Otherwise issues with evading scrutiny will arise--Cailil ^talk 12:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Cailil I'm not accusing the guy of 1RR. What I am accusing him of is adopting an editing pattern which is designed to try and trap ME into edit warring. There is nothing wrong with my edits on the USC page and they are reffed. It's not a content war in my opinion, it's just his way of dipping his toe in the water to see how I'll react, if I'm still dumb enough to fall for old tactics. If Moaimn wants to discuss why he's making the changes then I am very willing to listen as I enjoy collegiate discussion and might actually learn something as a result. I am happily engaged in this with many other editors on a number of subject, including the USC. However, if you look here you'll see that I did try to engage Moaimn in discussion recently and was ignored. Leading me to believe that his post on the UDR talk page was just mischief making - in other words he posted the request not knowing I had already dealt with it and without reading the note I had left on the "reader comment". When I went for clean start I read the guidelines and it clearly said, as it still does, that: It is intended for users who wish to move on to new areas having learned from the past, or who wish to set aside old disputes and poor conduct. It was to prevent the familiar combative editors from using my block record against me and with the intention that I would keep my block record clean as a way of showing I had learned from my mistakes. That's easier said than done when editing in such contentious areas but; I am more aux fait with the tricks that get used against me now and largely keep myself out of trouble - as you know, barring recent copyright issues. Me raising the complaint here is my way of telling Mo-aimn that I will not fall for any tricks to get me into an edit war. The Troubles sanctions allow sysops to take action even when there is no editwarring and by drawing attention to the situation I, in effect, protect myself. The fact is: Mo was not editing the article until 5th August whereas I had been in and out since 22nd of June. So why does he appear now? What's wrong with my edits that wasn't wrong with them on 22nd June - they're along the same lines? Why undo properly reffed NPOV material? Something stinks. I'm not, in effect, seeking sanctions against Mo-aimn, but I am sending a clear message that I won't allow anything to affect my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia and giving something back to society. What methodology would you suggest to prevent editors who have previously engaged in WP:BATTLE on these pages from turning them into a battleground again? Also: how can I link from my old accounts when logging into them could lead to an accusation of sockpuppetry, something which was tried anyway when I changed identities? SonofSetanta (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So now you are admitting that you set up new accounts to hide your block log and then on each of the new accounts you get blocked for edit warring doesn't seem you have learned from your mistakes. Also you are responsible for your own edits no other editor forces you to press the edit button. Mo ainm~Talk 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

It was to prevent the familiar combative editors from using my block record against me and with the intention that I would keep my block record clean as a way of showing I had learned from my mistakes. - This is not what WP:CLEANSTART is for. A clean start requires that you avoid editing in previous topic areas - this is exactly as spelled out in WP:ILLEGIT as a sockpuppet account for evading scrutiny. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)"Me raising the complaint here is my way of telling Mo-aimn that I will not fall for any tricks to get me into an edit war." and "I'm not, in effect, seeking sanctions against Mo-aimn, but I am sending a clear message that I won't allow anything to affect my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia and giving something back to society." These seem like totally inappropriate uses for ANI. A lot of time has been wasted by third parties on SoS's "message" to Mo ainm when SoS could have simply left a note on their talk page to accomplish the same goal. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks - again

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

---

Footwiks (talk · contribs) was very recently discussed at ANI - there looked to be consensus for a topic ban, but it archived without ever being formally closed/implemented. However, the editor is now back at it and I'm at the end of my tether. Basically he doesn't understand, or respect, consensus, and he lacks the competence to edit in any meaningful way to this topic. I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a proper look please, with a view to implementing the topic ban previously discussed. GiantSnowman 14:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What is the problem? I edited under conseus of recent discussion. I reduced number of category like List of Persepolis F.C. players. Is List of Persepolis F.C. players allowed? Is List of FC Seoul players not allowed? Please treat fairlyFootwiks (talk) 14:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you edited contrary to consensus on the article talk page - again. I make that the 8th time now that you have reverted to "your" version. GiantSnowman 14:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you made a mistakes. I reduced categories. Please cheok out original vision and currenct vision.

I have a qeustions. What is the diffrence of List of Persepolis F.C. players and List of FC Seoul players Diffrence is List of FC Seoul players is little bit more detail than List of Persepolis F.C. players.Footwiks (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Please write in clear English so we can understand what you are trying to say. Let me summarise - there is consensus at the recent AFD, at the article talk page, and at the recent ANI dsicussion that the article needs a massive overhaul as its current content (as repetedly introduced by you!) is unencyclopedic and WP:FANCRUFT. The only person who has mentioned using the List of Persepolis F.C. players article as a guide/template is you, so again that is not consensus! GiantSnowman 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I said you before many times. List of Persepolis F.C. players and List of FC Seoul players contents category was community consensus some years ago. For example, Category is consists of Fomer players, Captains, Players who participate in major compettion. Foreign playrs.

List of Chelsea F.C. players and List of Manchester United F.C. players also have captain category and award winners. But they can't have Players who participate in major compettion and Foreign playrs category. Because Theses clubs have long history. So Dates are too many. Editing is impossiblew. That's why Europion famous clubs player articles have small contents categories. Where is the consensus you mentioned. Article of List of Football club players only have former playes category? That is not community consensus. That is just your private opinion.~ Footwiks (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you cannot suddenly claim 'consensus' from two years ago when I have shown much more recent, very different consensus exists! Have a look at List of Birmingham City F.C. players, which is a featured list, for an idea of what we should be aiming for, and see how vastly different it is from the abomination that is your version. GiantSnowman 14:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I suggested a CIR indefinite block at the end of the last thread, and I'm going to suggest it again. This user will simply not listen to anything anyone has to say, but their English is so poor that they're not competent enough to contribute to the English Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't said all player list article must have 4 categories (former players, captains, world cup players. etc)

Consensus that player list article can have detalied categorires (former players, captains, world cup players. etc)Footwiks (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Don't get me wrong.Footwiks (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further to what Lukeno94 said above, I'm gonna suggest an indefinite block at this point, based on CIR - this user simply does not / can not / refuses to understand how we as a community operates here, and he lacks the language skills to ever be a constructive user. GiantSnowman 14:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94//indefinite blocking? Because of detaling editing like another article. Why only me?

I just edited like List of Persepolis F.C. players, List of Chelsea F.C. players and List of Manchester United F.C. players. So What you mean that FC Seoul players articles only have former players category. But List of Persepolis F.C. players, List of Chelsea F.C. players and List of Manchester United F.C. players can have many categories. (For exam former players, captains, world cup players and foreign players.) Pleae explain reason in detail. If you are in my case, Can you accept that? Only [List of FC Seoul players]] have only former category. But other clubs have detaied category. Please treat fairly. If you make all football club player article have only former category. I can accept your opion. Footwiks (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef - Based on CIR, I can't even understand what this user is asking much less trying to accomplish. However, I do understand that... they don't understand, either (if that makes sense). Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 15:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lukeno94// Do you know the rulls of Wikipedia:Five pillars and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers?

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.....

So you mean that poor English speakers may throwed out....

Ok I'm poor English speaker. But check out my contributions about football for 5 years. Only my problem is editing in detail than other articles. In order to share informations, Editing in detail results in indefinite block What a ridiculus. I beleive that there is reasonable controller and user in English Wikipedia.Footwiks (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If you've been here for five years, you know that you're not a "newcomer" and thus WP:BITE doesn't apply. Wikipedia does not discriminate against "poor English speakers", but we do require that they have sufficent competence in the language to be able to communicate with other editors. Your consistent approach in both the previous AN/I thread and this one indicates that either you don't comprehend what is being explained to you - indicating you do not have the competence to edit en.wikipedia - or that you are willingly ignoring what is being explained to you. I'm willing to assume good faith that it's the former, but AGF is not a suicide pact, and the fact you have, repeatedly, espressed the sentiment that the issue is others, not you, and you keep referring to "past consensus" for your preferred version when it has been pointed out to you repeatedly that that consensus has changed, indicates that at this time an indefinite block is in order, until it is demonstrated that you are capable of communicating, both to and from other editors, in a way that both they and you are capable of understanding, and that you are capable of understanding both en.wiki's policies and how your editing up until now has been in variance with community standards, something that, thus far, you have singularly indicated a lack of ability to do. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Any sympathy I have for experienced editors who try and use BITE to worm out of sanctions for their own actions quickly evaporates. As Bushranger states, if you've been here for 5 years, you're not a new user whatsoever - in fact, that means you've had twice the time I have had to learn things, Footwiks! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose blocking or banning based on wp:CIR : user:Footwiks isn't speaking the Queen's English, but most of what he seems to say can be comprehended. There is no need to block him for that. Footwiks would you please look at wp:OSE and wp:CONSENSUS and wp:CCC as "The Bushranger" suggests. If you want a template for football club list articles, Giantsnowman suggests: List of Birmingham City F.C. players which is a wp:FA. I hope you heed to advice here and keep editing. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Footwiks can you not use spell check before saving, that would solve at least some of your problems. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Spelling isn't their issue. What you've clearly missed is that either their English is so poor that they can't understand what we are saying, or that they're using it as an excuse for behaving inappropriately. Either way, it's a textbook CIR case. They've already been here at least once, and they've been told multiple times what they need to do in order to stay out of trouble. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd breezed through the previous discussion. He needs to look at OSE and CCC or IDHT or as suggested above by the OP and The Bushranger. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Fellow has over 12k edits![91] Gosh! Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Fairleigh Dickinson University and PublicMind

This is a continuation of a slow-moving archived discussion at WP:COIN that hasn't seen any comments in a month. In a nutshell, User:Mfuzia was reported as a COI editor for his extensive paid promotion of Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU) and associated pages, especially in connection with a program called PublicMind. (Allegedly there is off-wiki proof of Mfuzia's employment at FDU, though it hasn't been shared due to WP:OUTING concerns.) There was some discussion over the egregiousness of Mfuzia's conduct but there was consensus that he had engaged in ongoing WP:PROMOTION, that he should stop making direct contributions related to FDU, and that the FDU article would require substantial cleanup. Moreover it was determined that Mfuzia had engaged in WP:MEATPUPPETRY with User:Crcorrea. No final disposition was made, though User:DGG wrote, "If there are no continuing problems, there's no need to block." User:EdJohnston wrote, "In my opinion, if Mfuzia will agree to take a complete break from all FDU-related edits he can avoid a block."

As you might expect from my presence here, there are continuing problems. Mfuzia took a month-long break but just yesterday created an all-new, fully-formed article for PublicMind. The new article probably satisfies WP:GNG but that's not the point. The article appears promotional, but more importantly, Mfuzia was told by administrators not to add FDU-related content yet he continues to do so. I believe some sort of sanctions are in order, and speedy deletion of PublicMind might be appropriate as well. In addition I support the original request that Mfuzia be required to prominently and fully disclose his COI. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The center is probably notable enough for an article, but the new article is not appropriate. I've deleted it by G11, but will certainly send the contents to any good faith uninvolved editor who wishes to use them as a start for a proper article. I support blocking the editor indefinitely, and unblocking only if I can be convinced he will stay away from FDU, Public Mind, and all related topics. I essentially extended him a last chance after some really outrageously promotional editing, and he is not able to keep from doing it. I don't think I was wrong to hope for the best, but it did turn out poorly. I do not want to immediately block before the ed. has a chance to respond. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb making disruptive accusations at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded

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

Several hours ago, User:Joefromrandb made this edit to a discussion of the merits of having either George W. Bush or Henry Clay on the list. His edit summary was "I get it- you hate George W. Bush; get in line", and his edit accuses me (and by extension the four other editors who want Clay on the list) Setting aside the NPA nature of his comments, the following things are wrong with his assertion of bias:

1. The primary reason for removing Bush was recentism, not incompetence
2. Henry Clay is a quite significant American political figure
3. We just removed Bill Clinton from the list
4. Clay and Bush are of the same political persuasion; Clay's Whig Party morphed into Bush's GOP

When I explained those points to him, he said that it was "a laugh", taking this as some colossal joke and refusing to walk back his allegations of political bias against five editors. Oh, and as I was preparing this thread, he not only continually refused to walk back his outlandish claims, he called me "assholish" for asking him to do so, referring in his edit summary as my request being "sauce for the goose". Could somebody please explain to him that he can't make blanket accusations like that, because I'm not getting through to him? pbp 18:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would note that this is hardly the first time this user has resorted to ad homonem name-calling of people he disagrees with: a few weeks ago, he called mops who were involved in blocking him for 3RR "children". Last week, he levied this gem at an admin he disagreed with. In addition, he has been chastised for incivility at WP:VA/E within the last 48 hours. This is clearly an ongoing pattern with him. With 2 blocks under his belt, this user probably needs a 2-week forced vacation to remind him that doing this kind of behavior repeatedly is uncalled for. pbp 18:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In all fairness, I've made that observation about quite a few administrators; not just the ones who've blocked me. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Um, that doesn't make it right, it actually makes it worse. You just admitted to calling even more people names than the people in the diffs I provided pbp 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I did? Joefromrandb (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• FWIW, Joe's disruptive actions are continuing. A few hours ago, he made a spurious soapboxing claim. And, for asking him to stop soapboxing, he accused me of being a troll and acts like being told to stop his incivility and personal attacks are some sort of joke. This has got to stop, and I'm afraid a block is the only way to do it. I again ask admins to review Joe's many unacceptable attacks on admins and non-admins alike pbp 05:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • When you want to accuse someone of "making a spurious soapboxing claim" it probably isn't a good idea to include a diff of the actual soapboxing. Just some food for thought. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

69.117.174.122 (looks like a sock puppet of 67.87.140.155)

Appears to me that I saw the Disney's Greatest Hits and The Disney Collection: The Best-Loved Songs from Disney Motion Pictures, Television, and Theme Parks and I saw "Yellow" Volumes. There is no such volume as a yellow volume. And this time,69.117.174.122, appears to be doing it. Looks like a sock puppet of 67.87.140.155 since he did it like that. ACMEWikiNet (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I am being hounded and I want if stopped right fucking now

user:Kmzayeem is stalking me and I want it stopped now. He is following and reverting me for not reason other than to piss me off, a merger discussion is reverted twice an article is redirected at the beginnging of a merger discusison twice He has turned up at mt last few DYKs and articles I have created, he is violating policy in not letting a merger discussion run and also violating the hounding policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have something called "Watchlist". Seriously stop thinking about yourself so much, nobody have any interest in hounding you. I usually edit articles related to Bangladesh and many controversial articles are in my watchlist. Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_Conflict was already in my watchlist and when I first time saw the article Bangladesh_Civil_War earlier yesterday, I watchlisted it.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• You shouldn't be reverting the merger discussion... 19:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

A brand new article just appeared on your watchlist? Pull the other one. I guess the DYK just popped up as well then? You are following my edits and violating policy in doing so Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, both of you:

STOP!

Both of you are blockable under WP:3RR - I see 6...7 reverts on the Chittagong Hill Tracts one by each of you. This is your only warning to cease and desist. Kmzayeem, I don't know if you were fully aware of the policy, please read the WP:3RR policy page and abide by it going forwards. Darkness Shines, you have been around long enough, you knew this already.

Regarding the reverts, on point of information, it is not proper to remove or flip such a proposal to redirect or rename. The proper process is to discuss it on the talk page(s) and propose the alternative. The only exception would be a clearly intentionally disruptive proposal, in which case you should ask for neutral editors or an administrator's help rather than start edit warring.

I don't know which of the proposals is more correct on the content points, so I leave that to discussion on article talk pages. However, I strongly urge you all to leave it as is and discuss on talk rather than making any more changes to the listed merge title.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya, I have three reverts, and had to do an edit request on the talk page wasting admin time over this disruption, you do not change the target of a redirect once the discussion has begun., that is common sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the article should at least be restored until the merge discussion is completed. Whilst the content is in the history, it's not ideal for editors to have to look at a previous revision in order to comment. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Bangladesh_Civil_War is a dulpicate of Chittagong_Hill_Tracts_Conflict so I redirected it per this. I had also discussed it on the talk page. --Zayeem ^(talk) 20:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I know what CSD#A10 is, thank you, and it didn't apply here, because even if the article is about the same topic it is nevertheless a plausible redirect. However, as soon as the merge discussion was attached to the article, you should have stopped redirecting it. There is no deadline, and the issue can be sorted out through discussion. When it is, it may well be that the new article becomes a redirect to the old one. But to reiterate, that is a subject for discussion. Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, I support the restoration while discussion is done on talk pages. I would do it but am about to be mobile for some time and may not be able to respond if someone has an issue with it. Are you comfortable doing so? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to because I declined the 3RR against Darkness Shines on the edit-warring noticeboard. Is there another admin that could do so, please? Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, just a question, if the merge discussion remains without a consensus for years (as happening in many articles), should we be having two duplicate articles on the same topic?--Zayeem ^(talk) 20:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If the articles are indeed about the same subject there should surely be a method of merging the detail from both into one article. Or, are we merely talking about the actual name of the article here? Black Kite (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've restored the version with the merger tag. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite, The articles are about the same topic, even DS would agree with it, which is why I redirected it. The new article has nothing new except the title, all the info are already present in the original one, which also appeared in DYK. I suggested him to start a move discussion on the original page if he has concerns regarding the title.--Zayeem ^(talk) 21:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) I've offered my views on the procedurally correct handling of this issue here [92]. Since the new Bangladesh Civil War article is technically a (presumably inadvertent) fork of the existing article, the correct course of action is to move it into a user space subpage, install a temporary redirect to the existing article in its stead, then merge whatever parts of the content of the new Bangladesh Civil War article are superior into the old page; then, if necessary, begin a move discussion about where the resulting page should end up being. Mark Arsten, as the latest protecting admin, would you agree with this procedure? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Horatio Snickers under the bridge

This account came to my attention through this asinine response to someone's "recruit editors from prison" proposal. Looking through his contributions I see only a handful of article space edits, all but a few of them problematic (a copyvio, a bit of Forteana, a pointless statement about a play, and a slow-news-day story about a badly-behaved zookeeper). Meanwhile his talk page shows several warnings about trolling the reference desk. I see a lot of deliberate (if low-level) disruption and I suspect he's some banned person's sockpuppet, but at any rate he doesn't seem to be here to any good purpose. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a serious proposal with robust civil discussion taking place. While his response was a bit odd, I found yours to be much more troubling. This is an absurd complaint, even by ANi standards. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to wonder at whether you even looked at this editor's history. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:71.228.233.195

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

---

For a while I've been trying to clean up the page List of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes, as the article often seemed to border on WP:FANCRUFT and contained far too much trivial or redundant information. There was a column in the list that indicated which episodes were available on home video, which format they were available on, and whether the releases were currently in stock on certain websites. All of this seemed unnecessary, as there is a page entitled Mystery Science Theater 3000 video releases which lists that information already.

I removed the column and immediately User:71.228.233.195, who I already had had disagreements with, immediately reverted the changes. The user brought it up on my talk page in User talk:Friginator#MST3K Video Releases.|this discussion] (sometimes with a questionable level of civility, as seen here) and eventually I basically decided to let the issue go. However, recently, other editors have also agreed that the "Home Video Availability" needed to go. This was quickly discussed on the talk page, and another editor (96.237.242.65) removed the column. Since then, 71.228.233.195 has begun reverting any and all changes made to the page in an attempt to keep it the way it was. I, along with other editors, namely User:96.237.242.65, have been reverting changes made to the page on a daily basis. I would have taken this to WP:3RRN a long time ago if I believed that this was merely a content dispute, yet it is apparent that 71.228.233.195 is not interested in improving the article, but simply changing it back to the way it was before the recent cleanup attempts. They have reverted the edits of multiple bots and editors, all in an attempt to halt any work being done on the page. This is disruptive, plain and simple. The user has made no attempt to gather consensus, has made very few direct counterarguments to the points I have made on my talk page, and very rarely leaves edit summaries.

Also, it's worth noting that 71.228.233.195 sometimes edits through the 199.48.24.10 address, but seeing as both IPs are located in Nashville Tennessee, and both are making the exact same edit over and over, so it's safe to assume they're the same person.

I've tried to avoid taking this issue to a noticeboard for a while now, as the issue seems 'extremely' petty and insignificant, but it needs to stop. There's simply no way to improve a page when someone is hell-bent on reverting every edit anyone makes to it without discussion. I would appreciate it if someone would intervene, as not many people seem to watch the page in question. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that's just purely disruptive. I have blocked both IP addresses for a month. If they persist by shifting to other addresses, ask for page protection. Black Kite (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Disruptive behavior at Digvijaya Singh

A section above, Wikipedia:Ani#A_complaint_about_User:Sitush, was closed without action taken, since it was judged to be a content dispute. That's true in part, but the other part is that we have a very decent BLP with two tags on it, and a talk page full of wikilawyering, with walls of text and persistent accusations and commentary of the "I did not hear that" kind. The instigator here is what appears to be an SPA, Soham321. It seems, for instance, that the "political dynasty" claim (found toward the bottom of the article), is reason enough for a POV tag, whereas the claim is reliably sourced to this article. It also seems that Soham is unwilling to allow commentary by Aditi Phadnis to be included, when that person is plenty notable and the commentary well-sourced. Note also the repetitive yammering over a couple of edits reverted by Sitush in the middle of the unwieldy talk page, Talk:Digvijaya_Singh#Recent_reverts. Those particular edits and reverts are old news, in a way, but they go to show that this has been going on for far too long.

Looking through the talk page discussion and the ANI thread, it seems pretty clear to me that Sitush is judged to be editing well within the guidelines set by BLP, NPOV, RS, and whatever else you want to throw at it, according to such users as Yogesh Khandke, RegentsPark, and (on the talk page, see section "Other Controversies"), A.amitkumar. Note that I have hereby pinged them, and I do not wish to suppose that they all agree with Sitush, just that they have, at various points disagreed with Soham's various, lengthy, and numerous complaints.

To cut a long story short, since we've wasted enough dinosaurs and electrons on this, action needs to be taken here. A block for disruption is a possibility, but it seems to me that a topic ban for this particular article (which could be extended to others if Soham persists) is no more than appropriate, given the enormous amount of energy this is taking. Let's not drag this out any more: I'm hoping for a quick solution, though I am open to other suggestions. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• One more thing: I just noticed there's some back-and-forthing on Soham's talk page about personal attacks; I have not looked into that and thus have no opinion on them. I urge both editors to keep their cool, and I hope that was a redundant comment. Drmies (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh. See, I said you should get your bit back. Quick solutions for contentious editing on Indian articles - you are a legend... Joking apart, Mr. Sitush takes far too much stick in this area, and needs support (or, ridiculously simply... his own bit), and I agree with what you say. That's of no use whatsoever, of course, since I have no bit, and I now return you to your regular programming. Begoon ^talk 23:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

@Begoon, "ridiculously simply... his own bit" has been suggested in more general terms but is not going to work here or indeed in any of the many articles where I find myself in trouble. Soham means well, I suspect, but there is a distinct lack of clue and it is not improving even when others try to point out their misunderstanding of OWN, NPOV, BLP, RS, CONSENSUS etc. The obvious solution would be a limited topic ban that enables them to learn our ways in a less charged environment (these Indian politicians are up for election over the next few months, so things are only going to get worse for those of us who are trying to keep things even-keeled). Soham has already been warned about ARBIPA and so a discretionary sanction could be imposed. Whether that would work if based solely on matters relating to one person in Indian politics is less certain because Soham has had difficulties with at least one other such article also, although I acknowledge that they seem since to have backed away from that voluntarily. As to the reason for their behaviour, well, I vacillate: sometimes it seems like competence issue, sometimes like IDHT, sometimes like POV/COI, sometimes just troll-ish and so on. It really is rather baffling to me. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken - sort of... WP:INVOLVED is therefore wrong if it prevents editors with the best interests of the encyclopedia as their motivation from acting in said interests. On this particular case I may be mistaken, but in general it would take quite an essay to convince me that long-time experienced users of your calibre in a contentious area do not need, and would not use the admin bit well. Whether you want it is of course another issue, and that would be up to us to encourage you. These are the broken areas, which therefore need the most attention from editors proven to have our best interests at heart. Anyway, off-topic, and said now. Best. Begoon ^talk 00:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Begoon, thanks, and if it were up to me I'd warn Soham and then wait for the next edit to bring the block hammer down: their edits have a knack for being disruptive, so that wouldn't take long. But I can't do that, nor do I really want to--the subcontinental business is already difficult enough, and before you know it someone says "oh you're Sitush's drinking buddy". Well, I'm not (we're thousands of miles away), but I am a friend of his, and I appreciate what he's doing for the project. All the while I will maintain that I have no problems with being objective in this area, but for me to block Soham is like throwing chum in sharky waters. So what I want is a solution built on a consensus, not just on one admin's (!) decision. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, and hence why you asked instead of acting. That's what we're all about, and it's proper and good. I just think we desperately need good actors in that area, and if you can think of a better one than Sitush I'm all ears. Begoon ^talk 00:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was going to raise this at ANI as the back-and-forth is very unhelpful. I had hoped that Soham could become familiar with Wikipedia's procedures, and I've spent a significant time urging that, but if something isn't done now, the user will harden in their habit, and will cause lots of disruption before the inevitable happens. I was going to ask that an admin issue a clear notice that Soham must stop talking about Sitush, and must start applying WP:AGF, and must engage with the discussions. Soham regards Wikipedia like any other website where opponents are parried—whoever has the greatest dedication will win. Perhaps a firm resolve here could persuade Soham to focus on article content, and to realize that we don't cherry pick text from policies to counter opponents (particularly when inexperienced). Sitush's above suggestion ("a limited topic ban that enables them to learn our ways in a less charged environment") is exactly what is required, but that's a radical idea as the community generally wants to see more blood before acting. My concern is that there is a potential for Soham to become a useful editor, but that will never happen unless firm action is taken now. I guess all we can do is form a consensus per Drmies—a short block if disruption continues. Johnuniq (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq, my apologies--I meant to give you a shout-out/ping as well in my posting. Actually, I think that a topic ban is preferable over the threat of a block, so if you want to go "per Drmies", I'd prefer it per toward a topic ban. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Agree I would agree on the topic ban, to prevent further time drain of other editors, we could possibly use Sitush elsewhere instead of he logging in everyday to justify a counterclaim on that talk page and also if this ban would push Soham productively to other areas of WP (seeing the contribs of Soham being lately solely to this one page makes him almost a single purpose account).  A m i t  웃   03:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I have the following comments to make:

• User:Drmies is an admin on this site, and i respect this fact. Never the less, i had taken him for DRN where the mediator had ruled in my favor and against him. For link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71 (title of the discussion is 'Narendra Modi'). This was after we had a somewhat nasty exchange on his talk page. After the DRN,however, i had apologized to him and he claimed he had accepted my apology.
• User:Drmies made the present complaint about me after User:Sitush (with whom i have been having a long running dispute on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digvijaya_Singh ) wrote on Drmies's talk page complaining about me. The fact that Sitush and Drmies are on familiar terms is evident when Sitush also disclosed about the birth of a new child in his family and Drmies congratulated him for this. I thought this was odd considering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum
• Sitush was seen asking User:Johnuniq on Johnuniq's talk page on how to handle me. Again odd considering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_forum and indicating that the two are on familiar terms.
• The only editor in the main article under discussion who had also participated in the previous ANI complaint against Sitush that i had made was User:A.amitkumar and he had expressed his agreement with me that Sitush has taken ownership of the article under dispute in violation of WP:Ownership. It is true that i had a disagreement with User:A.amitkumar after i objected to some of his edits, but we reached WP:Consensus after he allowed me to make some modifications to his edits. Sitush, however, unilaterally removed all of amitkumar's edits (and also my edits) from the main article. The complete 'Debates, Disputes, and Controversies' section was unilaterally removed by Sitush in the face of objections by me and User:A.amitkumar.
• There is a 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag on the main article as of now. This was based on my discussions with Sitush on the talk page by another editor indicating that there are others who agree with my position.
• My understanding based on when TransporterMan had ruled in my favor (and against Drmies) in DRN is that in a disputed edit, at least two reliable references must be given. That is why i had objected to Sitush inserting widely speculative claims of Aditi Phadnis which in my opinion violate the Balance and Impartial Tone clauses in a DRN. That is why i had asked Sitush to provide another reliable reference for the claims of Phadnis. TransporterMan had written the following in the DRN: "Whereas WP:V or WP:BLPREMOVE provide minimum standards for inclusion, the "belongs in the article" language of WP:WELLKNOWN (and it's repeated in the second example of that section, not reproduced here), seems to say that material reported in multiple reliable sources should be included, and would appear to have been adopted as a bright-line test to resolve disputes just such as this one. It would take some digging to find it, but long ago I went to some effort to find out what "multiple sources" means in Wikipedia policy (though more in the context of the various notability standards, rather than this particular policy) and found a very clear answer that it merely means "more than one," and does not mean "many." This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_71 (The title is 'Narendra Modi').
• I also believe the following sentence inserted my Sitush is erroneous: "Mool Singh, the incumbent MLA, announced then that he would not be contesting his Raghogarh Assembly seat in the forthcoming elections, paving the way for Jaivardhan to be elected in a form of dynastic succession that is common in North India but rare in the South.[29]". I have given my reasons why i believe this edit to be erroneous in the talk page. Let us name the disputed sentence as Edit 1. After my initial objections to this sentence Sitush had modified it to make it Edit 2. I found even Edit 2 to contain an error and after a somewhat lengthy discussion with Sitush in which he allowed me to have the last word i modified Edit 2 to make it Edit 3. When he saw this, Sitush reverted the edit back to Edit 1. I have explained why i believe Sitush's edit is wrong on the talk page of the article. See the sections 'Inaccurate edit of User:Sitush' and 'Inappropriate phrase used by Sitush'. This kind of behavior, i have explained in the talk page (see Section 'Disputed Edits'), makes WP:Consensus impossible to achieve and is indicative of WP:Ownership.
• I did not engage in edit warring on the main article with Sitush and allowed him to retain whatever edits he had put in place in the main article even though i continue to believe them to be erroneous.
• I am a relatively new editor at wikipedia and i do not have 'friends' like Sitush does. Never the less, i believe i have a lot to contribute to this site. As an example, please consider the content i had added on the page of Voltaire in which i had given a primary reference to my edit. (Yes, it got reverted but i have initiated a discussion on the talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voltaire&diff=567483169&oldid=567479275
• If the person judging my case decides to ban me, i will accept the punishment and quitely go away. Soham321 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as per Drmies, Amit, and the wall of text by Soham321 right above me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I had to check the first link in the above where it was promised I would find the mediator ruling against Drmies (here). That's a bit of a LOL I'm afraid because it shows that Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures are even worse than I had imagined. With infinite patience, Drmies pointed out that some edits by Soham were not really what is expected, and gave two diffs: diff1 shows Soham adding a section with title "Usage of Foul Language" to a politician's BLP, and diff2 shows Soham adding a section titled "Alleged involvement in Haren Pandya's murder" to the same BLP. I suppose the DRN volunteers are used to situations where one bad group of POV warriors is battling another bad group of POV warriors, but even so, the reply to Drmies is most disappointing. The two diffs I just repeated are instantly recognizable by any experienced editor as off-the-wall unsuitable, and the fact that the mediator was able to keep a straight face while suggesting some middle ground is, well, breathtaking. I'm firming up in my view that if the community doesn't get set a higher standard on early policy enforcement, we are going to be overrun with nonsense. The DRN incident was three months ago—no wonder Soham is so confidently brushing advice aside now! Soham's last comment (an echo of a "if [I] do get banned from the site, it won't be a big deal for me" reply made two days ago diff) is a worry as it indicates that further engagement may be unproductive. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The diffs which Johnuniq is citing were not disputed at all by me in the DRN. This is what the mediator told Drmies also in the DRN. I have given the link to the DRN discussion as well as the title and i request readers here to see the discussion rather than believe the disingenuous and misleading statements of User:Johnuniq. Soham321 (talk) 08:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, my statement which Johnuniq is referring to was simply to state that i am not a professional wikipedia editor. It is not my full time job and i do not stand to make any money by making edits or participating in discussions on the site. Also, i would like Johnuniq to explain why Sitush wrote on his talk page on some advice on how to handle me. Does Johnuniq know Sitush personally? Soham321 (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is my experience that DRN never works for India-related stuff. Perhaps it does for aspects related to Indian geography but it never has for caste, religion or politics on any occasion where I have been involved. That is why I have decided not to waste my time with it in future. That it hardens the position of clearly misguided contributors is probably because (a) the subject matter is unfamiliar to those who are mediating and (b) there seems to be a desire to be all things to all people. Perhaps, though, I've just got a very jaundiced opinion. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• DRF may or may not work for certain topics but it needs to be present as a mediation mechanism. Also, editors who show disrespect for wikipedia rules and guidelines by simply removing disputed content which has been taken up for discussion in DRN should be penalized in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - a ban from articles relating to politics in India, broadly construed and to include all namespaces. Thought I'd best make this clear, since people are picking up on one of my comments above. I've no opinion regarding the length of the ban. - Sitush (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• I considered writing that i also support a ban on Sitush from writing on the Digvijaya Singh page, but then decided against it. Instinctively i am against banning anyone from any page unless it is something really serious. I am satisfied that we have the 'neutrality is disputed' tag (put be me) and the 'factual accuracy is disputed' tag (put by another editor--based on the talk page discussions between Sitush and me) on the main article which as of now is composed almost entirely of words written by Sitush. Soham321 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as phrased by Sitush just above. We really, really need to protect useful editors from the attrition and burnout this kind of wikilawyering and stubborn WP:IDHT causes. Length? Either one year or indefinite. As second choice, I'll support any other topic ban people can agree on here. Bishonen | talk 08:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC).

• I just noticed that my edit "Views on Hindu nationalist groups" (with a different section heading but same section content) on the main article under discussion which had been unilaterally deleted by Sitush has now been restored on the main article thanks to another editor. Strictly speaking, a version of this edit had been in place and i had simply made some additions and modifications (english corrections and making it conform to WP:NPOV). Soham321 (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear legal threats

By User:Manish 8726: [93], [94]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

And can I get some eyes on Swaminarayan‎? The "other side" is inserting the decidedly non-neutral [95]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Richard Warren Lipack

I recently encountered Richard Warren Lipack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Based on edits like this one (including the delightful section "'They had the internet already discovered back in the 1800′s!!!! They have SO MUCH HIGH TECH STUFF that they have been hiding from us for centuries!!!!' This claim by Nguyen is scientifically correct and today is supported by the recently discovered only extant manuscript journal of telegraph inventor William Fothergill Cooke."), I think it is safe to say that Mr. Lipack's judgement about the nature of reality can legitimately be questioned. On his talk page, he admits that he is also Epochwiki77, which brings us to Epochwiki77's magnum opus, William Fothergill Cooke. A quick perusal of that article's history shows that it was essentially created by Epochwiki77, and relies heavily on http://www.w1tp.com/cooke/ , which, unsurprisingly, is the account of a private journal of William Fothergill Cooke that was discovered by one Richard Warren Lipack.

My first instinct is to revert the article back before Epochwiki77's first edit, block both accounts, and just deal with this with some combination of WP:IAR, WP:COMPETENCE, and WP:ILLEGIT (on the argument that the name "Epochwiki77" was chosen to hide the relationship to Richard Warren Lipack). Before I do that, I'd like to hear suggestions.—Kww(talk) 06:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:74.120.133.55 will not stop with the soapboxing

The above user has been an a tear about some perceived "plot" being hatched in Gilberton, Pennsylvania. There is clearly soapboxing at that page's talk (see last section). He added (and then deleted) more yesterday (diff), at which time I left him a final warning about it on his talk (diff). He responded to it with more rant. Note that he was already blocked once for 3RR on the Gilberton page. Certainly seems like WP:NOTHERE to me. At best, he is an extreme WP:SPA with a serious bit of "lack of clue". Will notify IP user immediately after I finish this. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be plenty of coverage of this issue by RS at the moment judging from a google news search, probably enough for something to be added somewhere at some point if it passes the WP:NOTNEWS threshold. The IP just doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia policy at the moment. Perhaps if someone worked with them on on the article talk to find proper sourcing, showed them how to cite things, how to comply with NPOV and avoid OR they might calm down. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Vikirefractoryworks

Continues to use talkpage for spam after being blocked. Requesting talk page access revocation. (Note that it is an IP that did this - please also consider blocking the IP and/or protecting the page.) Ginsuloft (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Peter Seabrook article

An editor keeps erasing my entries and seems intent on using wikipedia as a publicity platform for Peter Seabrook instead of a balanced article which includes criticism. Using wikipedia in this way constitutes a conflict of interest.