Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Gibson Flying V

Can somebody please take a look at the edits of Gibson Flying V (talk · contribs). Basically, this user has proposed adjusting {{Height}} (which is widely used on biographies) to allow for a cm parameter. It hasn't received the support he hoped for - I myself have raised some concerns which he appears to be proving. So to counter this, he has been mass-replacing {{Height}} (in m) with {{Convert}} (in cm) to - or so it seems to meet - push his pro-cm agenda. I am INVOLVED and more eyes on this (i.e. to tell me whether I'm over-reacting or not!) would be welcome. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is anything in the MOS about the need for wikipedia articles to express human height with a particular template or in a particular unit, I did not see it, otherwise I would have brought up the discussion there (instead I brought it up at {{Height}}. In the absence of any such guidelines, I think it's best we follow reliable sources, particularly when it comes to biographies of living persons, several of which had unreferenced, incorrect heights and weights listed which I have since corrected and provided first-rate sources for. User:GiantSnowman has thus far been unable to explain what's wrong with replacing a template which forces us into using metres with one that allows for centimetres and closer matching with reliable sources. He has only been able to make repeated accusations of bad faith against me and threats at reporting me on my talk page. I welcome more views on this and for an admin to make the long-awaited change at {{Height}} for which there appears to be consensus.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is that you only seem to be introducing sources which support your pro-cm agenda, when in some cases there are more reliable sources which support the use of m e.g. Davide Astori. I don't see you "correcting" any heights in m, only in cm, which I find odd/concerning. You also only started this method of editing after a few editors raised concern both on your talk page and at the {{Height}} template talk page. You have been advised to wait for consensus but you seem unable to resist. GiantSnowman 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If I replaced sources that use metres with less reliable ones that use centimetres you'd have the ghost of a point. But I do not. Because despite what you may say, I don't have some personal agenda here. My approach is 100% source based.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

But why do you only introduce sources which use cm, when I have shown you many more which use m e.g. at Talk:Davide Astori? GiantSnowman 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a two-fold problem; a request at{{Height}} to add a cm parameter, and the m vs. cm debate on BLP articles. IMO, that one may oppose the display of athlete's height in cm is not really a reason to oppose the template alteration. It is a reasonable request, and if an editor would find it to be useful then it should be added. The BLP debate should happen elsewhere, and I'd say that the mass conversion to the "convert" template should be held off until that debate is concluded; if cm is decided upon, you'll be able to use the height template anyways. Also, after reading Template talk:Height#Human height is more commonly expressed in centimetres than metres, the rhetoric got a bit snippy. Deep breaths, everyone, let's not turn this into another dash vs. hyphen fiasco. Tarc (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no real opinion on m vs. cm, other than the fact that m are used far more widely in my area of editing (soccerball) and I had a concern that editors would try and replace m with cm, in the face of how we edit soccerball articles on Wikipedia - and that is exactly what seems to be happening here. GiantSnowman 20:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

When {{Height}} was made, it seems humans weren't taken into account and that it was only intended for use with other structures, such as buildings. Adding a cm parameter to that is very uncontroversial stuff in my opinion. As for BLP MOS, the reasonable approach seems to be for sources (with more weight given to those of higher quality) to determine what unit is used, as well as WP:ENGVAR much in the same way it already determines how dates are formatted. Again, fairly uncontroversial stuff I would have thought. GiantSnowman, you'd do well to provide a guideline that states metres must be used. I've already provided policies that show Wikipedia content must take its cues from reliable sources, particularly in BLPs.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, find me a diff or three where you have 'corrected' the height but kept it in m? And you have already been directed - multiple times - to Manual of Styles which (currently) use m. GiantSnowman 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that takes us to an example of an infobox which contains the problematic {{Height}} template. What I asked for was "a guideline that states metres must be used". And of course no such diff can be found. What possible reason would I have for displaying a person's height in metres in defiance of sources that express it in centimetres? Anyway, I don't think this is adding anything new to the discussion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Human_height may be relevant though.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you admit you have only being adding sources which show cm, even though sources exist which show m (again, I point you to Talk:Davide Astori) and you don't see that as being a problem? GiantSnowman 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't need me to point out that my edit history (along with yours) is right there for all to see. And of course I'm comfortable with it. I don't know how to make my position any clearer on this issue. As you must surely know, not all sources are created equal. As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height. Now, I'm going to do this page's users a favour and only carry on specific cases' discussions on their talk pages (and I think everyone might appreciate if you did the same). I will point out that a very large number of biographies of living persons had incorrect and unreferenced heights and weights listed (some not containing a single source) until I came along. I want you to keep that in mind as you read the first paragraph of WP:BLP then come back here and explain how exactly I'm harming the project.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the Astori example again - you found a FIFA source which shows height in cm, and stated that was the best source available. I also found a FIFA source which shows height in m. You believe your source is superior to mine, but have not explained why, when they are both from the same organisation. You have no reason at all to use cm over m on this article (and many others) other than personal preference. GiantSnowman 11:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

See 6th sentence of previous comment. According to policy, I would have been well within my rights to remove the unreferenced information from all those BLPs. This, I think, would be more likely to be construed as unconstructive editing, don't you? Instead I chose to find first-rate reliable sources, introduce them to the articles and update the information to match the sources explicitly. Now please explain to us clearly why further harm will come to the encyclopedia if sanctions aren't brought against me. Then perhaps after that, we can discuss how appropriate language such as "You see, I know you are going to abuse this template change", "You don't know what you're talking about" and "You are pushing your weird pro-cm agenda" is for someone who has managed to be appointed an administrator.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

But you are pushing a pro-cm agenda. I fully support your introduction of cm to articles where the majority of sources use cm - but what concerns me is you introducing cm to articles where the vast majority of sources use m. GiantSnowman 12:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: From my outside perspective, I don't see any consensus for a change at {{height}}. It's not a high-visibility page, though, so opening an RFC is the correct next step. Letting the dispute spill over into the drama boards is not a correct next step. If the RFC ends in consensus to add a cm parameter to the height template, common sense should be followed for each domain. If the height of European basketball players is normally expressed in m, then it should be here. If the height of Australian cricketers is normally expressed in cm, then it should be here. You're not allowed to cherry-pick sources that support your view. Gibson Flying V, I suggest you wait for the outcome of the RFC before taking any more actions along these lines. --Laser brain (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. If the majority of sources display the heights of supermodels in cm, then I agree we should use cm on articles about supermodels. My issue here - as I will repeat in the hope that Gibson Flying V understands my concerns - is that he is introducing cm to articles on soccerball players, even though the vast majority of sources use m. GiantSnowman 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet everyone keeps saying if the cm parameter is introduced at {{Height}}... I have stopped editing height in articles and meanwhile the RfC is in its 5th day with no bites. User:GiantSnowman, common sense and policy dictate that sources are not compared merely by weight of numbers alone:1 + 1 ≠ 1 + 1 (note other differences such as date formatting). Anyway, this thread is already too long. It's going nowhere. There are plenty more appropriate forums for this discussion. I'm out.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V's comment that "I have stopped editing height in articles" does not seem truthful with this edit to change m to cm today. Then there is this edit at Talk:Tiger Woods to start a new non-neutral discussion on the use of cm instead of just inviting editors to a larger discussion at the RFC.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you haven't neglected to compare the timestamp on my comment with that of the diff you provided. Further elaboration on what is "non-neutral" about the Tiger Woods discussion would be helpful too.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get into WP:Wikilawyering about whether it was your responsibility or mine to preface that you stopped editing height a few hours ago. Simply agreeing to my recommendation below (22:59, 22 January 2014) would be a good faith attempt to avoid any appearance of impropriety.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So you'll have no problem retracting Gibson Flying V's comment that "I have stopped editing height in articles" does not seem truthful then. And your recommendation is a couple of hours too late--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that I made the suggestion 4 days ago that you stop editing heights while discussion was ongoing, the skepticism was warranted. Your continued edits were the main reason this ANI thread was even started.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Another administrator with apparent good faith issues. I hope this is not going unnoticed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To me, the essential problem here is summarised by this sentence, quoted from Gibson Flying V above: As far as I can tell there is a direct correlation with a source's quality and its likelihood to use centimetres for displaying people's height. SamBC(talk) 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I first saw this cm v. m debate at Template_talk:Infobox_basketball_biography#Height_parameter, a thread started by Gibson Flying V. At best, a weak consensus to add cm support for basketball players, but no mandate that cm was preferred in all (if even many) cases. There may be more, but GFV has also started parallel threads at Template_talk:Height#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres and Talk:Human_height#Why_is_height_being_expressed_in_metres.3F, all the while switching multiple BLPs to use {{convert}} instead of {{height}}, a template which does not support cm. It's disingenuous to continue to make changes when ongoing discussions—which GFV started— to achieve a larger consensus are ongoing. Also, it's more effective to direct editors/WikiProjects to one centralized discussion, instead of starting multiple discussions, and each time failing to mention counter arguments from other pages.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• Recommendation Whie the RFC is ongoing, I would suggest Gibson Flying V voluntarily refrain from any edits to change m to cm, or having discussions on height outside of the existing RFC. Inviting others to join the RFC without WP:CANVASSING is fine.—Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting to see Gibson replacing a widely-used, reliable source (which shows height in ft and inches) with another source (which shows height in his preferred format of cm)... GiantSnowman 20:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• The edit you cite is three days old. It has been suggested and he has since agreed to wait for the outcome of the RFC, which I think is a good sign that he is acting in good faith. --Laser brain (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG: While we're here, am I alone in thinking that it's actually User:GiantSnowman's own conduct (exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C, exhibit D plus more mentioned above and who-knows-what else I may have missed) that warrants scrutiny? Hardly exemplary and appropriate for an administrator IMO.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm. Yes. Those diffs clearly show that GiantSnowman disagrees with you, nothing else (besides that GS writes boring edit summaries). So yeah, so far you're alone in thinking that there's anything here worth scrutinizing, though your effort is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. I thought it was within the scope of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Boring edit summaries? Well I never! GiantSnowman 12:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Tiger Woods article says he's 1.85 meters. Is that not 185 centimeters? Or is it the mixed-mode presentation that's the problem? That is, because it says 6 feet 1 inch, if you were to use centimeters would you then also need to change it to 73 inches? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bugs, you might be interested in the ongoing RFC at Template talk:Height. GiantSnowman 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I am finally completely fed up with User:Orestes1984's attacks on me and others

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

---

See here.

And here.

And another.

Oh, and here he blamed me for Australia not winning its bid to host the World Cup, while also insulting all Australian Football fans with "you cannot teach AFL supporters class".

Here he attacked another Wikipedia article that he doesn't like, and in doing so obviously condemned my references to it.

And here we have "a minority of POV pushers"

There are many, many more examples. This editor has on dozens of occasions attacked me and others for defending the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia to call the round ball game just that, "soccer", in internal Australian articles. The standard form of attack is that I am "pushing a POV agenda", but there have been many others.

This editor persistently fails to use Edit summaries, despite having been here for eight years.

Becasue of the way discussions are allowed to so easily go off track, and because complaints about me have been incorrectly brought here so many times, I am always very hesitant to bring problems about other editors here. But I really am getting sick of the constant abuse from Orestes1984.

This discussion must not turn into one on what the game should be called. That belongs elsewhere. Consistent consensus on it has been repeatedly achieved several times already. User:Orestes1984 disagrees with that consensus, and won't give up the fight.

This thread is about the persistent unpleasant personal attacks on editors doing exactly what they should. HiLo48 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope you'll actually link to a personal attack (see WP:WIAPA). I see some possibly uncivil harsh words, but not a single personal attack ES&L 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Half the links you posted here are comments from people other than Orestes1984. Some are from yourself actually. only (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And remember to duck from stray boomerangs... what if you did repeatedly railroad other editors, etc? Just a thought... On edit: Sorry HiLo, just realised who the fuck you are. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, in what way is your edited comment necessary or appropriate here? I don't see anything you're adding to the discussion. only (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Have to go with ES&L and Only here. Did you mess up the diffs or something? Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Boomerang: Hilo alleges he/she is the victim using diffs that do not actually verify the allegations. Meanwhile, a quick review of the Talk page shows comments from Hilo like "You have yet again gone down the bullshit path... piss off" and "Are you really trying hard to act so dumb?" and "You are either completely incompetent, or you have chosen to deliberately ignore". Another one from Talk archives is "BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!! That claim is simply incorrect." It appears to be a heated content dispute where Hilo is frustrated because a prior article-move discussion was closed in support of the status quo (his preferred version), but editors continue to discuss it in a manner that may put the ruling at risk. Other editors have also been tense, but not to this extent. I would support a 30-day block for Hilo as a cooling off period, followed by a short leash for future civility problems. Since there was recently a "ruling" on the content dispute, any RfC-type discussion should wait until he returns. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I have simply tried to present a view that has been filibustered into the ground with pointless BRDs and other issues, there have been clear cases of meat puppetry going on here Talk:Soccer_in_Australia#Orestes_has_taken_the_battle_elsewhere the topic of that discussion alone should be picked up upon, as it says, you cannot use talk pages in order to garner support for your position. There is incivility flying around everywhere, but the talk page for soccer in Australia has been the consistent location. Unfortunately it's a challenge to be around an editor that has a history of incivility, and not just towards myself as an editor. I'm not going to say anything more on the matter, because I don't like to be drawn into AN/I as nothing good ever comes from AN/I... I do not want to cause trouble here, I could not state that any more clearly, but it seems HiLo48 cannot interact with other users who are trying to edit in good faith on soccer related articles in Australia. Perhaps Hilo48 should be topic banned from editing on soccer related articles on Wikipedia so as we can all have some peace? --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

*blink* Um, you've read your own very inflammatory and inappropriately uncivil comments, right? ES&L 15:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I have, there is no grounds for that around other users, however user HiLo48 as well as other users are impossibly uncivil on a consistent basis towards any editors that even attempt to present a view that does not support their agenda. There is a clear boomerang going on here, and HiLo48 perhaps should have thought a bit more seriously before bringing this up at AN/I. I do not want to be on AN/I but unfortunately HiLo48 has taken it to this, I would not be the first user that HiLo48 has been uncivil towards however and I probably won't be the last. It really is difficult to go about editing in articles that HiLo48 patrols without running into his incivility. Unfortunately, while I know it's wrong I have a propensity to return it towards those who are uncivil. I don't actually mind if I end up getting called up for this myself, it's probably deserved, in fact I know I have been uncivil. However, it has become impossible on soccer related pages in Australia for any editor that disagrees with HiLo48 to have a civil discussion, HiLo48 edits his own talk pages to tell anyone who contacts him to "piss off" and uses other such language, and four letter words when other users seek to discuss anything in an appropriate place of discussion. I am just trying to put forward a position so as editors of soccer related articles can edit in peace. I am simply trying to intervene in a matter that HiLo48 is making more controversial than it needs to be, perhaps my actions may be seen as inappropriate, the full ramifications of this AN/I are yet to play out, unfortunately whichever way this goes it's the way the cards have fallen. I cannot do anything about the evidence that is out there, I can only say that it's much more than a one sided story presented by HiLo48. --Orestes1984 (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, really? Hilo complaining about personal attacks? Seriously? Come on. Address your own behavior first, then come here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Responding to the above, I have tried to suggest to HiLo48 in various ways that this wasn't a good idea to bring this to AN/I. I do not simply have to "give up the fight" and AN/I is simply not the place to resolve "the fight" that is related to the contents of the article soccer in australia which i think is what HiLo48 is trying to resolve. I have had all kinds of things thrown at me including "who the do you think you are" from certain users, which is nothing more than a direct threat on my person over an article on Wikipedia. I do not understand this? In none of my editing have I directly introduced anything that actually goes against consensus so HiLo48 begins to seem even more irrational about dealing with this matter in such a way. While I haven't had perfect behaviour, this would represent the kind of irrationality and the type of behaviour that leads to this. Unlike others, I simply will not leave under HiLo48's duress which has caused HiLo48 to raise this issue at AN/I. I have stated I am not a saint in this regard, and am willing to let the cards fall where they may if it means resolving this issue, as I said on Talk:Soccer in Australia. --Orestes1984 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Less that a month ago, HiLo48 called me a "fool" and later added that they are proud of this behavior and regret I am not yet blocked. I am still waiting when they start calling users fucking assholes and claim this is not a personal attack. If they have such low standards of civility in their own behavior, they should not really expect much of others. Especially given they already have been blocked previously. WP:BOOMERANG would certainly be in order here.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here I am being called a moron for simply asking HiLo48 to cite a source on the Barassi Line on a wiki page that will be viewed by the whole world where people would be unfamiliar with the term, as well as having four letter words thrown at me. There also seems to be an ongoing case of circular referencing to an article that has very few references to any articles on soccer and which also contain little content on soccer. In fact I tried to add a section on soccer at one point but was reverted. The barassi line concept represents the type of ongoing irrationality that user HiLo48 is continuing to promote which has led this whole matter to AN/I. IF I wanted to be cynical I could say that HiLo48 and other users were maintaining articles such as the barassi line article to filibuster any discussion of soccer in Australia and to promote the AFL needlessly in articles which are of no consequence to the AFL.

Now then filibustering IS a matter which can be raised at AN/I, I haven't yet because I suspect as a result of my last post on Talk:Soccer in Australia that HiLo48 raised this AN/I in retaliation, but that is simply yet more evidence of continued irrational behaviour and incivility when I have tried to warn HiLo48 that nothing good will come for either of us from the sort of AN/I issue HiLo48 raised here. I digress a little, the comment above about WP:BOOMERANG is definitely on the mark.--Orestes1984 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't call for boomerangs unless your own hands are free of curved throwing implements. Your own behaviour is atrocious - so much so that blocks for the both of you make the most sense in order to protect this project from further BS ES&L 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, forget the whole thing. This thread perfectly demonstrates why I hate AN/I. It doesn't work. I really was hoping for a calm, rational discussion. And, if I did stuff up some of those diffs, my apologies. I don't find it easy to get them right. It's frustrating that one has to use such a complicated procedure to point out when someone is doing something wrong. Unfortunately too, Orestes1984 tends to edit his own posts multiple times, so it's difficult to get the precise diff that properly shows the problem. So, sorry for using up everyone's time. Bye for now. HiLo48 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As it says, you do not have to edit in one effort, there is nothing wrong with any of this directly above. I have suggested calmly in the past that you look at you your own actions that lead to this, others here have repeated those thoughts, I'd suggest you actually heed that advice before shooting yourself in the foot. Nothing good will come from AN/I and I simply will not go away under duress of your comments, or the use of this process for any means which would attempt to make me go away by your actions. I have a right to edit here as do you until such time as an administrator states otherwise. Please take heed of your own actions before it gets you in any more trouble, or this unnecessarily goes any further than what it has. As I have also previously tried to tell you calmly, perhaps occasionally you should also step away from the consensus koolaid and furthermore, that sometimes you do not have to agree. You are the only user I have ever had this much difficulty with, if you look at some of the above posts, you will see that I am not alone. It would pay well to look at why this is the case, and why you cannot simply have your way by talking over the top of someone. As I have said previously, if you would like to continue to revert my edits unnecessarily then we can come back here on the grounds of filibustering, but I do not like AN/I and nor should you. Have a little respect for all of this and just edit with others in peace... --Orestes1984 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

• While not perfect (who is?), HiLo has in my view been admirably restrained in extremely trying circumstances - ones in which I, and I imagine many Wikipedians, would struggle to keep their cool. Orestes1984 seems to have been accusing HiLo of everything that they are in fact guilty of themselves - POV-pushing, battleground behaviour, failure to AGF, personal attacks. This is a classic example: "Your insularity and incompetence astounds me, furthermore it was only ever called soccer as a form of appeasement to the people like yourself that can't understand why the game is called football."[1] When I commented opposing Orestes's position, they responded by accusing HiLo of meatpuppetry[2] (interestingly, he was apparently also guilty of both incivility and civil POV-pushing, which seems a bit contradictory) and referring to "drive by commentary from your fellow AFL editors in New Zealand"[3] (which I found rather amusing, since I certainly don't follow Aussie Rules, which I've hardly ever seen since it isn't popular in New Zealand, while I do follow soccer). That ridiculous assumption of bad faith with no evidence to support it demonstrates just how unable Orestes is to approach this in a proper manner. I believe they need to be banned from the topic of the proper name of soccer/football/association football. Neljack (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing problem

Orestes1984 (talk · contribs) has just posted another attack targeting HiLo48 (talk · contribs) with heading "All of this nonsense can be attributed to HiLo48's inability to edit in a civil manner"—see User talk:Skyring (diff).

The attack is minor as far as attacks go, but it would be very helpful if an uninvolved admin were to point out that such inflammatory commentary has no place on a user talk page (particularly when that user has an interaction ban with HiLo48). Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously... This is nothing more than a straight forward apology for the nonsense behaviour that is going on here. Is this worthy of an AN/I? I am merely attempting to defuse the situation calmly in a way that is understandable. Bringing up interaction bans I am unaware of as more of a reason why I should be sanctioned for this is not helpful either. I simply cannot be expected to be across all fronts here and particularly in a case where the user has a history of being confrontational and inflammatory.

Meanwhile in response to the above, while being harsh at times with my opinion, I have been no more so harsh than HiLo48 has been with other users and myself on soccer related pages. Furthermore I have not gone to great lengths to direct abusive four letter word commentary at HiLo48, while instead, repeatedly I have had four letter words thrown at me as well as having my integrity as a person and intelligence questioned repeatedly. In such trying conditions, most people would at least respond at some level or another.

With regards to the comments that I made regarding a certain user and AFL, I do believe the user I referenced was also a member of project AFL User:Jenks24 see the difs here. This debate was closed, I'm sorry that my efforts in trying to calm the situation have led us to another excursion to AN/I. I would note that any interaction ban between HiLo48 and any other user is merely going to be a bandaid on this problem until the next confrontation, I'd strongly suggest a topic ban for user HiL048 while for myself as I have said, if there is anything going on here, I am willing to let the cards fall where they may and am more than happy to have a holiday particularly if it means other editors can edit in peace.

In reference to the claims of meat puppetry, I have noted above that you cannot use talk pages to solicit a response from other users with regards to the contents of another page, this was and still clearly remains an open case of meat puppetry. The section I noted above here is meat puppetry. IF I wanted to continue with my claims of meat puppetry I would flag a number of other users, but I haven't had a chance yet as the AN/Is against me are flying thick and fast.

Finally, What I stated was not meant as a personal attack, but merely as a summary of how I thought the situation was panning out at the time I made the comments, to who I thought was an onlooker, as I stated I had no idea about the interaction ban, nor did I intend to cause any issues involving anything to do with said interaction ban. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have asked for an independent admin to provide some strong advice to the effect that continuing to use user or article talk pages to discuss claimed deficiences in another editor must stop. No problem about your being unaware of the interaction ban, but you are aware of it now (and can confirm it at WP:RESTRICT). As there has been no reply to your comment at User talk:Skyring, why not remove it and confirm that similar comments will not be repeated? Wikipedia is a complex place, but a lot of the standard procedures can be understood upon considering what might result from alternatives. It is clear that there are strong views about how WP:COMMONNAME applies—should the game with a round ball be called "soccer" or "football" (with the latter apparently being the now-preferred official title)? Consider what might result from a situation where every editor concerned visited various talk pages and added commentary about how their opponent was responsible for nonsense and, by implication from the wording in the comment, is an idiot. How could that work? The person with the most perseverance and witty insults wins? Please just stop. Even if, in your opinion, it is all the other person's fault, if the community remains unconvinced after noticeboard discussion, editors must stop badgering each other and focus on the issue (WP:COMMONNAME). Obviously referring to another editor as an idiot will not "defuse the situation". Johnuniq (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I will remove what was merely a comment, and not a personal attack, as to the other claims, claiming innocence of user HiLo48 is beyond incomprehensible, you only have to look at his interaction history. As for the ongoing campaign to have all discussions curtailed and enforcing purely WP:COMMONNAME. I simply cannot agree. Wikipedia is an open space where wide ranging opinions should be accepted as the norm. There is no need for personal attacks, of which I have had a number of directed at me, most recently noted above being called a "moron." I think, if you care, you should have a word with HiLo48 about his own actions, and his resistance to discussing these and other issues. I think you will find I am a reasonable person, where as I have not found that to be the case with HiLo48. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments say nothing about the innocence or otherwise of HiLo48. If you think otherwise, you are reading too quickly and not taking the time to comprehend what was written. Other editors may react badly if that occurred repeatedly. Please re-read this discussion tomorrow and consider whether the "when you argue with idiots..." comment is compatible with "merely a comment, and not a personal attack". Thank you for removing the post. Johnuniq (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments were a general statement as I noted, I'm a bit hot headed right now particularly after being brought here twice. I don't like AN/I and I don't like using AN/I. I need to step back and think about where to go next. --Orestes1984 (talk) 05:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I would very much prefer not to be stalked, Johnuniq. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

stalking would appear to be something that is common here, and I'm about sick of it as well. My edits should not be needlessly patrolled for ulterior reasons, certain users such as Afterwriting would do well not to track every single edit I make on Wikipedia. The full and most recent unpleasantries and baseless claims can be found here --Orestes1984 (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth. Orestes1984 constantly makes these kinds of extremely reactionary and false accusations against myself and any other editors who dare to challenge his frequently factually incorrect opinions. He goes on the attack against other editors without provocation and then blames them in a highly self-pitying manner when they respond critically to his offensive behaviour. His comments above are simply another addition to his expanding litany of self-pitying comments and blame deflection. Enough really is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

More dramitisation going on here as well as exaggeration and lack of factual substance. If anything recently I have spent a fair amount of time cleaning up the misinformation that has been floating around here. I am being vilified here by user Afterwriting purely on the basis of his own agenda that does not reflect any realities. There is no self pity going on here, only an editor that is some what annoyed that I will not accept a consensus, and as I have repeated numerous times, I simply do not have to fall in line with the agenda that is being created by a certain group of users here. Afterwriting should be reminded that I am allowed to maintain a view that differs substantially from his own, and should refrain from the ongoing attempts of what amounts to nothing more than baseless character assassination. See here for the above users ongoing tirade against an administrator that disagrees with the users behaviour.--Orestes1984 (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The comment by Orestes1984 above that he is "being vilified here by user Afterwriting purely on the basis of his own agenda that does not reflect any realities" is yet another example of his frequent extreme and false accusations against other editors. It should also be noted that he failed to notify me on my talk page, as required, that he was making comments about me on here. Afterwriting (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

you were warned to disengage from this kind of behaviour here and yet you have continued, can I have my personal space back now please? The comment "Your highly inadequate and inconsistent behaviour as an administrator has only helped to fuel matters" directed towards an administrator does not help your case. Your inability to disengage from this kind of dramitisation of the facts is simply a matter of reality. The embellishments going on here are astounding. --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a silly joke? You were directly asked to disengage and stop making provocative comments by an administrator on your talk page. Your assurances that you would lasted next to no time at all. All you ever seem to want to do is attack other editors. We should not have to tolerate your unprovoked attacks. And my criticism of the administrator's inconsistent behaviour was warranted in the circumstances. Administrators are not exempt from criticism by other editors. Afterwriting (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The directive to disengage was directed at everyone including yourself, and you have failed to comply, you have unnecessarily added derogative comments to my talk page, and you cannot seem to stop for a second not to embelish the facts to suit your own agenda. That is the reality of what is going on here --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the general request on the article talk page for editors to disengage, the same administrator made a personal request on your talk page for you to disengage and to stop making provocative comments. The comments that I made on your talk page were about your lack of competence. If you want to intrepret this as being "derogative" then so be it. You provoke and provoke and provoke and then complain with self-pity when those you've provoked respond as might be expected. Afterwriting (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense and further to the point I approached said administrator to discuss the matters. You cannot stop embellishing the facts to suit your own agenda, you fail to acknowledge your contribution to this mess and you fail to acknowledge both your own and HiLo48s behaviour. HiLo48 as noted above is far from a saint, you are not innocent I am not the provocateur you make me out to be, please stop this behaviour of going around and embellishing the facts to suit your own agenda simply because I disagree with you about what has been going on Talk:soccer in Australia Your own behaviour is a disgrace and you will not acknowledge that it simply has a whole hell of a lot to do with your own actions --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you believe that denial is a river in Egypt. You also seem to have failed to notice that a number of other editors have also commented on your lack of competence as well as your habitual incivility (see above for example). I am now ending my part in this "discussion". You will want to have the last word as usual. I won't be bothering to read any more of your denials and self-pitying accusations so anything you have to say will only be a waste of your own time. Afterwriting (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL --Orestes1984 (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Stalking seems to be too common in Wikipedia these days, it is done by certain admins as well. But so is acting like a drama queen and complaining here about every trivial grievance. I guess ANI *is* the new drama queen hangout of Wikipedia. Let's close this section, as there is nothing that requires admin interference. jni (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? You're an admin and you make comments like that? ES&L 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed --Orestes1984 (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

May I just point out that it is utterly hypocritical for HiLo48 to complain about incivility. I see absolutely nothing objectionable from Orestes here. Move on.--WaltCip (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yet more

HiLo48 asked Orestes1984 to stay away from his talk page here and here. Both time he immediately responded with yet further edits here and here. Today Orestes1984 started to post again to HiLo48's talk page here and here. He was then reminded that he had been asked to stay away by this edit by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. Orestes1984 then responded with a series of edits [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I then noticed this activity and posted this message, reminding Orestes yet again that he should stay off HiLo48's talk page. He again replied here and here When HiLo48 once again repeated his instruction for Orestes to stay off the talk page here. I replied to Orestes1984 with the advice that that continuing to post after being instructed not to would have consequences here and once again Orestes1984 once more posted here. This guy just does not get it. I propose that some admin action is required here, at the very least an IBAN, but I think a block is probably warranted as well. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see that a block has already been applied. Hopefully this will serve as a salutary lesson. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuous WP:NPA (Casting Aspersions) Violations

Dear Administrators,
I find myself here practically forced to report a user that (despite various warnings) refuses to stop casting serious aspersions towards me.
The user in question, User:Astynax has been continuously casting aspersions of academic dishonesty, specifically accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content", against my editing account.

• Please see: [11][12][13].

Astynax defends his behavior by claiming that, based on the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBARG, the arguments brought up in the "evidence phase" of the case are valid to be attributed to the Arbitration Committee's voice & final decision.
Nonetheless, this perspective has been disputed both by arbitrator Salvio (see [14]) & administrator ES&L (see [15][16][17]). In fact, both ended up recommending that I take any further aspersion casting to AN/I:

• Salvio ([18]): "Our findings of fact are contained in the final decision and that's the only thing that it can be said to have been officially stated by arbcom. And if you think another person has been hurling groundless accusations at you, the best approach would be to talk to the other party and, failing that, to start an ANI thread."
• ES&L ([19]): "Marshal was advised to take others' behaviour to ANI, and that's that. Period. That said, Asyntax has spent every single one of his posts here proving Marshal to be right. Asyntax' comments are 110 degrees off of what the findings of fact were, and is ascribing very different words and meanings to ArbCom's findings. This clearly violates WP:NPA (see WP:WIAPA), and refuses to remove them even when appropriately notified of their error."

Moreover, not only have I tried to resolve this issue with Astynax, requesting him quite clearly to stop his aggressions ([20][21]), but ES&L also tried to reason with him ([22][23]). Yet, Astynax declined to stop his abusive comments & literally told ES&L to stop posting on his talk page ([24]): "Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this subject or with similar baseless charges and/or patronizing insults as to my maturity." Basically, Astynax refuses to drop the stick.
Due to this situation, I am reporting User:Astynax at AN/I for WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND breaches.
Since the accusations made by Astynax are defamations, and he outright refuses to listen and get the point ([25][26]), I believe an indefinite block is in order until the user agrees to stop casting aspersions (per the same principle mentioned by the Arbitration Committee) towards me and other editors involved in the arbitration case.
However, please consider my recommendation as nothing more than a suggestion.
Thanks in advance! Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is a very bad situation. I agree with the assertion that MarshalN20 was never sanctioned for POV-pushing or fringe editing; in fact, it's telling that ArbCom explicitly stated that Cambalachero was being sanctioned for POV-pushing but MarshalN20. Based on how long this same cast of characters and topic area have been popping up in various venues, I don't know that we're ever going to have peaceful editing for these editors until there are complete, all-around interaction bans. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reply by Astynax: MarshalN20 lodged a request for clarification and amendment of his topic ban at WP:ARCA[27] on the basis of his accusation that a Signpost article had misrepresented his role in an ARBCOM case in which he was topic-banned (he has since redacted his request and dropped asking for amendment of his sanction). As the Signpost piece in question seems to accurately present the case, I commented on the request for clarification and amendment, especially as the editor who authored the piece has a "retired" banner on his/her user page (the author has since commented at ARCA). I believe my comments in defense of the piece are accurate. MarshalN20 was indefinitely topic-banned from all articles, discussions and other content dealing with the history of Latin America explicitly for tendentious editing, which specifically encompasses PoV-pushing behavior, and for battleground behavior.[28] Per the definition of tendentious editing used in the ARBCOM Final decision, "Tendentious editing: 8) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles, or in extreme cases from the site." Further, the Final decision states, "Locus of dispute: 1) This dispute primarily involves allegations of POV-pushing and other poor user conduct by certain editors editing Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles. The disputes among those editors extends to many articles related to the history of Latin America." (note that the case was raised only regarding the behavior of 2 editors: MarshalN20 and Cambalachero, as a result of which, both of whom were topic-banned from any involvement in articles, discussions or other content touching on Latin American history). Thus, it seems to my aged eyes that the Signpost article was on rock-solid ground. Topic bans are not issued for a mere 3 breaches, and I'm confident that ARBCOM took into consideration MarshalN20's behavior beyond the 3 diffs he prefers to cite in disputing the conclusion that he had engaged in tendentious editing and/or battleground behavior. Nor is there the slightest basis for his accusation that I (and others MarshalN20 has similarly accused) have been traipsing around Wikipedia spreading a "Black legend"[29][30][31] Nor am I aware of why I have been singled out here and accused of spreading the purported "Black Legend". • Astynax ^talk 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Astynax You "believe" your comments are accurate, but you have been quite clearly made aware that they are inaccurate, and are contrary to WP:NPA. What you believe is irrelevant - you might believe the Easter Bunny is blue; so what. The proof was clearly laid out for you, but you insist on putting your own spin, and making bizarre allusions to policy - instead of actually reading exactly what ArbCom found as a finding of fact. You cannot add words, change words, or ascribe different meanings. You are continuing to make unsubstantiated personal attacks against Marshal, and you continue to repeat them ad nauseum. So, the real result here is one of two things (or a combination thereof): a one-way interaction ban and/or an indefinite block until you convince the community that you're prepared to stop attacking someone (or anyone, for that fact) willy-nilly across the project - and any unblock would require you to formally withdraw and strike all of your false accusations/personal attacks from across the entire project ES&L 12:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. As I quoted above, the Arbcom final decision did explicitly define "tendentious editing" as "engaging in sustained point-of-view editing". MarshalN20 was topic-banned for "tendentious editing" under that definition. Nothing has been distorted, either in the Signpost article, which I did not participate in writing, or in my comments on the accusations MarshalN20 leveled regarding the article's content and motivations at ARCA in yet another request to amend his sanctions. Your "proof" has consisted entirely of your own say-so, based upon a strangely selective reading of the Arbcom Final decision. Your repetition of MarshalN20's false charge that I have been attacking him "willy-nilly across the project" is made without a shred of substantiation. Other than my comment on the ARCA page, this is the only place I have commented on this issue—an issue instigated by MarshalN20 both there and here, and not by me. I find your belligerent tone, both here, on my talk and at ARCA to be highly inappropriate and unconstructive. • Astynax ^talk 18:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Some responses:

1. I did not ask for an amendment to my sanction. I asked for an amendment for editors, such as Astynax, to stop throwing unjustified insults at me (i.e., drop the stick on a case that was resolved many months ago).
2. The three diffs I present are the same that Arbcom used to provide examples of the behavior I exhibited that they found problematic. None of those diffs justify Astynax's accusations.
3. The tendentious editing defined in this case has nothing to do with Astynax's repetitive accusations of "intransigent pushing PoV and fringe content". In fact, Arbcom was concerned by my behavior in article talk spaces (to the point there is a principle on how talk pages should be properly used), and that is exactly what is shown in Arbcom's diffs. On the other hand, Astynax's accusations equate the matter with academic dishonesty, which is a serious WP:NPA breach.
4. Lastly, and this is where Wee Curry Monster's WP:MEAT statement should be taken into consideration, a prior WP:IBAN instituted among the parties (due to mutual "acrimonious" behavior) is directly related to the same accusations Astynax is now raising towards me. I would like to provide diffs that show how Astynax's accusations relate to the accusations that partially led to the IBAN, but that would breach my IBAN with the other party (maybe reading the prior IBAN situation might help: [32]).

Ultimately, the point here is that this matter concerns a resolved arbitration case to which Astynax was not an involved party (at least by the case's official page). There is no justification for him or others to continue casting aspersions on the parties, all of which received sanctions (some stronger than others) for their inappropriate behavior. Continuous aspersion casting, at this time, is nothing more than WP:GRUDGE and WP:BATTLEGROUND attitudes that should not be tolerated by anyone's standards (especially when considering WP:COMPETENCE and WP:REAL).

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, seriously? You could have simply taken this time to apologize and move on, but instead decide to continue what various editors have identified as unnecessarily harsh insults.

You really don't even have to apologize. Simply drop the stick.

But, at this point the matter has gone well-beyond the point of return for you (or so it seems by your attitude).

Given this situation, I agree with Laser_brain & Wee Curry Monster that an interaction ban between Astynax and myself is an appropriate solution. Due to the continuous WP:NPA breaches, I would also recommend a block to not only stop the personal attacks but also set precedent on others who want to continue casting aspersions on this case.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not have to block anyone. The ideal outcome is that you and Astynax can edit in peace. However, I'm curious as to whether Astynax would voluntarily agree to an interaction ban so we can put this to bed. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Laser_brain. Two-way or one-way interaction bans would be fine by me. I have no need to talk about or with Astynax on anything. He is not even a party to the arbitration case, which makes his continuous involvement all the more problematic.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Laser brain: Until MarshalN20 leveled his accusations against Neotarf and the Signpost article at ARCA last Saturday, I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban, so an interaction ban would be irrelevant unless MarshalN20 again raises similar baseless accusations. In such a case, I feel an interaction ban would unjustly prevent me from commenting or discussing with others. I have not distorted anything. I have not been incivil in commenting on and reiterating the Arbcom case and ruling at ARCA, and now here. I have not spun conspiracy theories about cabals bent on persecuting me or spreading "Black Legends". Showing at ARCA the basis for the statements in the Signpost article, which MarshalN20 considers a personal attack, does not rise to the level of NPA. MarshalN20 raised the issues and was the person who bumped up the arbcom case yet again, not me, and I am here simply because I commented on and disputed his allegations. I am completely innocent of the slanderous and unsubstantiated accusations by MarshalN20 and ES&L that I've been going around Wikipedia spreading false charges about MarshalN20. There is no factual basis in my behavior for MarshalN20's initial complaint and demand that I be banned, nor in the stuff he continues to pile on (I expect the kitchen sink to be thrown in next). I imagine this is stuff leftover from prior to his topic ban, as he has not pointed to a single incident other than my comments at ARCA, which themselves were responses to allegations he raised. A ban, even my agreeing to accept such, would be a blot on my otherwise fairly clean record. • Astynax ^talk 19:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Astynax, all you're being asked is to stop your accusations and remove them from the places you made them. The request is not unreasonable, particularly when considering your claim that you have slandered me in only a few places. In fact, professional as they would be, apologies are not even required to resolve this matter. However, by outright refusing to do these simple things and instead deciding to continue casting aspersions, you are effectively piling stuff onto yourself.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fairly blatant meat puppetry here

Sadly as someone who has been on the periphery of this long term, I have to note there has been a long term history of meat puppetry associated with WP:BraC. I first became aware of this some time ago, when somewhat perplexed asked why the WP article on the War of the Triple Alliance (common English name) was named Paraguayan War (common name in Brazil). There I found User:Lecen recruited a number of editors from that project to vote in his favour of retaining the move he'd engendered to the fringe name. Enraged by my more than polite questions Lecen was eventually blocked for his combative behaviour and has nurtured a grudge ever since.

I have to note that User:Asyntax is often a proxy for User:Lecen (eg Talk:Paraguayan War/Archive 1#Requested move 2012) and appears to be continuing the dispute between Lecen and MarshalN20 by proxy. There is already an arbcom sanctioned interaction between Lecen and Marshal, I would recommend it is extended. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And your basis for that accusation is what? You are hardly a neutral observer and have raised the Paraguayan War name change issue repeatedly since you and MarshalN20 failed to gain and rejected consensus. I am certain that uninvolved admins can and will investigate your puppetry charge, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with MarshalN20's incident report above. • Astynax ^talk 23:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Formal proposal

I stated it above, but seeing Astynax' response, I'm appalled - it's clear that in order to protect this project - and its editors (even in heated areas), that something needs to be done. They are clearly attempting to discredit MarshalN20, and to drive him off certain sets of articles on Wikipedia as per WP:HARASS.

• Option 1: Astynax is subject to a 1-way WP:IB with MarshalN20
• Option 2: Astynax is indefinitely blocked until they supply a WP:GAB compliant unblock request, which must include a promise to immediately cease making further comments that cast aspersion on MarshalN20, and that they will immediately retract and strike all previous instances
• Option 3: Both Option 1 and option 2 combined
• Option 4: No action against Astynax

Discussion

• Unfortunate support of option 3 added: as first choice, option 1 as second choice ES&L 21:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• A standard two-way IB between Astynax and Marshal is a much more robust solution here. The one-way IB hardly ever works out well, except in the case of harassment-only SPAs, which Astynax doesn't seem to be. If my memory of this is isn't wrong, Marshal was initially given a one-way IB with Lecen, which was then made two-way because the one-way IB didn't work out well. Let's not prolong the drama by new one-way IBs in this area... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel a two-way IB may be later misinterpreted as reflecting mutual antagonism. I don't think this is the case here. The mentioned two-way IB was implemented on August 2013. The original case did not have any interaction bans. Arbitrator T. Canens wrote, "When I drafted the PD in this case, I considered including interaction bans; I decided against that because I thought the topic bans may well be sufficient to separate the parties and prevent the acrimonious interactions. Unfortunately, the continued acrimonious interactions despite the topic ban means that interaction bans are necessary" ([33]). This IBAN was later breached, not by me, and with accusations that mirror Astynax's current claims (please see [34]).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps a one-way IB is more indicative of the issue and perhaps a better solution (see my reasons in my response to Someone not using his real name). It's important to point out that Astynax writes, "I cannot recall any interaction with MarshalN20 since his topic ban" ([35]). Indeed, I have not interacted with Astynax since the arbitration case closed. This makes Astynax's sudden re-appearance and unwarranted accusations (which are eerily similar, if not exact, to the "acrimonious" accusations that partially led to the IBAN of August 2013; please see [36]) all the more indicative of a WP:MEAT situation. Taking this all into consideration, it seems to me that Option 3 is indeed the best solution.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I'm the other user that Astynax talks about in his messages, I have the same topic ban that MarshalN20 has. I usually prefer to deny recognition when someone says bad things about me, to avoid increasing drama. Still, I don't like to be periodically mentioned from out of the blue as if I was the root of all evil, or something like that. It's specially strange coming from Astynax, as I have not interacted with him since... well, I don't remember if I ever interacted with him personally at all (I only remember his name from discussions involving several users). Yes, I'm topic banned, but Wikipedia:Banning policy#Conduct towards banned editors clarifies in bold font that "It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors, whether by mocking, baiting, or otherwise abusing them. Personal attacks, outing and other behaviours remain unacceptable even if directed towards a banned editor." I have moved on since the topic ban, I chose other topics of articles to continue editing, I did not interact with the editors that supported the ban any more than strictly necessary, and I'm not going around wikipedia claiming to be a victim or a martyr. I expect people like Astynax to do the same and move on as well, but if he can't do that on his own, then an interaction ban should be needed. If I do not react when he accuses me of wrongdoings, that doesn't mean that I don't care Cambalachero (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

This conversation started out at the arbitration committee requests for clarification, but was withdrawn and brought here. Originally Marshal claimed he was being accused of "being a fascist" in the Signpost's arbitration report, but the reference to Fascism refered to the use of sources sympathetic to 'Nacionalismos', who were associated with the Revisionismo movement of the 1930s. I have not examined these sources myself, but the claims seem well-referenced. If Marshal means to defend the use of these sources, it would seem he needs to find reliable sources that say otherwise.

There are already interaction bans in effect for this case, but it seems they are not working, as more uninvolved users are getting dragged into the dispute. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The enforcement (or not) of the interaction bans is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. There is no interaction ban between MarshalN20 and Astinax, the proposal here is precisely if it's needed to establish one, if doing something else, or if not doing anything. Cambalachero (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at the ArbCom page, adding Neotarf to the mutual IBAN with Cambalachero and MarshalN20, should settle the matter for the foreseeable future. Since the latter two are topic banned, perennially bringing them into discussion is WP:DEADHORSE unless it's on some ArbCom page. I'm not sure why ArbCom has punted (or allowed this to be punted to) ANI. Probably typical bureaucratic delay or they couldn't decide what to do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • A sensible solution would be to perhaps topic ban Neotarf from the "Argentine history" Arbcom case, and to institute a 1-way or mutual IBAN between MarshalN20 (myself) and Astynax. An IBAN between Astynax and Cambalachero would also be a logical solution to prevent further problems.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Incivility and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT by User:NE2

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

---

Primarily, this is the edit I am starting this for.[37], which I find grossly incivil and downright degrading. This forms my endcap on continued stubborness by NE2 to work with some recent changes that have otherwise garnered unanimous consensus. Several massive templates were recently converted to Lua, which completely erases a longstanding problem of page edits timing out on large articles. However, NE2 has been very stubborn about this change because of his use of one of the templates combined with manually wikicoding the rest of a table. Instead of working with the majority to fix the articles that are broken, he has been cross posting to numerous places in order to get his way. This is getting old, uncivil, and something needs to be done. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the comment linked above was in reference to me, I chose to ignore the above comment, since I don't have nor ever will I have a wife, since I'm not into that, but it was rather uncivil. --AdmrBoltz 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think NE2 was just pointing out that he believed you were asking him a loaded question. You assumed he was listing articles randomly, this was a rather snarky way of saying your assumption was wrong. AniMate 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Granted, my initial response wasn't the best - but in his list of articles there is an FA and a GA... thus obviously notable. --AdmrBoltz 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

An admin might want to take care of Template talk:Jcttop/core - the template was recently changed to use HTML table code rather than wikicode, which for whatever reason doesn't allow wikicode inside for individual rows:

|- |b

a

--NE2 23:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the links in question, I see no evidence of basic bad behavior; as AniMate says, the "wife" bit is simply an allusion to the traditional complex question "have you stopped beating your wife?" On top of that, I see technical discussions in the links, but nothing of the sort that deserves to be called disruptive, let alone worthy of a block or other sanction. If you believe that this is a situation warranting admin intervention, you really need to supply a lot more links — the only way this kind of thing could be disruptive is if there's a long history, and you need lots of additional links/diffs to demonstrate that there's a long history of disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Isn't this just a specialised case of edit warring over the colour of templates? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • No, more like not edit warring (since the templates are protected) over needing to use only red templates if you start the table with a red template, even when the red templates don't do what you're looking to do. --NE2 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• A recent post at WT:LUA#Wikitext tables? claims that the problem has been resolved, and if a page shows a problem, it should be purged. If that does not fix it, the problem should be reported again. Re the "wife" issue: that is a completely standard reply to a loaded question, and is not incivility. Johnuniq (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Project Page of India's First Student Collaboration Initiative Speedy Deleted

I request the users/administrators to read the follow details carefully and patiently. My language may not be good.

I was editing Wikipedia since 2005. I am also Working in Excel Group of Schools, Thiruvattar. I, upon request from a senior Wikimedia Chapter Member, participated in the Wiki-Kanya, a wikipedia workshop conducted in Nagercoil, by the district administration to promote Wikipedia among College Students. Some 10 Wikipedia Volunteers ( including administrators and Wikimedia India Chapter members)participated in the event. Mean-while, there in our school we were planning to initiate a group of clubs from the academic year 2013-14 onwards. Inspired by the event, Web-Kanya, I expressed the idea with the delegating of starting a Wikipedia Club in Excel Group of Schools. Part of the Delegation (including chapter members) who took part in Wiki-Kanya also visited our school and discussed about the feasibility of starting a club there. Following the discussions we went ahead with the move to start a Wikipedia Club in our school named "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel (deleted few hours before, hence the red-link)" as a student collaboration initiative. This was the first of its kind in India and probably in the world. This student Club was inagurated by Theni. M. Subramani, a Tamil Wikipedia Administrator on 10 August 2013. It includes 70 School Students from 3 schools under Excel Group of Schools. The objective of the Club is to promote Wikipedia Editing among School Students. We made weekly schedules and started making students aware of Wikipedia from September 2013.

In November 2014, I participated in the 10th Anniversary of the Tamil Wikipedia held in Anna University, Chennai. There I discussed about our Club with the Wikimedia Chapter Members, Administrators etc. They requested the District administration of Kanyakumari District to help/assist our initiative in all possible means. Since the district administration as well as the District Collector are well aware of potentialities of Wikipedia ( quiet unusual here in this part of the world), they contacted me and enquired about the how abouts of our club. I explained our mission this year to work upon the improvement of three Wikipedia articles Kanyakumari District, Kanyakumari and Nagercoil to promote at least one of them to a FA class article before this June 2014. They made available the accessibility for us to the District Gazeteer, one among the highly reserved and the most reliable information resource (which includes more than 1200 pages) about the district.

The paper works are under progress regarding the source material before adding information directly to Wikipedia since we need to educate all the dimensions of Wikipedia before allowing them to click the edit & save buttons. We also conducted a Photo-tour for the students of Wikipedia Club around the district and made them to take photo-graphs on their own, which is to be uploaded to Commons shortly. Almost 90 % of the photo-graphs are ready to be uploaded and 90 % source material in case of the Kanyakumari District and 60 % in case of the Kanyakumari & Nagercoil articles which is to be refered before begining the online edits are already verified and categorised. Infact the titles for all those articles, (which were all very-much in comprehensive) were also finalized for all the 3 articles.

And it was at this time, this morning, the Project Page of the Wikipedia Club was listed for speedy deleted and was deleted before i anticipate to letting the administrators know about the project. If notability is the problem, Dinamani, one of the leading Tamil News paper in Tamil already included a feature about the Wikipedia Club Excel as the first student Wikipedia Club in India. Iam not sure about the availability of the edition online. I'll scan the page if required. A leading Tamil Magazine Tamil Computer also reported about the Clubs inaguration. The Club also have a project page in Tamil Wikipedia. We had also uploaded photographs of the inaguration and all subsequent events frequently. Again the inaugural event is again reported as news article in another daily Tamil News Paper Dinamalar

The other problem is with the Edu-Clubs page. Wikipedia Club is one among the 11 Edu-Clubs in the 3 schools. So Wikipedia Club has a Project page seperately here in Wikipedia (which was speedy deleted this morning) and The Edu-Clubs has a Article with the name Edu-Clubs. The Edu-Clubs page is being voted for deletion citing the notability though almost all of the information currently available in the page is from a leading Tamil News Paper, Dinamalar from Tamil Nadu. Anyway that is rather different.

But that is not the case with the project page of Wikipedia. This initiative is aimed to promote Wikipedia among School Students and it is first of its kind in the nation. That itself is reported by leading Newspapers in terms of Circulation and Reputation. The Wikipedia Administrators, Chapter Members etc are directly involved in the progress of the Club. But the process of this "Speedy Deletion" irritated me this morning sinceit gives me too little time to make even the administrators aware of all those things before somebody nominating it for deletion and somebody else doing the rest in the immediately following minutes. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) First off, that is a very long complaint; but more importantly, if you are disputing the deletion of an article you created, the best place to do that is at deletion review. Also, I didn't see the article before it was deleted, but if it proves to be notable after all, it can be re-created, but...it would be a good idea if someone other than you did so, as your being affiliated with it constitutes a conflict of interest. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
• (also non-admin comment/question) What was the page intended for? It did read like an actual article, which is why it was speedy-deleted. Its placement in project namespace was also problematic, as that is generally not for things like this. Perhaps you should ask the folks over at WP:Education noticeboard on how best to proceed with your club. Good luck. Ansh666 09:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The article was at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club Excel until 24 January, then moved to Excel Wikipedia Club (not by any of the page authors) and deleted under WP:CSD#A7. This isn't a particularly fair way to treat this page, which at least deserves a WP:MFD. While written like an article, it isn't clear that it was intended for anything other than project space. —Kusma (t·c) 11:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I have suggested to Kinu (the deleting admin) to undelete the page and have a discussion at MFD if necessary. —Kusma (t·c) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Restored the contents to WP Project space Wikipedia:Wikipedia Club, Excel. If necessary, have a discussion at MFD. IMHO, such initiatives should be encouraged. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there some particular reason why you didn't restore the page history? 128.243.59.55 (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably because the edit-summaries in the history are what was problematic? ES&L 13:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I thought only one of the edit summaries had to be revdeleted, not all of them. Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was more like 1/3 of the total edits to the page. Ansh666 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As an admin, I can verify that Epicgenius's assessment of the situation is correct here, so I've restored the older page history. Graham87 10:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it's best to reduce the use of speedy deletion for such cases given that it is not in the article namespace and because these hurt outreach programs in critically under-represented areas. Not to say that deletions or merges should be moderated, but just the speedy part, please. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 14:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the article is written like an article not a project page, but is in project namespace so people are very confused. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed treated like a WP:FAKEARTICLE (albeit not in userspace). @Vaikunda Raja: could you explain exactly what this page is intended for? Ansh666 20:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I echo this sentiment: this is nothing more than a very detailed page about the history, etc., of the club itself that reads like an article, rather than being what a hub for collaborative editing would ideally look like in the Wikipedia namespace. Frankly, it was wholly inappropriate in the Article namespace, hence why I found deleting it when it was moved there a reasonable course of action; likewise, its appropriateness in the Wikipedia namespace, as currently written, is questionable. Restoring the content seems like a good idea at the moment, pending discussion, and I do not oppose the reversion of my deletion, but some information from the OP on what the goals, purpose, etc., of this page are would be helpful in determining the best course of action and figuring out where, if anywhere, this page belongs. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for bringing the the page back.

This is a collaboration initiative for Wikipedia started in Excel Group of Schools (3 Schools) being inspired by the Wiki-Kanya Program held at Kanyakumari last year. It is aimed at making School students of the schools wiki-conscious initially and gradually making them to contribute to Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Already we've started to work upon few assignments mentioned above in detail. More than half of the work is done. But those things are not reflected here in Wikipedia partly because of our lack of experience in handling things and partly because of the fact that we are cautious about allowing direct online access since we are dealing with school children. We make them to work almost completely in paper and offline first and then allow them to upload those things under our supervision.

A photo-tour was conducted this 4th Jan 2014 (which was also elaborated above in detail) in which students took their own photographs with their camers and will be uploading them to commons later.

Though I am here in Wikipedia for some years I've no clear ideas about how a project page should be. We will be improving the page shortly according the Wikipedia's guidelines and eventually we will be moving the page to meta. Once again I thank all the users for your helps and valuable suggestions. Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe what you are really aiming for is something covered by WP:WIKIPROJECT. I think the misunderstanding arose from the use of the words "Project page" that appears at the top of every page in WP. Blackmane (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Persistent plagiarism by User:Der Spion

• Der Spion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eben Alexander (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• WP:COPYVIO source: [38]
• Plagiarized content:
  • Exact phrase: there was no way that any of the functions including vision, hearing, emotion, memory, language, or logic could possibly have been intact
  • Exact phrase except change of "but" to "yet":
    • Source: Only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, but no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness.”
    • WP article: only isolated pockets of deep cortical neurons were still sputtering, yet no broad networks capable of generating anything like what we call “consciousness”
  • Questionable use of the same phrases "made sure" and "flooded my[his] brain":
    • Source: The E. coli bacteria that flooded my brain during my illness made sure of that.
    • WP article: This was made sure by the E. coli bacteria that flooded his brain.
• User inserts this plagiarized material at least four times: [39][40][41][42]
• My copyvio warnings to stop plagiarizing: [43][44][45][46][47]

I don't understand why this person continues to plagiarize. vzaak 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, is there a better way in your eyes to express all relevant aspects of these two (!) sentences without maundering around endlessly or changing their message? I think, nobody is hurt if you leave the status quo as it is. In addition: You need to put both criticism and response in a context that allows the reader to receive a good and complete overview of the whole discussion. But, for sure, you won't achive that by amputating the line of argumentation on either side. So please try to relax and think in a more constructive way than constantly accusing with a wagging finger "don't do this" and "don't do that". I don't understand why this person keeps bothering me and complaining about my trials to improve the article instead of making a constructive contribution for once.--Der Spion (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, "leaving the status quo as it is" hurts Wikipedia as it puts the Foundation in legal jeopardy. This is a copyright violation and must be removed straight away. This is a policy and there is no if's or but's. This is one policy that when you are told "don't do this" you have no choice but to comply. Failure to do so has led to many accounts being indefinitely blocked in the past. The burden is on you as the editor who wants to insert the relevant detail, with appropriate sourcing, to present the text in a way that does not place the Foundation at legal risk. Blackmane (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation or plagiarism? They are very different. One is illegal the other is not. If this is just plagiarizing then legal threats are not justified. Plagiarism is generally considered unethical but single sentences copied exactly that express an idea that isn't novel by the original author is not an issue. "The sky is blue" is perfectly acceptable plagiarizing and we don't need to rephrase it because someone else said it first. WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay, not a guideline or policy. --DHeyward (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Der Spion - sorry, but you seem to be in the wrong here. Could you please help by fixing examples of too close WP:PARAPHRASE paraphrasing in your contributions? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There were multiple problems with the user's edits: plagiarism, undue promotional content, and unreliable sources. Just rephrasing the plagiarism doesn't address the other problems. One possibility is to trim huge preceding quote and add a summary. User was not convinced to stop plagiarizing after five warnings plus an ANI notice, so maybe there's a competence issue. vzaak 23:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Do whatever you want - I'm completely brassed off...--Der Spion (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think you're "brassed off", imagine how the people whose work you copied feel! ES&L 17:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you think, you can do better job: go for it! But stop nagging at users who just want to make a useful contribution...--Der Spion (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Editors are throwing labels around that are different.
WP:COPYVIO is a policy. It is policy not violate copyrights.
WP:PLAGIARISM is a guideline. It is widely adhered to but is not a policy violation.
WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay.

Copyright violations are separate from plagiarism. If an editor notices plagiarism, they should correct it themselves much like MOS guidelines. It is inappropriate to drop WP:COPYVIO notices for plagiarism. If it's a copyright violation, it should not be called plagiarism as it's a copyright violation. Copyright violations should be deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Back to the practical matter at hand, straightforward cases of WP:COPYVIO are shown above, and after five warnings and this ANI thread, the editor in question still does not seem to acknowledge that there is problem. vzaak 06:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

What makes them copyright violations? You called it plagiarizing. There is no problem with the editor if it's plagiarizing, just fix it like you would an MOS by rewording it. Plagiarism is not a crime or policy violation. It's like reporting someone for MOS violations. --DHeyward (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If an editor plagiarizes a source under copyright protection, then it is a copyright violation. Many editors, including myself, have inadvertently plagiarized a source, and that is forgivable. What is much more troubling is how close the violations are to the original text and the fact that they have been repeatedly reinserted into the article. It is the responsibility of the editor adding text to refrain from repeating or edit warring over these violations once they have been pointed out, not the responsibility of other editors to clean up after them. Gamaliel (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You are making a distinction without a difference. A copyvio is a copyvio regardless of plagiarizing, quoting, paraphrasing or sourcing. Quoting and citing can eliminate plagiarism, but not a copyvio. If the amount of material could be quoted and cited, it's generally has to fall under "fair use." How it's used (whether sourced or plagiarized) is not relevant to copyright. In reality this case is plagiarizing and needs attribution. It's fair use (even if paraphrased) but it's not a copyvio. --DHeyward (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise

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

---

The user intentionally created senseless reverts to my edits which by all means were legitimate. He furthermore created an edit way with what I believe to be different personas. He then continues for several days now to follow me around and do the exact opposite of what I say or do. He has stalked, threatened and harassed me. Also recently I left a message with another admin and he responded instead which to me meant he was one and the same person. So I would like to suggest that this juvenile who has along history of poor administration work and who has also earned a rogue like reputation, be barred from further administration work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm totally sure that will happen. But perhaps you could sully your hands with something as sordid as evidence regarding your case? Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll need to provide some WP:DIFFs that show these supposed actions - otherwise a) nothing can be acted upon and b) it's actually considered to be a personal attack ES&L 20:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Look out for the WP:BOOMERANG. Ansh666 20:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ephestion, stop plastering your accusations all over Wikipedia. Seriously, it's disruptive and is the last thing you should be doing following the expiry of your block. Now one is stalking or harassing you, let along using multiple accounts to do so, and if you can't find a way to raise concerns without attacking other editors then it's time for you to log off and find something constructive to do before you find yourself blocked again. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I am new and don't know how to link to my contributions. Everything I have typed has been personally attacked, reverted and voted against by him. I don't know how to link but for instance: I was asking Bbb23 how to give fair use of this image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png of which I own. For the Article Stavros Damianides which Future Perfect at Sunrise decided to vote against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stavros_Damianides which is an article that has been part of Wiki for 10 years and is about Australia's best bouzouki player. The concrete evidence is in the newspaper articles of The Western Australian and Daily news. (pre internet era and Greek minority in Australia, like Robert Johnson was in USA). Not only this but he claims on my Web page that any further edits will be punished:

"You have basically made no constructive encyclopedic article contributions, ever.

So, let me make this entirely clear: I really don't know why you weren't permanently blocked a long time ago, but I guarantee that if I see you making any further edit trying to pass off your own opinion as encyclopedic facts, on any article whatsoever, I will see to it that you are blocked swiftly and permanently. This is your very last warning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)"

This is just in a 3 or so day time span. Oh and if you look at my contributions in the last few days you will notice every article I have edited, he has reverted. I don't know how to link reverts but I will try here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ephestion nope i failed so here is my contrib list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 20:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ephestion: To link to your contribs, it is recommended that you write out the Wikipedia code, Special:Contribs/Ephestion, instead of the actual web address, for internal Wikipedia links. Anyway, do you have any diffs of the reverts? Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• [48], [49],

[50]. There are many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, I looked at those diffs. I do not think that Ephestion is a very large net positive to the project, and this complaint (and the AfD, for instance) is indicative of an unwillingness to learn. Drmies (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'll be less tactful. Best case, Ephestion is aggresively incompetent. Worst case ... --Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well phrased, Bbb. There's a comment on my talk page about the phrase "awesomely weird"; I think your rhetorical skills are considerably strong. Also, I agree. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well in the case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stavros_Damianides_Hyde_Park_Festival,_Channel_9_Stage.png where I own the image I am trying to upload it to help validate the Article of Stavros Damianides. The admins who have seen the article have tried to delete the article and the picture. Yet I am the owner and I am saying it's ok to use it as in a fair use way for the article. I am not releasing it to the public or giving it away. But for sake of making the article valid and proving the popularity of the musician in question the image was important. But the admins have chosen to delete the picture. I am not sure if the original owner of the article is around, but the article had a lot more content than it does now because it seems to be picked on for deletion by some bad seed admins. So in that sense how does that apply to what you just said? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ephestion (talk • contribs) 21:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If as uploader you have the copyright to it, we cannot accept it under a non-free license. If you wish to contribute it, please release it under a free license. Werieth (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are the photographer/copyright owner of the file, you're welcome to upload it, but we need to have it uploaded as a free image (under a CC-BY or GFDL-type license which still gives you attribution and other copyright controls but not as strong as normal copyright licensing). If you are not able to do that as a contributor to WP, then we cannot accept the image, even under fair use. We expect all content provided by WP editors to be freely licensed (as outlined by our Terms of Use). As the performer is deceases there is likely other media out there (probably non-free but usable under fair use) that can be included. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that Ephestion owns the copyright to the image. As for the subject performer, I don't think there are many images of him on the web as he isn't sufficiently notable to have many (his article is currently at AfD). I found one at Find A Grave (assuming it's real, when he was young) and one at a Fox website (when he was old). I can't tell if it's the same person.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ephestion has asked me on my talk page to change the license to CC-BY, but I would like to know why you're not sure on if he owns to photo before doing so (just in case). --MASEM (t) 22:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Several reasons, none of them conclusive by themselves. First, look at the section above this one to get a feel for the editor. Second, Future Perfect at Sunrise knows more about this. See this discussion on Ephestion's talk page. Third, the picture is of someone young but who died in 2001. How old would Ephestion have been if he'd taken the picture? Finally, according to the information from the upload, the picture was created by GIMP, which is an image editor. Perhaps, Ephestion found a copy of the picture in hard copy somewhere, scanned it, and then passed it off as his own. There are a lot of unsavory things going on here and no basis for accepting in good faith anything Ephestion says.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll hold off doing anything, as yes, there's enough suspicious elements (in addition to lack of history from the editor to be able to assume its free within reason.) but its best to keep in mind that this request has been made to make it a free image if we can satisfactorily state it fine. --MASEM (t) 14:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

There are interlacing artifacts in the image. This means almost certainly that it's a photo of a TV screen, or an image ripped from videotape source. I'm not sure what year this image is supposed to date to, but it seems quite unlikely that it's from a personal camcorder. In the former cases, this means that the image was published previously and that we need a release via OTRS. In the latter, well, I propose that there's enough uncertainty as to the origin of the image to also require an OTRS-compliant release. And even then it's a crap quality image, to be honest. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It can't be any more recent than 2001 because that is when Damianides died. I'd like to note that Ephestion has now added a CC-by license but then I agree with Mendaliv that this looks much like a screenshot or a videotape still. De728631 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Just going by the "feel" of the image, in terms of quality mostly, it seems like something from the early-to-mid eighties, at least in terms of "good" videotape production (if it's crap, it could be from the early-to-mid 90s, and camcorder, all the way up to Stavros' death). The unusual resolution might make you think camcorder, since it's not a standard TV resolution (you'd expect a DVD rip to come out at 480i or 480p, and a lot of transfer hardware will put out at higher resolutions). But it does come close to the XGA resolution that 4:3 HDTV may be transmitted with (but then again it might just be a screenshot of a maximized Windows Media Player with the bottom bar cropped off, or similar). I don't know though. Regardless, the image is crappy enough that it really doesn't serve any useful purpose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 January 27. De728631 (talk) 12:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Got F9'd. As an aside, the uploader has now confirmed that he does not have copyright in the image. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note: The above, starting with "Well in the case of", was originally in the "Help on who decides "fair use" and the "no equivalent" policy for pictures on Wikipedia?" section below. I'm pretty sure it was intended to be part of this discussion, so I've shifted it here. If I was wrong, then by all means toss a minnow in my direction and revert. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, I think you're wrong, but I also think it's better to have it in this thread, so I'm glad you moved it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not terribly confident that this editor is going to get on well here. Now, after Bbb23 asked him a question on his talk page, he replied "I think your IP should be compared with Template:Future Perfect at Sunrise can you do that without bias and prove that you are in-fact not the same person?". No good faith there at all. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:ALLSOCKS ES&L 12:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be honoured to be a sock of Future Perfect at Sunrise. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know about that. I did, however, delete the offending file after indef-blocking the editor after they started going down the list of admin posting their rant about juvenile admins. For the record, I'm sure that Fut. Perf. is more than a hundred years old. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Government IPs are whitewashing the page of a US Congress member

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

---

Details: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers#Why_is_there_no_indication_of_her_political_positions_here.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herp Derp (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved in your allegations. But just to let you know, you can request protection for articles which have a high level of IP vandalism - this prevents IP users from editing the page: they would have to create a username and sign in to edit.

You can request this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Thanks --Rushton2010 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, The Bushranger, well, sure, thanks for closing this and all, but some abusive admin power, mixed with some flawless editorial skills, is sometimes called for--good thing I have both in ample supply. I restored some of the info that was removed without explanation (though with plenty of motivation, no doubt), and applied some long-term semi-protection to the article: there is plenty of evidence laid out on the talk page. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Jaqeli and User:FactStraight

Jaqeli and FactStraight are having a content dispute on several articles dealing with current, living descendants of the Bagrationi dynasty (which ruled Georgia until its takeover by the Russian empire in the early 19th century). See the revision history and talk pages for Batonishvili, Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky, and Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011). I have been asked to intervene (see User talk:Richwales#User:FactStraight and User talk:FactStraight#Content disputes at Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011) and related articles) — but since I have interacted with Jaqeli on content-related matters in the past and have worked on other articles relating to Georgia, I believe I am precluded per WP:INVOLVED from taking any sort of admin action in this situation. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this "content dispute" has really become an edit war; each party is claiming to be seeking NPOV and accusing the other of pushing propaganda (see the two talk page sections I cited above). I tried to talk both parties into discussing the issues calmly and suggested established dispute resolution procedures, but this didn't help. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 22:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Rich for bringing the case here and I do hope that the admins will have the strictest possible warning to anyone and especially the user FactStriaght who will try to disrupt the wikipedia articles in the future. I'd like to state that this does not happen to all Bagrationi-related articles but especially to article Bagrationi dynasty, little prince Giorgi Bagrationi (born 2011), his mother Anna Bagration-Gruzinsky and recently to article Batonishvili though I would suggest we monitor all articles concerning especially the family of little prince Giorgi including his father, grandfather and etc. User FactStraight by the lack of the attention of wider wikipedia users and admins did his best to put everywhere his biased and propagandist views and his actions should be immediately stop. I've warned him many times but he did the same over and over again and as I see no point having a consensus with that user I'd like to ask other uninvolved users and admins to monitor very closely these very articles as those are of the highest possible importance for the Georgian monarchism and articles related to it. I would agree on the strictest possible monitoring on those articles and no one should make any edit without having a consensus. Jaqeli (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The above is another statement where Jaqeli sees the issue as completely the fault of the other editor. After coming back off a standard offer, and being topic-banned from a different set of articles, Jaqeli still doesn't understand that edit warring is a two way thing. I've not had much experience with FactStraight, but in the three articles mentioned neither has presented sources in the talkpages. That said, there are a few sources mentioned in Talk:Bagrationi dynasty, but it seems some OR is present too. Is there another location where some discussion is happening?

As this issue is about how to deal with claimants to a royal line that lost its kingdom a couple of centuries ago, it probably should go through some sort of WP:DR with other users, with both users asked to leave to leave both these and other related articles in the wrong version until some conclusion emerges from the DR. CMD (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. Is there any surprise with a tone like the above that Jaqeli is topic-banned from all articles where Georgia/Armenia intersect. Perhaps it's time to expand that. This high-and-mighty attitude does not bode well for a community project ES&L 14:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Both Jaqeli and FactStraight should agree to stop making any more Bagrationi-related edits until talk page consensus is reached. If edits continue anyway, admins should consider blocking. Anyone who thinks that the 'Georgian royal house' is a reliable source should try to persuade others at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. When you do so mention there has been no monarchy for 200 years. See Karl von Habsburg for how a reasonable article can be written about the inheritor of a formerly royal line, in a case where there is enough notability. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I totally agree though it should not be the case of entire dynasty articles as most of them are not disputed in any sence. Just some from 5 to 10 articles only. Jaqeli (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unless "little prince Giorgi" is the official styling of the child, I think Jaqui is a wee bit too involved with this subject emotionally to be able,to edit this topic area objectively. This is soley based on the above rant.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

@Two kinds of pork: The kid's status being a prince is not disputed. Only thing that needs to be recognized in the future is whether he will be a royal prince Batonishvili or will stay as it is now just a prince Tavadi. Jaqeli (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a rats ass. Quit using a kid as a pawn in whatever genealogical pissing match you are tinkling for.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editor: User:Valentfred (talk)

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

---

I would like to see some advice or action taken regarding this particular editor. Here is the current incident at hand: In December 2013, I noticed that many of the professional wrestlers' articles started to appear in this Category:CS1 errors: dates. This is because when someone added a reference, they forgot to fill in the accessdate properly, for example forgetting to insert what year (like this edit). I went around to many articles to fix this silly CS1 error (I think at least 30 already, if not 50). I managed to trace several of these errors to the editor Valentfred. I posted on his talk page to notify him to stop making this error (Dec 4), but he continued making the error. I've found errors twice more here and also here and posted to his talk page again (Dec 7, Dec 27), even giving him a video to watch on how to cite. But even now, and yet he is still making this error. So what should I do?
Honestly, I have had much experience with Valentfred. If you read his talk page, it seems to me that he mostly ignores it. Read it, he doesn't reply to anything at all on his talk page, not to me, or to anyone. My memory is fuzzy, I have contacted him many times in the past because of his issues with not being able to source well but he has maybe replied once at the most (and not on this CS1 issue), or never. If you read his talk page, you can see that various Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling editors (and editors from elsewhere too) have warned him about disruptive edits ignoring reliable sources, adding non-reliable sources, adding original research etc. He really doesn't seem to have learnt much from an indef unblock overturn. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with the user in the past and can affirm that he completely ignores any advice on how to become a better editor and just continues doing his stuff like he always has. Looking at his talk page, he is repeatedly told to provide multiple sources for signature moves and he continues to ignore that. He is also told how to use the same source for multiple items of one article using <ref name>, but he doesn't do that either. He is quite simply bringing the quality of the articles down. I can pretty much go through any random top wrestler article and see his handprints all over them without even checking the edit history.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, it was me who told him about the ref names in Sep '12. Incredibly, he still has not followed my advice on that. I acknowledge that he's probably editing Wikipedia and adding information in good faith. Problem is, he doesn't really know how to do so without breaking the rules, or he might not care about breaking some rules, because he ignores advice to improve his edits. Every time he adds something to Wikipedia, the info is half-defective and other Wikipedia editors have to clean up after him. It's simply not fair to the rest of us. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reading through his talk page, there's even more. I cautioned him against using unreliable sources in July 2012 and once again in June 2013. Both times I actually linked to the list of reliable sources for professional wrestling. As you see from this edit, he is still adding unreliable sources like wrestlinginc.com which I specifically cautioned him against the second time. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, on his talk page I have come across five instances of warnings (Dec '11 to May '13) due to Valentfred changing pro wrestler's heights and weights which contradict a reliable source, or without adding another reliable source. If so, why did he recently make this edit? The sources says 6'4, he edits to 6'3. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the height change was not reverted so I fixed that. I also removed the part the user added mentioning Bubba Ray's 10 hardcore titles wins from the championship section since the article in question was about the tag team he was in with Devon and those were titles he won when he was wrestling on his own.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 174! starship.paint (talk | contribs) 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:ANI-notice I don't find any urgency to acknowledge these proper "rules of editing," so please tell me why would I have to edit in well-regulated way like all of you always warn me.}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valentfred (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Well User:Valentfred, you agreed to edit according to those proper rules of editing when you signed up to this private website. When you decide not to, it means you violate your agreement, which usually means that someone's willing to negate your ability to continue editing :-) ES&L 20:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure why you added (or tried to add) that template considering we're already on the ANI board, but...your very response indicates that you're not here to contribute effectively to the encyclopedia. I mean, you're seriously asking why you should edit properly? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Indefinite block per WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia is a collegial enterprise, and any editor who won't respond to talk page comments like this isn't going to be able to thrive here. When that is combined with an inability to recognise unreliable sources and original research, as appear to be the case with Valentfred, that really spells trouble. The blatant refusal to follow the rules (as evidenced above) makes it three strikes and out. StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Concur with StAnselm. The blatant refusal to follow the policy and guideline expectations is a commitment to continue their disruptive behaviour. Blackmane (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indef Block Just glancing at this users talk page, they apparently told Ribbon Salminen that they "don't care about the rules" four months ago. They have doubled down on that here, and have been warned more times than I care to count that their behavior isn't acceptable. They admittedly don't care and I can't see that changing when you consider that this nonsense has been going on since 2011.LM2000 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Given the problems mentioned above, the long history of warnings without obvious improvement, and most of all the declaration above that the user refuses to acknowledge "rules of editing", I've indef-blocked. Anyone who thinks clue is being achieved can unblock, although I'd strongly suggest that a lot of clue is needed before that happens. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also reverted him often enough. In fairness, the most recent didn't actually affect the article. But in the same way throwing a dud grenade in public doesn't really ruin anyone's day. Still not very nice. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive user User:Bladesmulti: "Cambridge Uni fabricates sources"

Please see this: [51] and [52] (you don't have to read all of it. Just the ending paragraphs on this links)

I'm getting really tired of this user on Wikipedia who seems to have an infinite supply of stupid arguments that are obviously bordering on trolling and disrupting Wikipedia's goals. He keeps trying to remove a reliable source. He keeps claiming Cambridge University sources are "fabricated" because they are "reprints" of journals. He's also blatantly claiming that historian Simon Digby is not a historian despite the Indian Express and numerous other sources and evidences saying that he is. I've had it up to here with him. Have a look at this discussion, where it beggars belief starting from line 409. Other editors have also claimed that this user is being deliberately disruptive [53] [54] [55] and making absurd claims on sources. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that he's attempted to WP:CANVASS twice, even after I gave him a warning not to [56] (warning) [57] (second warning). StuffandTruth (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I haven't looked into the whole situation yet, but I would like to suggest to you that referring to the person you're reporting as an "idiotic user" isn't the best way to start an ANI discussion. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, it has been struck. The user is very disruptive to the point of trolling people. And I can't tell whether he is trolling me or doesn't have the intelligence to know that Cambridge journals are reliable sources. I'll strike it out. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, now I've read it. Although I agree that Bladesmulti seems to be doing what s/he wants to do, you are also getting unnecessarily heated about this. I mean, look at this diff you posted yourself: "Who the fuck cares" is borderline, but "How is someone this stupid"? I'm not excusing Bladesmulti by any means, but you might be heading for a boomerang if you keep responding like that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

He is also, on Talk:Voltaire refusing to accept direct translations of Voltaire as "too old" to be accepted, nor does he acknowledge scholars such as Bernard Lewis and Gilles Ventaine as good enough for counter-claims towards his own, or declares that what Voltaire wrote that goes against his own view is "not notable". At Death by burning, he has been actively mis-citing the reference which clearly says one VERSION is that widow-burning became widespread as a result of muslim invasions, into an UNQUALIFIED assertion by Bladesmulti that this practice became widespread. He must understand he is disruptive, and that he has totally misunderstood rules relative to Primary Sources. He is basically saying they are UN-reliable.Arildnordby (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't mis-cited any sources. Just because your suggestions are accepted by no body on Talk:Voltaire. Doesn't means you be following complain on this section. Remember this page is not a forum, at least not about me. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did miscite Yang to vbegin with. Now you have removed Yang on VERSION. Furthermore, Lewis and Veinstein are PROMINENT historiansArildnordby (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Clearly some topic ban sanctions are in order for this user. @Erpert I recognise what you're saying. Which is why I'm not saying anything heated again. But please understand that I've literally been at this ALL day and circular arguments by this user are very, very disruptive. It beggars belief why anyone would go to these lengths just to propagate his/her own view (for Christ's sake how can anyone say Cambridge Uni sources and journals are unreliable as well as fabricated as well as not existing?). If he's/she's doing this on other articles multiple times in a row as well as canvassing and not discussing anything then he/she deserves to get indefinitely blocked for misrepresenting sources. I can also attest to Arildnordby's words. One only has to look at the evidence of this user's history to know how disruptive he/she is. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• This was brought to my talk page, in addition to ANI. After looking over Bladesmulti's edits (I count something like seven reverts on the same page in less than 24 hours,) I've gone ahead and blocked Blades for 36 hours. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now all that's left to do is to indefinitely block him/her for numerous source misrepresentations here, arguing for the sake of arguing, canvassing others to edit on behalf of him, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and mass disruption involving editing, edit warring and vandalism. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying "good" is gravedancing, and likely to get you blocked as well - this isn't a competition, and nobody should ever be happy that someone got blocked. If you want to try and deal with other behaviours, let me introduce you to WP:RFC/U ES&L 20:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you. That's exactly what I need. I don't think of this as a competition. It seems an adequate measure against someone so disruptive. I take no pleasure in seeing users blocked. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Of the one of the three sources I can easily access, pg. 326 of 'The Police in India' does potentially support parts of the claims that Bladesmulti was using it for. I can see it being used to support the claim that "foreign invaders" commonly raped girls. I don't have easy access to the other two sources to verify what they say, but since the first source supported at least part of the claim, I'm not going to extend the block for source misrepresentation. If another admin can verify source misrepresentation and feels it appropriate to extend, they should feel free to do so. I'm going to go examine the other edits that took place on the persecution page now - the volume of them meant that so far I had only looked at Blades'. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I provided a link to them. It's odd you cannot access them (I could only partially access the one on the police but then how is a person who writes about the police an adequate historical source for foreign conquerors being rapists and thats why Sati happens? It's mandated in the Hindu religion). The one on page 611 was referring to nothing of the sort that he'd written and is easily accessible. Please try it again. You can click on the book to preview it's pages sometimes if it doesn't let you see it directly by link. StuffandTruth (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Books does not allow every viewer to view the same number of pages, or the same pages. I cannot view the relevant page on gbooks. Having reviewed the history at Persecution of Hindus, you made four reverts in less than two hours... editwarring isn't okay, even when you think the other editor is wrong. Since both you and blades engaged in a serious editwar, I've issued both of you the same block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• The user in question has been quite disrupting. Tendentious editing and persistent POV-pushing,[58], [59], [60], [61], [62], removal of sourced content.[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Being both quite busy today and, er, relatively new to having the ability to block people, I'm going to let my blocks stand as they are and give the users involved some rope for when they fade. That said, if anyone has the time to comprehensively review that diff set or other behavioral evidence and feels that a longer or shorter block is warranted, please feel free to modify mine as you see fit. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Tobby72, who provide no reason behind any of these edits. But let me do it for you.

1. diff = Part of on going edits. It wasnt a based edit.
2. diff = It is relevant, but right now discussed. See talk.
3. diff = Had it confirmed from RSN right after a few hours.
4. diff = Whole thing is added as per source.
5. diff = Editor wasn't reverting any of my version.
6. diff = Common sense that "parsi" has to do nothing with "zoroastrian" population, It was removed after Talk page.
7. diff = Non disputed, no removal of sourced material.
8. diff = Same as above. Population figure of a caste are irrelevant for that page, unless all of them are discriminated.
9. diff = Non disputed, no removal of sourced material either. See talk page of Doctorkubla.
10. diff = Repition of same figures, non disputed.
11. diff = Even you agreed that figures were not accurate.
12. diff = Copyvio and undue.
13. diff = half of information was unsourced, seeked update. User agreed to resume my changes 2 days later, no removal of sourced information involved, because it had no source.
14. diff = Had agreed with other editor to resume the similar information, while keeping former paragraph as 2nd. What is disruptive after all?
15. diff = Simply needed better source.

Now what is tendentious or disruptive, they all are? Since you dont even know what was being reverted, what was being discussed, or what was being reviewed. Dont complain because you couldn't back up some of these most common issues, or that they are against your wishes. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely a very disruptive Hindutva-pushing editor. I suspect a sock-puppet of User:Hkelkar. On Talk:Voltaire he has mentioned Helen Blavatsky as giving credence to a viewpoint. His method is to take a viewpoint he wishes to advocate, to go through Google Books to try and find snippets that support his viewpoint, and then to accuse others of POV-pushing, hypocrisy, etc. when they call him out on it. He also clearly has insufficient WP:COMPETENCE in the English language to understand the difficult philosophical texts that he advocates the use of (after finding them in Google Books). Itsmejudith (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Itsmejudith, It is interesting that one user is falsely complaining that i misrepresent source. Now itsmejudith is bragging 3 things, one that I always get source of everything, has more backup than usually other users, 3rd that i ask people to verify sources if they are unreliable/unknown. Oh and not to forget I am also a sock puppet according to him. Despite he is no CU for claiming so.

And there are no "other editors", it is only you. Since you are pushing the tumblr/facebook propaganda(you cant find other sources than that). It seems like you are trying to getting away from that, by objecting me. In the sense that you blank pages for a single ref with "copy right issue", or that you present primary sources with no page number, and 3 years old dead links.. Who is disruptive POV pusher then? You or me. Betting a million, you can't find such circus from me, anywhere on whole Wikipedia. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Your analysis of his methodology looks good. I assumed that he doesn't understand the word 'fabricate', and he certainly has struggled with understanding our policies and guidelines. You'd need diffs to raise an SPI. Otherwise maybe a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

A quick look at User talk:Hkelkar left me with the impression that Hkelkar's command of English is better than that of Bladesmulti, so maybe some sort of ban is the best answer. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me jump in (although it might be out of place in the nature of this discussion) and say my piece. Blademulti is a problem editor. Across wikipedia they engage in battles and enrage editors over tiny things. The HEAVY POV pro-Hindu or Anti-Abrahamic thing is starting to be a problem. And while we all have our politics, when it is so single focused that it will bend light to win for the cause I think it is a problem. All over Wikipedia [73]--Inayity (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He can't comment here whilst blocked. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Inayity, nothing before these 3 days, about the rest, i won't even argue, since i have explained it above, already. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes they can, we have a process for that ES&L 09:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In any case, his block is up tomorrow morning. I'm thinking of formally proposing a site ban unless someone wants to mentor. Dougweller (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've now run across this fellow in at least two other places besides the Voltaire mess. First there was a long disruptive argument over pantheism in eastern religions, particularly Shinto (see most of the talk page), which was then forum-shopped around when I complained that books on urban planning an military operations weren't reliable for this, not to mention one source which said the opposite of what he wanted to write. There were also big problems with his writing there which again he resisted tooth and nail. Now I've found that he moved Caste system among Indian Christians and added a long and completely misguided section on Western Christians, particularly focusing on the Spanish American casta notion, which the very first book reference I came across said was nothing like its apparent Indian cognate. I don't know whether has trouble following the material or is on a crusade, but his intervention into a lot of subtle and difficult material has been quite disruptive. What mentoring I've tried hasn't taken. Mangoe (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He has a history of declaring main establishment sources as fabrications. See for example his debacle on the stupid, long-forgotten Cox-Forbes theory on chess, of all things, when he declares the Oxford's Companion to the Game of Chess to be unreliable, because it goes against himself.Arildnordby (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, calm down, and stop defending. Try to understand what's bothering other editors. They are bothered. Just listen careful, hold back your initial responses for a while, think it over, and ask for further clarifications. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Site ban for Bladesmulti

After taking far too much time clicking on links, reading discussions and looking into this mess, I don't see any way out except to ban Bladesmulti from Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, but I crossed paths with him following an AfD over Criticism of Jainism, where there was no shortage of tendentious POV-pushing on either side, as it appears there inevitably is in content disputes about religions – and he was actually about as close as anyone could be to being on the "right side" of the dispute. I've been watching the discussion here at ANI, and looked at some of the article talk page and user talk page discussions, and, while I fully support the enforcement of 3RR, I'm not seeing a sufficiently thorough examination of the issues on both "sides". Yes, there has been a history of low-clue editing, but there has also been a history of editors with a variety of POVs trying to get the upper hand, and the discussion here has been overly slanted toward criticism of Bladesmulti. Open an RfC/U, certainly, if you want. But we are far from being at the point where a site ban is even remotely appropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Question - I've also been wondering if Bladesmulti is a sock, given his sudden appearance and his high speed of editing at so many pages. I don't know. I've also been surprised several times about his edits, and his interpretations. And I didn't dare to look further into his caste-edits. But there is also another thing I noticed, and that is the combination of, indeed, a "traditional" point of view on India and Hinduism, but also a willingness to open his mind and to take in info that contradicts his point of view. That's my impression. I found (and find) it remarkable, given the familiair stance in India-related articles. He looks to me like a young, intelligent and very enthusiastic person, who's got to develop more balance in this enthusiasm. And yes, I was also thinking about a mentor for him - and not me; I don't have the time to track all his edits. I think it would be wise if he limits his range of topics, and spends more time reading good books (from Cambridge University Press, for example). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Other editors have raised concerns that he may in fact actually be a sock too. If I can recall User:Indiasummer95 was a lot like this user and had multiple accounts. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at why this user was blocked on Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE [74] StuffandTruth (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indiasummer was anti-Islamic. There the similarity ends. His/her style of writing was different. S/he appeared to be pro-Christian, not pro-Hindu. The word "india" in the username refers to a porn actress, not to the country. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh that's hilarious. StuffandTruth (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• ban nothing personal and far worse have visited Wikipedia but we need to remember the effects on more senior editors. I was so worn down after engaging him I just stopped editing and bringing my expertise to the article. Look at him, 5 sec after coming back Look at him this is not someone who is here to learn, but ruthless push a fanatical traditional agenda. BTW ATR is not something I feel he knows anything about, but he is using it as a cloak push the POV. He cannot pause, will not stop, cannot hear. And what makes it worse is after all of this he pretends like there is no issue with his advocacy/POV pushing on wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Going from a 36-hour block to a site ban with no intervening edits is a bit excessive to me. Like major overkill excessive. Escalating blocks, yadda yadda. Site bans should always be a last resort. Doc talk 10:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  Can you see any change to his editing habits? The real issue why a ban is being discussed is because the user would not WP:LISTEN, in other words after all these reports and complaints he is still at it. Now I did not study psychology but if you look at what he does is THRIVE on conflict and agitation of users.You explain something in detail and he will write "you still have not explained it" --Inayity (talk) 10:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  An indefinite block, if needed, would be quite enough to handle this situation. A site ban is an overly extreme measure at this juncture. Doc talk 10:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, I should have thought that through more. Dougweller (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dougweller, for acknowledgement. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• User:Bladesmulti does not understand what a reliable source is. He uses circular arguments and keeps on edit-warring. (See Talk:Jainism_and_Hinduism#Society_and_Culture.2C_and_dundas) He completely misrepresents the sources and uses them out of context. He does not listens, nor reads the sources he himself brings forward. (See: Talk:Criticism_of_Jainism#Removal_of_Dayananda.27s_views) Till now, he has shown no sign of improvement and continues his behavior. --Rahul (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Issue later went to DRN, and tell what had happened. Kindly update that too. And also on Criticism_of_Jainism#Removal_of_Dayananda.27s_views., no one had agreed with your statement that "Dayanand Saraswati has no right to criticize jainism." Also, I never had edit war with you. There are always 3-4 users who revert your edits. Which can be confirmed by number of users such as Tryptofish, Jethwarp, Abhishikt and others. Tell me one single source that i misrepresented? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is an WP:RFC/U on Bladesmulti a redlink or bluelink? ES&L 15:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support for Indefinite Block (as per several user suggestions above) - User has engaged in edit warring for the sake of edit warring. There is just too much evidence against him. An editor that claims reliable sources are NOT reliable sources deserves complete banning. Otherwise he's just dragging out the process for his pro-Hindutva bias. For goodness sake on Persecution of Hindus he argued Ali Sina (a racist and Islamophobe) was a respected scholar whilst at the same time declaring the work of Simon Digby false and fabricated. Now Sina isn't even a scholar of anything whereas Digby is an Oxbridge academic. His disruptions alone warrant banning from this site. It appears that conflicts for the sake of conflict. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Show me a diff where i said that Ali Sina is a "respected scholar". Bladesmulti (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: I've just noticed the user has started edit warring again. He's removing Digby's sources again whilst deliberately keeping in Lals in other sections of the article. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Response: Can you bring it to Discussion instead, where it was posted few hours ago? No way i had any edit war. But added as per consesus on RSN as seen here. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: Bladesmulti is canvassing again to POV push (his third time within 48 hours). Also Blade, consensus was against you at RSN StuffandTruth (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Some more edit warring here (again), and adding POV (again) without any sources [75]. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Describe how it is disruptive canvassing? I am not spamming on unrelated user pages. But only seeking the opinion of involved editors. The RFC included that whole(on which there was edit war) are unrelated. Also I never did POV pushing or adding without sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See WP:CANVASS (this is the 3rd time I've told you to read it). Your attempting to seletively notify users to support your position and influence consensus. Anyone who is normally interested would comment. But you're trying to get support for your causes again. StuffandTruth (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS doesn't say that you can't link involved users in the discussion/dispute. You are basically saying that there should be dispute+solution between only 2 people. Not anyone else.

Read the damn policy again. Whether by messaging them through email, texting them, or linking their names you are still canvassing selected editors in order to support your view to influence consensus. The article has hundreds of editors in the past and yet you deliberately select a few. You're blatantly engaging in POV pushing. If you full well know about dispute resolution then why are you canvassing for the approval of several editors? StuffandTruth (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Find me one from "Inappropriate notification" Wikipedia:Canvassing, where I am fitting? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seen enough Alright - I have seen enough. Support Indef block for Bladesmulti - no to siteban. ES&L 15:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves Indef block only because some users disagree with the content? I am not stopping anyone to have their opinion, neither i am edit warring. Kindly, see the both sides. Indef block can't be made only because 2-3 editors disagrees with the edits. While making up falsely alleging too, such as WP:Canvass above. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indef block because even when you're fully aware that your editing behaviour is 100% under the microscope, you're actually performing the EXACT same editing behaviours that people are complaining about. You're simply behaving like someone who WANTS to be blocked in front of hundreds of admins - so, you now should get your wish ES&L 16:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I haven't edit war anywhere before my last block, or after. Neither any plan for doing so. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See evidence above blade that you were engaging in edit warring again within 24 hours of your unblock. You reverted material on Digby as soon as you were unblocked and then again reverted edits on another page that I edited after engaging a recent edit war with me. The problem is you are initiating edit wars. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is 3 reverts on same page. I haven't made even 2 reverts anywhere. I got posts on 3 O, and RSN too. No way i am disruptive. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BladesMulti is engaging in some of the worst trolling behaviour, on the most bizarre issues I'ver ever seen. He has a weird, unsupported idea that Voltaire never said "anything positive" about Islam after 1762, and that he never said anything positive of islam in Candide. Now, he refuses to acknowledge statements from historians like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein, the latter saying expressly that Candide does, include such. When I post DIRECT TRANSLATIONS from Philophiocal Dictionary, he either declares the excerpt as "too old", "unclear source".

This has NOTHING to do with legitimate content dispute by BladesMulti, it is a trollish refusal to accept perfectly uncontroversial facts that goes against his weird ideologies. I append a typical snippet of how he actually argues here:

Don't think he wrote anything about Islam in Candide, or Philosophical Dictionary. It is only 1756 where he regarded it to be tolerant than Christianity. Other 2 books are simply unrelated. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Eeh, I have already given you Veinstein's assessment.Plus extractArildnordby (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I know, but it can't be verified. Since both of the mentioned books are unrelated with Islam. Now i got sources that says that he criticized Islam in Philosophical Dictionary and Candide. But still it is not really notable. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It is verified by at least by two of the most distinguished Orientilsts of our time, Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein. Plus with the direct extract I gave you from Philosophical Dictionary.Arildnordby (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Bernard attributed it to Candide, Philosophical dictionary? Bladesmulti (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Is a 2013 published translation too old for you as well? I am starting to get annoyed now. And no, Bernard Lewis, in footnote 22 specifies Bosquet and HadidiPhil Dict.Arildnordby (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Source is unclear. Can you print a link to a source that says he was Praising Islam in Candide, Philosophical Dictionary, and what he wrote there. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Arildnordby (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: More edit warring here [76]. Bladesmulti, after his block, is back to his usual self (and now ironically claiming references are not reliable only because he's too lazy to look them up. He did this with the Digby piece until I made an easy search on Cambridge to show that he was lying, as he had claimed the source did not exist). He is deleting reliable sources claiming they are "not notable" and he's doing it above again with blatant POV pushing, refusing to let others edit and add differing opinions. StuffandTruth (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban. It is quite evident from the evidence presented that Bladesmulti is unable to restrain himself, and that he will continue to edit-war and POV-push for as long as he has the capacity to. I'd also add that his evident lack of fluency in the English language would make his editing problematic, and the reliability of his understanding of sources questionable, even without such behavioural issues. While we can and should make due allowance for such problems where an editor is acting in good faith, the combination of stubborn POV-pushing and sometimes almost unintelligible postings makes any attempt at meaningful dialogue almost impossible. He is a net liability to Wikipedia, and we can manage well enough without him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page. Reverting the same material after being unblocked often leads to a block. And I'm beginning to think I've seen enough also. Today Bladesmulti writes at Talk:Persecution of Hindus "Removed Medieval. Because K.S. lal's figure were about population of Indians, not about Hindus, all historians, critics, regards them as "decrease of Indians", not "hindus". So it has been removed." At RSN on the 26th he wrote "As per Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, it has been cited, that the estimates by K.S. Lal refers to the 80 million death of Hindus though" (and this seems to be correct, see [77]. So his removal of the Medieval section from Persecution of Hindus which mentioned used Lal and Digby makes no sense. I still haven't seen an effort to justify his charges that the Digby source was fabricated despite asking him to explain what he meant. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, and Dougweller. It was agreed by 3 people already, including the latest revert by Darkness Shines, seen here who is not a disruptive user either. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My point was not about the removal but your varying comments on Lal. You didn't respond to that or my question about your claim of a "fabricated source". Dougweller (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I regarded it as Mistake before too, and now. I should hadn't had suggested so. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He removed it because of wording not because of you and your ridiculous arguments/behaviour (see here). This however, still doesn't excuse your blatant bullshit about how Cambridge University is not a reliable source. Or your CANVASSING. Or your POV-pushing. Or your lying. Or your removal of reliable sources for no apparent reason. Or your edit warring. Or your ignoring the advice of many users on this and other pages. Or your attempts at not discussing anything. Or your lack of understanding of the English language. Or your trolling and circular logic. Or your potential sockpuppetry. Or your inability to follow policy. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

See Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Medieval, and tell me how many people are against your proposal/edit Also, how many in favor?Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, my support for the ban proposal was based on the evidence presented as a whole, not on one incident. That you appear not to understand this - or refuse to acknowledge it - merely serves to reinforce my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, there is certainly no other incident for now. Other guy cited a 4 days old edit, by acclaiming it to be "edit warring", "after he got unban" despite it was non-disputed single edit. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I gave three examples today that you edit warred. So stop blatantly lying because the proof is outlined above. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

None of them falls in Edit warring, 1 edit(not even revert, which was by everyone and implemented) is all what you had for claiming edit warring. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You continued the exact same edits that led to your block. As such, it was considered an extention of the original 3RR - you don't get a reset button. Once was enough ES&L 17:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, you do realize that the more you talk, the evidence against you grows stronger. Don't you? --Rahul (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller told you twice now Bladesmulti: "You can be edit-warring without making 3 reverts on one page." Evidently this lack of acknowledging his warnings shows that you are incapable of understanding policy or those that want to help you. This gives further credence for you being indefinitely blocked. StuffandTruth (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:OccultZone is now massively reverting in favour of User:BladesMulti on Sati (practice), REMOVING, for example, scholarly material on limitedness of the explanatory power of Muslim invasions as principal drive behinmd increase in sati.Arildnordby (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi's version, is what I had reverted to. But since you have mentioned here. I would like to add that neither your version is any good, neither Rjwilmsi, or bladesmulti. Best one was from 7th January, like i had told on talk page, few minutes ago. OccultZone (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. It's always a serious thing to block an apparently well-meaning and enthusiastic editor, but I am seriously troubled by the evidence presented on this page, especially the discussions at Talk:Persecution of Hindus and Talk:Cox-Forbes_theory, where Bladesmulti makes inappropriate accusations against other editors, either due to his inability or unwillingness to understand the nature of the sources presented, which all appear to be first-rate. I don't know if this is a language barrier or a behavior issue, but whether it's a matter of WP:CIVIL or WP:COMPETENCE, I think this has gone on too long. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel.. You know that Talk:Cox-Forbes_theory is irrelevant, it was one of my first edit here. And no one seems to be disagreeing with me on Talk:Persecution of Hindus. My suggestion has been implemented hours ago, by 3/3 users. It is over. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether or not your edits were correct, it is how you conduct yourself in these discussions. Accusing other editors of "fabricating" sources, etc. Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone and Bladesmulti Sockpuppet?

I have been, at Sati (practice) been exposed to mass removal of all my material, by User:OccultZone, ALL of it well referenced. I am falsely charged of what I have said, which, even it had been correct, should not be removed since it is a SCHOLAR I have cited here. But, in addition to experiencing mass removal of well-referenced content, OccultZone lays FALSE charges against me on content included. I strongly believe this is a revenge action, made through a SockPuppetry tactic.Arildnordby (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence: similar circular arguing and source removal. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Someone the Person

I need your assistance and advice with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=next&oldid=519968694

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=591079896&oldid=590922969

Please let me know what to do to avoid a repeat. Thank you.BsBsBs (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You do know that those edits were made over a year apart, don't you? Anyway, you were right to put the information back, but if STP tries deleting it again, bring it up on the talk page. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I do. This is no common drive-by vandal. Anyway, I know what to do now. Thank you for the assist.11:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Alansohn and civility

Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been sanctioned before his lack of civility, and seems to be at it again. This edit in a CFD discussion is a direct personal attack on the nominator. That sort of thing has a chilling effect on discussion.

It is quite right and proper that editors can disagree in a discussion, and that they should weigh things differently. But to open a discussion with an assertion that "the continuing staggering display of ignorance is breathtaking" ignores the possiblity that the other editor is aware of those facts, but disputes their importance and/or relevance to the matter in hand. It creates a hostile environment, which deters other editors from participating, and impedes consensus formation.

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn (2008), Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed decision#Alansohn_restricted (2008), and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions.

Alansohn's block log for incivility and personal attacks. In the last year, his civility has improved, but his recent contributions show him returning to an old habits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding incivility or a personal attack in the first link ES&L 09:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Breathtaking, in fact! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, really staggering. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I can't think of any situation where people were meeting around a table and it would be considered appropriate to say "the continuing staggering display of ignorance is breathtaking". Not unless the meeting was descending into a fight.

But if it is considered acceptable here, then that's how it is. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BHG, seriously, haven't you got anything better to do?? How is that uncivil? It's simply an expression of annoyance at the (perceived) ignorance of another editor, very common on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"ignorance" = "a lack of knowing about a topic". How is saying "the continuing staggering display of lack of knowledge on this topic is breathtaking" a bad thing? I'm absolutely ignorant about how the inside of a computer CPU works, or why people think hairless cats make attractive pets. Go ahead - call me ignorant about those things ES&L 18:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The "chilling effect" here is an admin robustly objecting to mild robustness in debate, and apparently seeking a block, citing a block log that has been clean for over five years as evidence of chronic incivility. Can this system be called just if editors are harassed in this manner over blocks made over five years ago? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Alansohn can be a pain in the tuckus, and uses some salty language on occasion, but that goes for most many old timers here. Sorry BHG, I don't see much here that is blockable, though I wish that Alansohn would tone it down some. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in my comment at the CfD in question, but my remark was directed at what I perceived to be an overall tone of Holocaust trivialization, not just in the nomination, but most specifically User:Obiwankenobi's remark "Being a holocaust survivor certainly is defining and often a source of fame/notability", which Obiwankenobi himself apparently realized was in exceedingly poor taste and struck out (see this edit). Having met and spoken at length with several hundred Holocaust survivors and their children, I found the tenor of these remarks from what I see as those who make light of The Holocaust to be viscerally offensive. I can assure you that the original comments I had planned to write while I was still nauseated by the remarks were far, far stronger and only ended up as they did after several revisions. I will certainly endeavor to be as polite as possible in dealing with such situations in the future. I hope that some of those who believe that they have any understanding of the impact of The Holocaust on the children of survivors would read Art Spiegelman's Maus series (among the hundreds of other such books) or maybe just read the relevant articles on Wikipedia before passing judgment with what comes off as condescending off-handedness. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I have a thicker hide than some, and I wish he would tone it down and not go on so, but I don't see the linked passage as bad enough for some sort of sanction. That said, this response is verging on crossing a line. I do not trivialize the holocaust; it stands as one of the greatest enormities of modern times. But we are now heading into a kind of special pleading in which every other enormity and all the pains of others are being trivialized in comparison. Alansohn needs to respect that others do stand at some distance from this horror and cannot be expected to express the same visceral reaction, and that our perspective on this is not diminished because we do not. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I assure you I never meant to make light of the holocaust nor trivialize it. FWIW, I did not strike it because it was "in exceedingly poor taste", I struck it because I didn't realize one interpretation could be that people were "cashing-in" on their status as survivors, which was not my intent, but Shawn pointed this out and I struck it accordingly; by "fame" I simply meant "the condition of being known or recognized by many people" - and not "fame" as in celebrity. I think you're taking things too far here. I have read the Maus series, I have a copy on my shelf, and have also visited death camps in Poland and Lithuania, and I assure you, that's not something I will ever forget. Again, you (and others) seem to be arguing that by !voting for deletion of this category, we are somehow saying that being the child of holocaust survivors is trivial or uninteresting or unimpactful - but that's not what we're saying at all, if you'd read the arguments presented. There is a difference between "of massive impact on your life" and "defining", and it does not trivialize the holocaust to claim something may be A but not B.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexrybak

User:Alexrybak fails to engage in a discussion about their edits at La donna è mobile.

• Edit history of "La donna è mobile", particularly since 24 January 2014 00:22; note the absence of any edit summary by Alexrybak.
• Edit history of Talk:La donna è mobile since 25 January 2014; note the removal of my discusion starter and its reversal a day later.
• My suggestion at User talk:Alexrybak regarding the user's action.

The user has been notified of this discussion on their talk page. I suggest to block the user for a period long enough for them to reflect on how to improve collaborative editing and how to participate in discussions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

He's touching cloth with 3RR as we speak. 14:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I see virtually no attempts to communicate with this user. -- John Reaves 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

This invitation to discuss changes (deleted by Alexrybak – a highly disruptive act, self-reverted about a day later) and this reminder (deleted 2 days later by Alexrybak), plus my edit summaries and a complete lack of such summaries by Alexrybak don't support your point about my lack of attempts to communicate. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

interaction was attempted it seems: Talk:La donna è mobile#In_popular_culture, but with not even an acknowledgement that there was an issue, I don't see how any further communication was likely to happen happen._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, and this has been discussed at not one, but two AN3 discussions started by FIM, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexrybak reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:No action ) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alexrybak reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ), where it's been pointed out that further edit-warring will be met with blocks, so I don't see much cause to do anything further at this time. - Aoidh (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask for a block as a punitive measure but as a means to protect the article "La donna è mobile" from ongoing disruption. The same user has now resumed his uncommunicative and disruptive edits at Largo al factotum; once again, I ask that this user be blocked. His removal of messages and notices on his talk page can only be seen as an unwillingness to communicate. I had nothing to do with the above mentioned edit warring actions and I'm not willing to bait Alexrybak into edit warring by reverting until just before the the red line. If disruptive editors can't be made to argue their edits or alternatively be stopped from preventing the improvement of articles, we might as well all go home. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours for continuing to edit war on Largo al factotum. I have a low tolerance for system gaming, and it's apparent that's what's going on here. Therefore, any further edit warring by User:Alexrybak will result in escalating blocks. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Numerous attempts to reset password from 50.160.177.172

Over the last 2 weeks, my account password has been reset repeatedly from this IP 50.160.177.172, who is not me. The first time I figured it was someone that forgot their username or confused it with their name on another site. however, since it keeps happening, it seems that something else could be a foot. Currently I still have access to my account, so that is good, but it is getting annoying. Additionally, I thought i should report the IP address as I may not be the only account being targeted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technerd (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you know they're doing it? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

BTW from GA, USA _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The MediaWiki software informs you via e-mail of the origin of the request. -- John Reaves 14:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Special:PasswordReset is publicly available and will send instructions to the email-address associated with the user name. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That being said, I'm not aware of a way to prevent malicious use, unless blocking prevents the use of Special:PasswordReset. Also, it is odd that someone would target a user who only had one edit (prior to this AN/I post). -- John Reaves 15:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, typically these people would want to phish your new password in case you really reset it. Technerd, you might want to do a thorough scan for malware on your computer. And I have now requested a checkuser for the IP to see if it is a proxy. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a comcast address -- probably a subscriber, rather than a corporate account. You may want to send an email to abuse@comcast.net Per [this ] link.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   17:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuous foreign language article creation

Shitya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created a number of Arabic-language articles, and has been notified since at least last November, and again today by me, that English Wikipedia is for English articles only. The user does not communicate by user talk page at all. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Seems like a case of WP:IDHT. (BTW, I was going to take his/her username to WP:UAA, but then I realized that "shit" is actually a common spelling for certain Arabic words.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, here we go again about the usernames…

Anyway, they may need a temporary block. Which, as seen by their editing patterns (per GiantSnowman's comment below), might be as long as one year. Epicgenius (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They also have a history of copyvio problems - but given how rarely they edit, I don't think they merit an indef - yet... GiantSnowman 19:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the user page, this user seems to be editing under his real name, احمد شعبان شتيه (Ahmad Shaban Shitya). There is a link to their LinkedIn profile, presumably their real life identity, but I am not able to access it. The edits seem to be valid, sourced, and high-quality, and in biology-related topic areas. One article they created in Arabic, Fruit waxing--(and they seem to be the principle author of the Arabic-language artivle as well--was moved to an English language title, translated, and is still there. They seem to have enough English skill to identify English-language sources, correctly add categories, and copy-paste relevant material, but not enough skill in English for rephrasing in order to avoid copy-vio issues, or to search in English for articles that may already exist on a particular topic. Ideally they need someone who can smooth over the English for them, and very simple instructions of how to use any templates that can be used to get attention for checking their edits, if such a thing exists. —Neotarf (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe Template:Not English may be the one you mean. Or perhaps Template:Proofreader. There's a bunch of others that may be helpful in Category:Wikipedia translation templates. Blackmane (talk) 09:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:B. Fairbairn

Can I get a few eyes to take a look at this editors mass removal of images from "Foreign relations" section of country articles. I have tried to bring this up with the editor with no reply and continuing removal of images. Not sure what there problem is ...Looks like the editor does not like pictures of country leaders with Americans. Users edits seen here -- Moxy (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Those look like very disruptive and specifically targeted edits. Looks like he objects to any reference of the United States in any article that is not about the U.S. A block is probably indicated here unless the user provides a modicum of rationale for his edits - one of which is "removing photograph of woman in strangely colored suit" when referring to Clinton shaking hands with a Burmese politician. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm inclined to support the removals. Unless there's some particular significance to the visit, there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for articles on a country to be illustrated with a photo of someone with no connection to that country just because they happen to be visiting. (If United States were illustrated with a photo of "The president of Tuvalu visiting the United States", there would rightly be uproar.) Do you honestly believe that there's no more appropriate image to illustrate France than President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France.jpg? Mogism (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are the images we have that illustrate (to a certain extent) the foreign relations of Tuvalu. Unfortunately (perhaps) they're provided by the Department of State under a PD license. Unless B. Fairbairn is going to replace them with something he provided and feels is more appropriate, or can justify their removal based on some kind of valid rationale, he should not be removing them wholesale without discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

In most cases they are the only image of the current leaders of the countries. I think best we revert then talk about the relevance in each case ..case by case. -- Moxy (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure about that. "Unless B. Fairbairn is going to replace them" begs the question of whether foreign relations can and should be represented by any image at all. "Can justify their removal based on some kind of valid rationale" - he gave edit summaries and might well be ready for WP:BRD on each. "Removing them wholsale without discussion" - what, an RFC? Where, the Village Pump? NebY (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Issues at "Latvian mythology": Nationalist Construct? Needs Eyes

Still some major issues going on over here. This could use more eyes. I'm not sure where else to post this. Anyway, to recap what is going on here, as I see it:

"Mythology"—as a collection of narratives detailing the gods and beings of a pre-Christian group of people and residual elements of that paradigm in a post-Christianization stage—is not defined by modern day nation-state borders. This poorly written, poorly sourced article reads like a nationalist fantasy. For example, while the Baltic pre-Christian material is most famous for its remarkable conservation of elements of Proto-Indo-European religion, the word "Indo-European" doesn't appear a single time. The article is just about everywhere divorced from scholarship on this particular branch of Baltic pre-Christian religion and folklore, and at no point even attempts to discuss the primary sources and general corpus for the material. I can see nothing deserving merging here, but the Baltic mythology article needs expansion with discussion of source material from Latvian, Lithuanian, Prussian, etc, sources (and by this I mean the languages, not modern national entities where they may currently exist), so anything confirmed here to be reliable can be merged into Baltic mythology (in appropriate context). Some of this material may be salvageable for a Latvian national romanticism article. Whether intentional or not, this material is otherwise simply propagating a nationalist fantasy.

That said, the article space seems to be watched by a bunch of pro-Latvian mythology editors intent on keeping the article just the way it is, and as a result any changes get reverted back in a few days.

In short, the article definitely needs some more eyes here; preferably those with some background in the material. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The article makes no claims about modern state, it is about beliefs of certain ethnicity (mostly prior of establishment of the state BTW). The word Indo-European does appear a single time, but this is not relevant as the article is not about Baltic paganism as such, but on what is known about beliefs of Latvian people in more recent centuries, it does not attempt to reconstruct PIE or Baltic religion, nor does it make any nationalist claims (at least despite claims above no particular reasons for tagging article content as POV have been pointed out... one could perhaps consider that there are minor issues with the lead, but attempt to correct this was reverted by Bloodofox) and all the facts in it are sourced. Use of primary sources as references is discouraged, as far as I know; the sources for research in the area (i.e. not the article's sources), though, are discussed in the article. Bloodofox is stubbornly refusing to accept any opinion besides his own, he has been largely making ad hominem arguments (everyone who disagrees with him is a nationalist) and is ignoring the fact that validity of the topic was already discussed. And right now he is canvassing ~~Xil (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A typical nationalist claim is that their people came from the earth—that they came from the land they live on now. They were always there! And as a result, there needs to be no discussion of their ultimate, scientific origin. Xil here has repeatedly done everything he can to maintain dead links to a non-peer reviewed source on this article, made sure that comparative material is gone, and has shifted his definitions whenever possible—the ultimate goal here is for Xil is apparently that a non-existent "Latvian mythology" is well represented on Wikipedia. This is despite academic sources treating it as academics do; scientifically. The truth is that Latvian is one of a handful of surviving Baltic languages and every nation-state and modern language doesn't have a "mythology" in the ancient sense. It has repeatedly been brought up no the talk page and prior discussion here that the article has serious sourcing issues. No one is saying primary sources should be used as sources; however, the corpus for this material must be discussed (see Norse mythology for how to do this). I intend to sit down and rewrite it with some proper sources, but in the mean time this article needs some more eyes and hands (in before Xil again complains about me not being able to be in front of Wikipedia as much as he'd like...). :bloodofox: (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I ever claimed my people appeared from thin air that is entirely your own imagination, but I also do not see why I need to trace human migration back to Africa (or Black sea region for that matter) in an article that does not deal with earlier beliefs. The source you are so obsessed with was used only as additional reference and is an educational material that cites work of well known scientists. It was explained to you numerous times that there are reasons to believe the site will come online again and even, if it wasn't per WP:DEADREF you cannot simply remove references when they go dead. I have not "made sure that comparative material is gone" you never have added any such material to the article and I do not remember such material being in the article before rewrite (and in any case article was unreferenced back then) and I don't tend to remove content and references for no reason other than my beliefs. The primary sources are mentioned in the history section, even if not using technical terms you prefer. Numerous sources were presented to you as proof that the topic is not "non-existent" and is a matter of academic research and that "folklore" is wider notion. As it stands you have your own beliefs on what mythology is and what happens to it after Christianity appears on the scene, and on the origins of Latvian people too (no they indeed did not appear magically when nation state was founded), unfortunately these beliefs are not supported by sources despite your insistence that only sources which do not discuss the matter should be taken into account. And finally stop complaining about having no time - it's been more than a year since you promised to rewrite article to your liking (might I point out again that using only sources that agree with you is not "proper") and some how you have found plenty of time for tagging, edit warring and holding lengthly debates ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Croatian Vukovians

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

---

Need to get semi-protected - Croatian nationalist under an IP address claims that it will keep vandalizing it [78] due to his dissatisfaction with some historical facts (that Serbian is also allowed in Ijekavian pronunciation and has been since..forever). Doesn't care about evidence that was given at the talk page. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a month, in part because of this. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Help with Old Fashioned article

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

---

There is some edit warring and bad blood making going on at Old Fashioned. An IP User:184.190.80.94 started the day by trying to use his self-published book as a source. diff. He was reverted.

This is the exact same edit as done by a different IP weeks before here. In fact I have removed this particular cite many times over the past year from several different cocktail related articles.

The editor has continued to insert these edits or to remove links to reliable sources here and here

He left a message on my talk page here. Here's one quote indicating that his intentions may not be inline with Wikipedia's goals: "you are making things difficult for me to progress my career, but I am not doing that for you, what have I done to you?"

A different IP that might be the same person left a message on the talk here threatening to continue the disruptive behavior.

In the end it appears that the IP is using Wikipedia to promote his self-published books. I addressed these issues with him on his talk page here. He responded but I haven't gotten back to him yet but it appears that he is still having some difficulties understanding Wikipedia.

I'm looking for some help in watching the page, semi-protecting the page, and/or maybe someone else could reach out to the IP since he feels I have a personal grudge against him as well as using Wikipedia to sell my books ("willing to bet all those 15's are you "simmons" gibbons" makes sense, considering the book has NOTHING TO DO with this drink, but yet its here, a bunch. now it makes sense." from this edit summary (by the way, I am not Marcia Simmons and I don't really see how SQGibbon even hints at that.)

Since posting a message on his talk page he has not edited that article again but it feels like this isn't going to end today and since as he admits in his talk page response here "but ive been trying to submit this information for over a year and you continue to disrespect me." it's likely that this behavior is going to continue. SQGibbon (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Notified the IP about this discussion here. SQGibbon (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• semi-protected. The editor in question said here that they can "do this all day everyday", something we'd prefer to avoid. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

maybe it's not the best idea to have an alcoholic govern a drinks page? just saying.. "I do happen to have a keen interest in mixed drinks and pay closer attention to those articles but that's the extent of it." you are clearly throwing your personal bias against my contributions. why dont you read one of my articles or books and really learn something. AND YES BARTENDING ABSOLUTELY HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH RESEARCHING DRINKS! how would you know how that drink is made today if you didnt work in a bar? wow.........

why is the false definition of a cocktail on both cocktail and old fashioned pages? this makes no sense. They are two different drinks entirely. The way you know that 1806 article is false is because bitters was not produced in america until 1824, so how could it be used in 1806 if it didnt exist yet?

or look at the usage of the word spirit, spirit means specifically something religious in the 19th century absolutely nothing to do with drinks, read an oxford.

I could point out a million things, can anyone understand why this is so frustrating, I cant even fix one thing, and there are tons to fix. I have 13 open tabs all wiki pages you all have directed me too, really? 13 tabs just to post that the old fashioned was made with brown sugar and brandy and named after a horse? really?

so ridiculous, read it yourself, GOOGLE BOOKS PROJECT and the LIBRARY of CONGRESS 1806, read it. are my only references I use, so if they aren't good enough REMOVE THE PAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/#q=old+fashioned+made+with+brown+sugar&tbm=bks

only about 1000 reliable third party sources there, but whatever. STOP HATING and apologize for being a hater, be a real man and apologize. and for so called "geeks" you guys sure do take a long time to get back and type to people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=jIMXAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA91&dq=old+fashion+cocktail&hl=en&sa=X&ei=txrnUtTPHYjboAT5kIGYDw&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=old%20fashion%20cocktail&f=false

that book dates to 1741 but whatever, I forgot we totally discredit anyone who isn't wondrich my bad, totally forgot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

nobody answers me on the talk pages, but when I make an edit you remove it? wtf? I asked if I can change something, nobody said anything but when I do its a problem I have clearly shown I am an expert, if not the worlds leading expert. so why cant I be acknowledged? you guys are crazy ... like really crazy, it's clear this gibbons guy loves drinks and I insulted his intelligence by proving that everything he thought he knew about drinks was wrong and now he will never let me live it down. Thats why he supports wondrich, can we please assign another user without personal sentiment to these drink articles please. someone who can look at the information with an open mind instead of "oh well this guy I read about is right". Dude you know how foolish your hero is? He's whole life is based on calling drinks this and that, like "if you add this, this drink becomes a 4th degree" no it fucking doesnt, one book published one name about a drink doesnt make it a drink. The same recipes were called so many different things over the years with maybe one or two minor changes. But thats how drinks are.

Old bars had nothing maybe gin rack brandy and afew french cordials, thats it, so of course all the drinks are going to be very similar, because you didnt have much to work with. You can only make so many sandwiches with bread and cheese? you understand?

Jesus, please pray for these souls, they are so lost and misguided. They believe in false idols and refuse to acknowledge truth. Please let them bring joy and peace, with compassion and understanding, rather than them being filled with jealousy, envy, and hatred.

again, please assign a user to these pages who has no interest in them, so they don't develop personal biased like homeboy. He had the audacity to say to me, "I shouldnt point out every mistake that other contributors have made" LIKE WTF?!@#?!@?# that IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING TO ME! Every little mistake, it doesn't matter what I do, it's a riddle. Because no matter how I post the information, even if from third party sources, *I* can even find discrepancies in external links, self promotion, citations, etc.., so of course that hating guy can.

gibbons has caused other problems for other users in the past here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SQGibbon#Do_you_have_no_life_.3F

just like that, he takes a personal interest in something and feels the need to disregard anything that contradicts his beliefs. Please don't allow this user to fool you, hes clearly a hater who stalks people, like me and this user and im sure many others. Youre so big and bad behind your keyboard. Seven years huh, I wonder what I can piece together from that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

a clear violation of wiki policy, maybe we should have someone who can follow guidelines and procedures regulate who is following guidelines and procedures, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• IP 184, one more personal insult, one more harassing remark, and you're blocked. Stop talking about that editor, and if you could possibly concentrate on one thing at a time, argue on the talk page why that source of yours is reliable. How many YouTube videos you claim to have made is not important. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think if the videos pertain directly to cocktails and cocktail history they are important. My thoughts don't matter here though. What about the books and articles? and as I said, I would love to talk on the talk pages, nobody responds just like here, nobody responds, silence is approval, I think someone smart said that. what if nobody answers the talk pages? and it's pretty clear regardless of my formatting, and strict regulation to wiki policies my post will still be removed. Your group has stated "ask a question" and I have,.... several infact, and yet no answers. Okay great, my videos mean nothing, then so does my dvd, my podcast, my books, my websites, my articles, all pertaining to cocktail history? I would like to add information, you guys would not like that information added, I have shown you literally thousands of references above that this information is infact, accurate and true, but it will be rejected for some small mistake like formatting or grammatical error, like I said "YOU WILL ALWAYS FIND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR"

the real question to ask is, is there anyone you can prevent that user from preventing my edits, because if they are so horribly wrong, why not let some other editor edit them? Does this fly with you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's called an interaction ban, but that will only be a last resort. Epicgenius (talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, that's not the real question. Let's get some facts first. Regardless of who you are, the edits are all to promote this book, a self-published book that really needs a copyeditor. So, no publisher, and thus no indication that this is a reliable source: it should not be used as a references, and that's basically what was in the links you have been provided with. Here is another example of the book being spammed. The facts are, then, that you are adding a book you wrote yourself as a reference in this encyclopedia; the book is not published by a publisher we can have any kind of faith in; you are spamming. Simple. So, no matter how many videos you made and drinks you poured, and I'm sure you make them well, that book may not be added. If you continue to do that, the IP address or account used will be blocked, and possibly a filter concocted to block the additions in the first place. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

the policy stated as I posted above, that it MAY be added if it directly pertains to the subject at hand. In which it does, either way that particular book along with 20 or so others are also available in paperback, but not online. I have a publisher but I don't have a link to sell them online because the process is much different. If you ever submitted anything to barnes and nobles or books a million you know the process is ridiculous and you arent always picked up. You cant sumbit to amazon if you already wrote it, you have to write paperbacks through them. Again, it says the same things about websites, why are all those websites allowed? I would think a book self published or not has way more creditability than a website. I literally could throw up a site in 5 minutes backing my claims, doesnt hold much wait. So may I suggest removing all the websites if my book cant be added, its only fair. This is your logic bro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

here are my references I used to write that book you mentioned, like I care about promoting one book, I have 66 dude, seriously I care less.

extended content that is messing with my Wa

References New Orleans as I found it - Page 25 Edward Henry Durell - 1845 – One played the fiddle, another beat the drum, and the third dealt out nectar in the form of brandy- cocktail. ... Boy, bring up four glasses of brandy-cocktail immediately ! " To go on with my story, sir : the three partners succeeded ... Hesperos, or, Travels in the West - Page 13 Mrs. Houstoun (Matilda Charlotte) - 1850 – Their ' custom of an afternoon,' was to prepare and drink a favourite compound, which went by the name of ' brandy- cocktail.' The avowed object was to stimulate their appetites for dinner, (though for this there appeared no absolute ... The New sporting magazine - Page 131 1841 – ses he — " that wos a cocktail," but here's so far up from the bar-room, that the ice all melted in the first tenflites, an' now, the heat o'my hand has eivapo- rated all the brandy .'" Now, I call that an ill-convenient distance ... Life in the West: back-wood leaves and prairie flowers; rough ... - Page 121 Morleigh - 1842 come, let me hear it, John," said the host, at the same time ordering the bar-keeper to prepare a brandy cocktail. " I'll tell you," said John, smacking his lips and eyeing the tumbler in which the brandy cocktail was concocting ... LIFE IN THE WEST BACK-WOOD LEAVES AND PRAIRIE FLOWERS - Page 121 1842 – come, let me hear it, John," said the host, at the same time ordering the bar-keeper to prepare a brandy cocktail. " I'll tell you," said John, smacking his lips and eyeing the tumbler in which the brandy cocktail was concocting ... hesperos: or, travels in the west - Page 13 mrs. hqustoun - 1850 – Their ' custom of an afternoon,' was to prepare and drink a favourite compound, which went by the name of ' brandy- cocktail.' The avowed object was to stimulate their appetites for dinner, (though for this there appeared no absolute ... Lonz Powers: or, The Regulators: A romance of Kentucky - Page 316 James Weir - 1850 – ... and flirt away in disgust at the thought of a young lover drinking a " cocktail ;" for, you must understand, ... and fashionable) drank ambrosia in the very presence of Venus herself; and if a good " brandy cocktail" is not equal to ... The clockmaker: or, The sayings and doings of Sam Slick, of ... - Page 129 Thomas Chandler Haliburton - 1839 I must have a brandy cocktail to cool it. But I 've seen that feller afore ; I know his voice and the cut ... for I need your advice; but, for the love of Heaven, give me some brandy and water, for I am e'en a'most dead, — and he gave a ... The clockmaker, or, The sayings of Samuel Slick, of Slickville: ... - Page 147 Thomas Chandler Haliburton - 1840 Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it 's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on the shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... The clockmaker; or The sayings and doings of Samuel Slick, of ... - Page 147 Thomas Chandler Haliburton, Samuel Slick (fict. name.) - 1840 – Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it 's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on the shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... Chambers' Edinburgh journal: Volume 9 - Page 407 1841 – Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on my shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... Chambers's Edinburgh journal: Volume 9 - Page 407 William Chambers, Robert Chambers - 1841 – 'Well, says I, I am no ways pitikilar ; suppose we have brandy cocktail, it's as 'bout as good a nightcap as I know on. Done, said he, with a friendly tap on my shoulder that nearly dislocated my neck ; I like a man that knows his own ... The living age ...: Volume 4 - Page 155 Eliakim Littell, Robert S. Littell, Making of America Project - 1845 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir?' ' Somethin',' says I, 'that I can't have,' lookin' at ... The Monthly review - Page 559 1844 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy- cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to' her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir V "Somethin'," says I, "that I can't have," lookin' at ... The works of Lord Byron: Part 12 - Page 17 Baron George Gordon Byron Byron, Thomas Moore - 1843 – Young man,' says Haman, says he, ' will you oblige a suffering labourer in the vineyard with a brandy cocktail?' 'What VOL. II. ... A diary in America: with remarks on its institutions. Part second: Part 2, Volume 1 - Page 123 Frederick Marryat - 1839 – ... hardly swallowed his gin sling, and replaced his segar, when, in comes Mr. D. " A. how are you ?" — " Ah ! D. how goes it on with you ?" — " Well, I thankey — what shall we have ? " — " Well, I don't care ; I say brandy cocktail. ... The attaché, or, Sam Slick in England: Volume 1 - Page 8 Thomas Chandler Haliburton - 1844 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir?' ' Somethin',' says I, ' that I can't have,' ... The Atlantic magazine: Volume 1 - Page 346 Robert Charles Sands - 1824 – Every mouth was open with offers of rum-sling, brandy- cocktail, gin-twist, or any other peace-offering which was likely to appease the offended dignitary. After looking around him two or three times, with eyes that resembled those of a ... Tait's Edinburgh magazine: Volume 7 - Page 96 William Tait, Christian Isobel Johnstone - 1840 – "Well, I don't care; I say a brandy cocktail." — " Give me another." Both drink, and the shilling is thrown down on the counter. Then B. comes up again. " A., you must allow me to introduce my friend C." — " Mr A." — shake hands— " Most ... Second series of a diary in America with remarks on its institutions - Page 43 C. B. Marriyat - 1840 Well, I thankey — what shall we have V — Well, I don't care ; I say brandy cocktail." — " Give me another," both drink, and the shilling is thrown down on the counter. Then B. comes up again. " A. you must allow me to introduce my ... The Literary gazette: A weekly journal of literature, science, and ...: Volume 23 - Page 802 William Jerdan, Lovell Reeve, John Mounteney Jephson - 1839 – 'Well, I don't care; I say brandy cocktail.' — 'Give me another;' both drink, and the shilling is thrown down on the counter. Then B. comes up again. ' A. you must allow me to introduce my friend C ' Mr. A.' — shake hands ' most happy ... Littell's living age: Volume 4 - Page 155 Eliakim Littell, Robert S. Littell - 1845 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir?' ' Somethin',' says I, 'that I can't have,' lookin' at ... THE MONTHLY REVIEW, FROM JANUARY TO APRIL INCLUSIVE. 1840. VOL.I - Page 220 1840 – Mr. A. has hardly swallowed his gin sling, and replaced his segar, when in comes Mr. D. ' A. how are you?' — 'Ah! D. how goes it on with you?' — 'Well, 1 thankey : what shall we hare?' ' Well, I don't care ; I say brandy cocktail. ... The attaché; or, Sam Slick in England, by the author of 'The ... - Page 5 Thomas Chandler Haliburton, Samuel Slick (fict. name.) - 1845 – I go and call for two or three glasses of brandy-cocktail more than I want every day, just for the sake of talking to her. She always says, ' What will you be pleased to have, sir ?' ' Somethin',' says I, ' that I can't have,' lookin' ... A quarter race in Kentucky: and other sketches, illustrative of ... - Page 144 William Trotter Porter - 1846 He was remarkably quick and dapper ; his inquiries were always abbreviated — for instance, a gin cocktail was "gin-cock?" plain brandy was "brandy p ?" and then there was " brandy wat-?" " brandy sug-? ... The drama in Pokerville: The bench and bar of Jurytown, and other ... - Page 144 Everpoint - 1843 He was remarkably quick and dapper ; his inquiries were always abbreviated — for instance, a gin cocktail was "gin-cock?" plain brandy was "brandy p ?" and then there was " brandy wat-?" " brandy sug-? ... Transatlantic sketches, comprising visits to the most interesting ... - Page 368 Sir James Edward Alexander - 1833 For the receipt-book let the following be copied: — First, Cocktail is composed of water, with the addition of rum, gin, or brandy, as one chooses — a third of the spirit to two-thirds of the water; add bitters, and enrich with sugar ... Anglo American: a journal of literature, news politics, the drama, ...: Volume 4 Alexander D. Paterson - 1845 - No preview Guide to the Turf; or, Pocket Racing Companion for 1851; ... - Page 141 W. Ruff - 1850 – 4 fur., over eight hurdles, were won, in four heats, bv Plaintiff (Brandy), beating Rosa (Darling), Topihorn (Archer). ... Charlton 0 8 to 1 agst Ballinafad, 8 to 1 agst Cocktail, 4 to 1 n?st Candlewick, and 8 to 1 agst Spot. ... A subaltern's furlough - Page 34 Edward Thomas Coke - 1833 – ing the intervals between meals, is besieged by a host of applicants for iced mint-julaps, brandy, egg-nog, gin- cocktail, rum and water, gin and water, Port san- garee, and all the various combinations and mixtures of liquors ...

really bro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.190.80.94 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) S/he threated to delete all the other refs from the article (seems like the if-I-can't-do-it-no-one-can school of thought), but I told him/her about it. I'm logging off soon but if s/he does just that, I would have absolutely no objection to a block. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah hows that blocking power working out for you? not so big and bad now are you? "but the words hurt" go cry somewhere else. AND YES I HAVE THAT SCHOOL OF THOUGHT because its the way it is. why in the would would you make something unfair that didn't have to be? that makes no sense, but then again i'm not ugly or fat or a stupid piece of shit throwing around my internet dick thinking im big and bad by blocking people you cant even block. I'm not making threats and i'm not violating policy, I want to add my contributions. I'm sorry I find it hard to think like you guys, but you know not what you do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.236.0.52 (talk • contribs)

Oh, but you ARE making threats, and you ARE violating the policies you agreed to when you clicked "Save". Can't you take 5 seconds, step back, and review your edits and interactions in a mature, detached manner? ES&L 10:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Possible copyright violations by a new editor

User:Banshee01 has been uploading images on Survivor-related biographical articles and hasn't even bothered to say where he's gotten them from or what their copyright status is. So far he's done it to Amber Mariano and Amanda Kimmel. He appears to be a new user, but he obviously needs some coaching here since he's really being a vandal. I've seen you administrator dudes know how to bite the newcomer vandals, so he either needs to get with the program or be blocked. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Whoa, hang on a minute; that's not exactly the purpose of this board. Remember, we were all new once, and I don't really see him/her as being a vandal. Besides, s/he hasn't edited at all since you left the informational message on his/her talk page, so let's just see what happens from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

These two images were in fact copyvios but I agree with Erpert that this is not a reason to rush to this board. And as to getting with the program: Survivorfan1995, have you not seen the big orange sticker on top of this page that says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page"? De728631 (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:96.25.43.128

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

---

This IP user has been reverted by me and another editor 4 times now, warnings were given on the talkpage in addition to explaining in the edit summary that the changes did not match the sources given in the Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States article. IP failed to explain anything in their edit summary until the 4th undoing of an edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Diffs? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

AndyTheGrump, unacceptable speech

I am posting this here because beyond a certain degree abrasiveness becomes unacceptable. An edit summary for a post on our WP:BLP/N reads: "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll"[79]. The post refers to "clueless Jew-tagging troll"[80]. The same post also reads: "Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls"[81]. This is unacceptable. We have policy that covers this: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, WP:NPA. I don't think the User is unaware of such policies. This level of speech does not promote the functioning of this project, which is highly editorially-interactive. I am quoting abrasive speech. I think it is obvious that such speech hampers editorial interaction. In a later post in the same thread the User posts: "I'm not interested in 'collaborating' with someone who engages in an ideological battle with the objective of persuading Wikipedia to publish lies."[82] If he/she is not interested in "collaborating", does that somehow justify the use of abrasive speech? Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Useless complaint. AtG is an inveterate example of general incivility who merits weekly trouts, and Bus Stop has an endless record of supporting the categorization of people by purported (ethnicity/race/nationality/religion) and of having lengthy discussions on talk pages and drama boards thereon. After a week or three of chronophagous discussion here, the above will remain true. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (restoring accidentally deleted post)

What about the unacceptable tagging of people as belonging to a faith when they state that they don't practice the faith? Sounds like ... trolling ... an attempt to generate nastiness and battlegrounds. Not excusing anyone actually calling a spade a spade, but hey ... ES&L 15:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Trout (edit conflict) Andy for calling another editor a troll and daring them to take it to AN/I, and Bus stop for making an AN/I almost a week later without trying to resolve the situation first. the rest would be a content dispute. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Bus Stop's history and block log, it appears that he has been edit warring and engaging in tendentious editing over tagging individuals as Jews since at least 2007. While AndyTheGrump should strive to be a bit more diplomatic, if the shoe fits.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The User should be told sternly in the voice of the Community that the terminology "Jew-tagging" is unacceptable speech at Wikipedia. The unacceptability of the term goes beyond other issues such as whether or not I as an editor should be presenting arguments in support of or in opposition to the identifying of individuals in our encyclopedia as "Jewish". These are separate issues. In fact any dispute over the "Jewishness" of a given individual cannot receive a proper discussion in the presence of abrasive terminology. "Jew-tagging" is an example of abrasive terminology. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Should I have used that phrase? Probably not. However, I'd recommend reading the long and tedious thread, where Bus Stop has spammed a discussion regarding the appropriateness of placing 'religion: Jewish' into the infobox in our article on Jordan Belfort. I say 'spammed', because his entire argument is, as is almost almost always the case when Bus Stop gets involved in such discussions, that WP:BLPCAT (and indeed Wikipedia policy on sourcing in general) doesn't apply when describing Jewish people, and that the complete lack of any evidence that Belfort is of the Judaic faith is no reason for us not to tell our readers that Belfort is Jewish by religion. In the process, he cites a website, "Judaism 101" for material (not on what Belfort actually believes, or about Belfort at all, needless to say), despite having had it pointed out several times in the past that it is a personal website written by someone who states that ""I do not claim to be a rabbi or an expert on Judaism" [83], and quite clearly not a reliable source for anything beyond the opinions of the non-expert. He then goes on to cherry-pick an article in the Economist which discusses the complex issue of Jewish identity (without discussing Belfort, naturally) for a statement about Jewish identity - utterly ignoring the fact that the article makes clear that this is a contentious issue, with no agreement amongst differing Jewish communities and traditions. And ignoring entirely, until I pointed it out, that said Economist article states that "22% of American Jews described themselves as having no religion" [84] - adressing the very point at issue, that it is entirely possible to self-identify as Jewish (as Belfort clearly does) without being 'Jewish by religion'. And on it goes. With Bus Stop arguing inter alia that 'Judaism is not a religion that is heavily based on "beliefs"' - yes he really wrote that [85] (citing no source, naturally) after explaining in long and tedious detail why the beliefs of Judaism in general (or rather the beliefs of his cherry-picked sources) are more relevant to what goes into an infobox on Belfort's religion than Belfort's own opinion on the matter. And so it goes on. Interminably. With Bus Stop at one point objecting to the phrase 'Jewish by religion', despite previously citing an (off-topic) CNN website which used the phrase "Religion: Jewish" regarding Henry Kissinger, and despite the fact that Bus Stop was arguing that we should say exactly the same thing in the infobox for Belfort. (Personally, I'd have said that, where it was properly sourced, and relevant - as WP:BLPCAT requires - 'Religion: Judaism' would be more appropriate, but since it wasn't, I didn't). Bus Stop insisted (for no reason whatsoever, as far as I could tell, beyond facile Wikilawyering) that the phrase "Jewish by religion" was "gibberish", and that I was engaging in "original research" when I used it. He demanded that I provided a source that used the phrase (though of course he'd already cited the Economist which had) - which needless to say I located via Google in no time at all - from the Times of Israel website. And so it goes on. And on. And on. Bus Stop has a long history of engaging in such facile and interminable Wikilawyering over how we describe people with a Jewish background, almost all based on arguments to the effect that because Jewish tradition has particular definitions of who is Jewish, such traditions are 'reliable sources' that trump the person's own self-identification. Not only is this a complete and utter inversion of WP:BLPCAT (which is of course part of WP:BLP policy), but it is also intensely disrespectful, leading another contributor to write "I am Jewish. I have no religion. If anyone argued and edit-warred to include Jewish as my religion in an infobox, I would hit the roof. It is no one else's role to determine this for me, and the fact that their definition would include me is of no more relevance than is the fact that Mormons, I understand, retroactively convert the ancestors of converts to their religion. Would any editor insist that, because the Mormon church considered the deceased parent of a convert to be a Mormao, then this category should be included, as their religion, in an infobox?" [86] And not only does it violate core WP:BLP policy, and not only is it disrespectful, but it fails to take into account the well-documented and more or less self-evident fact that Jewish identity is a complex and contested issue, and that accordingly Wikipedia shouldn't be making 'rulings' as to who is Jewish and how: though of course there are many other good reasons not to do that anyway. In summary then Bus Stop was arguing that regardless of what Wikipedia policy says, and regardless of Belfort's own opinion on the matter, Wikipedia should assert that he is Jewish by religion. Or, in plain words, that Wikipedia should lie to its readers in order to satisfy Bus Stop's obsessions. It is my considered opinion that his tendentious Wikilawyering advocacy of systematic policy violations needs to be stopped, and that an indefinite topic ban on anything relating to Jewish identities and living persons is the appropriate remedy. He has been engaging in such behaviour for many years - and as far back as 2007 was community banned over his apparent insistence (despite copious evidence to the contrary) that Bob Dylan had never converted to Christianity. [87]. There are multiple further instances of such tendentious behaviour scattered over multiple Wikipedia talk pages - Ed Miliband [88] and Adam Levine spring to mind as prominent examples - and he clearly isn't going to stop until he is obliged to. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, the original problem brought by Bus Stop is resolved. We now have the issue of Bus Stop, and I'm suggesting a site ban on tagging articles with ethnic or religious tags. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Tagging itself can be resolved easily enough, once it is discovered - it can be reverted forthwith as a WP:BLP violation - the real problem is Bus Stop's disruptive abuse of article talk pages etc to promote such violations. It seems self-evident that he engages in such behaviour in order to grind down opposition with his repetitive Wikilawyering and refusal to acknowledge that Wikipedia has explicit policies on the subject. He needs to be topic-banned from any discussion on the subject too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given Bus Stop's complete disregard for BLP and WP:V, I'd support a topic ban from all BLPs. Simple, clear, and cuts off the entire problem area. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The User likely will be deploying similar language in the future because it works. It serves a purpose. The User says "Should I have used that phrase? Probably not."[89] Such language has a Chilling effect, inhibiting further discussion. It is serving a purpose therefore the User will likely use it again. And other Users will also understand this behavior to be acceptable. The terminology "Jew-tagging" should not be permitted except where justifiable. The User is not using it to serve any defensible purpose. I hate to propose censorship, and I am not entirely doing that. There is a right place and a wrong place for any terminology. But this User is only deploying the terminology "Jew-tagging" as an epithet to discourage response. This use should be discouraged. Existing policy already clearly supports this. WP:NOTBATTLE already cautions us against "nurtur[ing] prejudice, hatred, or fear." Bus stop (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If his intent was "to discourage response," it sure backfired on him, didn't it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Another example of Andy being brought up for what out of context would be unacceptable speech, which is however rendered understandable given the circumstances. {Andy, this is problematic: I really want to dislike you and your speechifications, but all too often you're right. Still, if you baited your opponent into ANIing, that's not OK.) I second Dougweller's call for a topic ban on BLP categories, and am not opposed to Ultraexactzz's proposal. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what I support here, but I will say that Andy's suggestion, a topic ban from discussing the subject, is the only suggestion that actually addresses the problem. A topic ban from tagging doesn't address the real issue, and almost certainly without further evidence a total BLP ban goes too far. The real problem here is Bus Stop's exhausting everyone with interminable arguments complete with ever-shifting goalposts. Andy's suggestion addresses exactly this and no more. It's surgical.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm going to note a few other recent interactions I've had with Bus Stop that show extremely difficult to work with and stubbornness on talk pages in general, not just BLP issues. (example Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2). Clearly the issues with this being BLP weigh a lot more in this favor, but this is just a continuation of a problematic editor that seems to rather spend more time on talk pages than article improvement. --MASEM (t) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy that AndyTheGrump said "Should I have used that phrase? Probably not.", but I disagree with Dougweller that this means that "the original problem brought by Bus Stop is resolved." I think AndyTheGrump should be blocked or voluntarily refrain from editing for a week for making such comments. Regarding Bus stop, I think the issues raised here should be discussed in an Rfc (either about the issue or about him as a user), and that this forum is not the right place to investigate this. 109.160.186.49 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban for BLP categories for Bus Stop. This is one incident too many. --John (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mass removal by User:OccultZone at Sati (practice)

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

---

Sati (practice) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is unacceptable. I use well-referenced material, for example Anand Yang, and this kind of unargumented mass removal by talk cannot be warranted???Arildnordby (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd start by reading WP:BRD, and then discussing this on the article talk page as recommended. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

He is persisting, no arguments being given. And no, he doesn't give any arguments for removals of such as YangArildnordby (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) I think you need a little more proof before you accuse someone of sockpuppetry. Anyway, such a request should be filed at WP:SPI. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Okay, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#OccultZone_and_Bladesmulti_Sockpuppet.3F now I see it. I'm going to NAC this and continue the conversation up there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

IP vandal: 86.178.82.162

I submit vandalisms on articles TVP1 & Numberjacks. It is used by IP vandal: 86.178.82.162. Here's the proof: Numberjacks - in Polish "Numberryaxes". It is incorrect, official title of this series in Poland is "Supercyfry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.185.210.160 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The proper place to submit routine vandalism is WP:AIV. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

A report AIV will not be actioned upon at this time as the user has not been warned about their vandalism, or this ANI thread (just let them know about this post). --AdmrBoltz 18:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Non-administrator comment) Incidentally, IP, "submitting vandalism" suggests that you're doing the vandalism yourself. You might want to rephrase that next time. ;) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Revdel request and possible compromised account

I would like to ask if someone can revdel this unprovoked offensive comment on my talk page. Another concern is that the person who did it claims to be an admin on his user page, which suggests he is either lying or that his account may be compromised if he really is an admin. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wow, that insult is ridiculous. I think edits can only be revdeleted if they give out personal information (I could be wrong though), but to address your other concern, his account wasn't compromised, he's just pretending to be an admin. He's already blocked for 31 hours, but given those two edits, I suggest lengthening the block to indefinite. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)