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

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

---

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)

Oy! What we have there seems to be users arguing that both meters and centimeters are "right" but that choosing one over the other is siding with a "bias", yet using both is "overkill". This has "infinite loop" written all over it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman:: Can this thread be closed now? Obviously no admin action is going to be taken against Gibson Flying V and the issue seems to be under discussion at the template talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• By all means, I've been waiting for it to be auto-archived for a while now but people keep on commenting! GiantSnowman 15:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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: [1][2][3].

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 [4]) & administrator ES&L (see [5][6][7]). In fact, both ended up recommending that I take any further aspersion casting to AN/I:

• Salvio ([8]): "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 ([9]): "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 ([10][11]), but ES&L also tried to reason with him ([12][13]). Yet, Astynax declined to stop his abusive comments & literally told ES&L to stop posting on his talk page ([14]): "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 ([15][16]), 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[17] 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.[18] 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"[19][20][21] 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: [22]).

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)

Astynax seems to have dropped the stick, which is good, but has persistently refused to recant his accusations.

This leads me to think that the problem is going to continue in the long-run, unless an interaction ban is placed between Astynax and both Cambalachero and myself.

I think it's for the benefit of everyone that this matter is resolved now rather than later.

Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 19:45, 28 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" ([23]). This IBAN was later breached, not by me, and with accusations that mirror Astynax's current claims (please see [24]).--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" ([25]). 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 [26]) 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)

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)

• [27], [28],

[29]. 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.

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: [30] and [31] (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 [32] [33] [34] 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 [35] (warning) [36] (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,[37], [38], [39], [40], [41], removal of sourced content.[42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]. -- 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 [52]--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 [53] 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 [54]. 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 Edit warring is not a minimum of three reverts. It is a common misconception but it is not true; WP:3RR is a bright line that, when crossed, will result in a block 99% of the time, but a single revert can be edit warring, depending on the circumstances. I haven't looked into your case so I don't know the relevant details, but when you have other experienced users telling you that you're edit warring you may want to consider taking that advice to heart. N^oformation ^Talk 21:38, 29 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 [55]. 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 [56]. 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)

About the implementation of the edit. It was for different reasons we have decided to exclude it for now. No one was listening to your silly arguments and no one took any heed to your concerns because they were bullshit ridden. So no. It's not over. It's your disgusting conduct and constant edit warring that's gotten you in trouble. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Again StuffandTruth.. I am not edit warring anywhere, anymore, and you have finally agreed with the edit as well. What is left now? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose site-ban but may support block. Suggest that because at least two people are willing to mentor Bladesmulti, but that the vast amount of edits Bladesmulti seems capable of are overwhelming the WP:CHOICE of the potential mentors, we offer Bladesmulti a deal: five edits per day maximum, and no editing outside the User:Bladesmulti login, until they learn the meaning of WP:RS and friends. The trouble is that their wikithusiasm is outstripping our capacity to temper their efforts with experience, methinks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User talk:74.192.84.101, I am 100% ready to lower all my edits to only 5. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm happy to help you and Joshua get you turned into a lean-mean-wikipedian-machine. Thanks for your good-faith response. The faster you learn, the faster you will be back up to full speed. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidence above points that even if that happened his level of English is too poor and his constant edit warring such a problem there would be no point in wasting time/energy etc on him. He is just too incompetent to understand and frankly him ignoring all the people on here including the admins advice shows that mentoring is likely to achieve nothing. Especially as his behaviour and conduct are deliberate. And further, an IP commenting on this is rather strange, and so too is the quick response of Bladesmulti to your suggestion IP. I'm just sayin. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• My my my! Anxious to see a ban here, eh? Any conceivable WP:EW is *easily* controlled at 5 edits/day. English competence ain't all that crucial arond heer, plenty of WP:WikiGnomes to keep mainspace nice and grammarized. Outside mainspace, ideas and hard work at finding sources matter more than grammar. Bladessmulti works hard, and some of their ideas are good, from what I've seen Kevin and people at User_talk:Drmies say about it. Bladesmulti just needs some mentoring on how to communicate effectively, and how to avoid edit-wars. You, on the other hand, need some advice on WP:NICE. Best strike your accusation that the conduct is deliberate. Best strike your accusation that the human person is incompetent. And best withdraw your WP:ASPERSION that I am a sock. This is AN/I my friend, and unlike myself, you are WP:INVOLVED in a content-dispute with Bladesmulti. Better go read WP:AGF and WP:IMAGINE again, please. If you prefer policy to guidelines and essays, try WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTFACTIONS. You can call me 74. Don't call me IP, it is an insult in these here parts. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I apologise if I misconstrue Bladesmulti's ulterior motives for yours, however there is reason in my suspicion. I will however not apologise for the truth. He is incompetent as other users have said here and his actions are deliberate to the point of trolling (I need not repeat the evidence above), and he doesn't seem to have a good grasp of English (see the earliest links I posted and Dougwellers pieces above. Again it centres around simple understanding, or there lack of, of words such as "fabricate"). There is simply no one on this planet that can Cambridge does not fabricate sources. You are going waste your time mentoring this person as he refuses to acknowledge how bad his behaviour is. StuffandTruth (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

JJ - 74 asked me to co-mentor Bladesmulti diff. I'll have to think that over. You're all aware that I'm slightly in favor of Bladesmulti; that's because I've also seen him change his mind, and because he's sometimes like a little puppy-dog jumping around in his enthusiasm. But I'm also well aware that he's got a certain, let's say, preference for Hindutva-like points of view. That's his good right, but when it regards Wikipedia, I'm quite allergic for that, as some have also noticed. So I don't know if that makes me the best mentor - conduct and content may get mixed up. Or is it exactly the oppposite, and does this make me a (potentially) good mentor? I don't know. I'll have to think about this, at least one night. Best regards to everyone around here; I understand the frustrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is very generous with thanking others, not just when it is directly supportive of his views, or when related to it. He has a few blind spots, and can be extremely annoying to argue against (refusal to acknowledge scholarly material going directly against seems to be main probl.), but if you, or other mentors, guide him onto understanding this, he will be a very valuable editor to keep on Wikipedia. Precisely BECAUSE of his strong engagement, but he mustn't let that engagement cloud his judgment.Arildnordby (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This user is a POV pusher and a disruptive editor as indicated by the evidence above. It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Pursue SPI, give the mentoring a few days, and then see what happens. This situation is a real mess, I have to say, but I'm still uncomfortable with acting upon the accusations that are being made, because the more I look, the more I see editors with POV issues on both "sides" here. There's speculation in the subsection below, about sock or meatpuppetry, but absent an SPI case, it's just that, speculation. Open the SPI, get a checkuser involved, and find out, one way or the other. And let's give the proposed mentoring a few days. Not a long leash, but a little time to see where it goes. If it proves unproductive, then go with the block, not the ban. But before we decide to block, we need to discount a significant percentage of the wall-of-text here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Suggest that *if* the SPI does turn up other names/IPs that are the same human, we indef all but the "main" one, and transfer the mentorship to that "main" user-talkpage. Bladesmulti has made two good edits since the mentor-clock started, and a third person has potentially offered to assist. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a hands on mentor, already in action now, can do loads of good for this user.Arildnordby (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Mentorship may work for Bladesmulti; perhaps some time should be allotted to see if that works. The seriousness of the site ban suggestion appears to have convinced Bladesmulti to change his ways. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• More Support for Indefinite Block - This user goes too far in pushing fringe POVs. In my experience, Bladesmulti tacked on countless references to articles that did not contain any material supporting the edits and as a result wasted countless hours of my and others' time with his non-stop disruptive editing and edit warring. This user is unconcerned with reality, makes false accusations, makes circular nonsense arguments, and plays Wikipedia like it is a game. NaturaNaturans (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Seems strange. You might have problem with the edits. Having a look at your edit history, you just removed the sourced content[57], "fringe paragraph", without gaining any consensus. On that whole page you seem to be making red edits for months. Have you read.. "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." When you edit years old edit, you should not certainly remove them, and follow WP:DNRNC. But you seem to be edit warring, and not adhering WP:NPOV. Noteswork (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually that paragraph was removed months ago for failing to receive any credible citations for something like a year and recently added back by this user, Bladesmulti, who added a bunch of sources that did not at all support the paragraph content. I was reminded of it here and proceeded to remove it again. Granted, I should have better explained that. NaturaNaturans (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mentorship -- About 2 or 3 mentors now. One of them willing to comment everyday. No need of anything else. Bladesmulti probably forgot WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILITY for which he was blocked. But he doesn't seem to be desperate. And willing to cooperate like Binksternet has pointed. Noting his agreement of "5 edits" on article pages, a day. Noteswork (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mentorship I've butted heads with Bladesmulti a number of times. The user can be a bit annoying in deleting sources for odd reasons, and a little argumentative, however I found Bladesmulti quite able to change opinion. If the urge to edit the article rather than the talk page first could be countered I believe Bladesmulti could be an asset. FMMonty (talk) 13:46, 29 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)

(Non-administrator comment) If not a sockpuppet, I would highly suspect OZ being a meatpuppet. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Kindly decide. I am a sock of User:Indiasummer95, or User:OccultZone or User:Hkelkar. Been alleged with about 3 by 3 different users. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppet/Sockpuppet is most likely User:OccultZone. We've already established you can't be the other two since your level of English is amusingly poor. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock, and you had best stop with the personal attacks lest the boomerang smack you one. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks. We have already established his level of English is massively poor. Others have even pointed this out. His bizarre assertions Cambridge University has "fabricated" sources has still not been justified. He refuses to even answer why he has made claims such as these. StuffandTruth (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines. This user, seems to be repeating same wheel over and over. While making series of false allegations as well. And StuffandTruth, I NEVER SAID that "Cambridge University has "fabricated".." How many times you will present FALSE information about me? You still haven't even backed up that I called "ali sina is great scholar" either, like you claimed previously. I only said that you fabricate source, when you had presented nothing. While you had claimed that I "Misrepresent source" or "Make fantasy claims", yet there was already a source. And I presented 3 more. So? Bladesmulti (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Removed by mentor. Do not respond to StuffAndTruth please. Go read WP:CGTW instead. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Temporary resolution

I'm not asking to close this discussion, but I am suggesting that we take a pause while the mentoring is being given a try. 74 seems to be making some good progress with it, and I hope that we can wait and see how it works out. As for the SPI, I suggest that someone start it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mentoring should go its course here, before anything else is considered.Arildnordby (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, with the obvious caveat that if it doesn't work out then we reconsider. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I fully agree with you; I just didn't make that clear enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Enthusiasm for one's own cultural history is a really good thing in order to bring others to notice of the diversity and richness of that history. As long as that becomes coupled with a care not to stringently oppose other views, such enthusiasm is a very valuable asset in an editor like Bladesmulti.Arildnordby (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, especially with doug. And Bladesmulti, politely, I advise you to adhere the guidelines i had mentioned above. WP:Be thoughtful and kind, and also WP:Be nice to the vandals if you assume any. The test is temporary, you will learn a lot. Noteswork (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have raised the issue at SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bladesmulti. --Rahul (talk) 17:11, 29 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)

• I too don't find Alansohn's remark sanctionable, not by a long shot. He is far ruder in the thread further down, where his accusations of antisemitism towards AndyTheGrump are completely beyond the pale. Now those do deserve a sanction. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

• I agree. The Internet Tough Guy meter was about 5 in this thread, but he dialed it up to about 9 down there. --Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexrybak

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

---

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)

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

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)

Do we have any Arabic speakers who could have a word? GiantSnowman 19:45, 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)

Not sure how to proceed here the editor in-question has removed all the images again ...but this time moved them to related "relations" articles. Not a bad idea but as metioned before we now have country articles that dont have pics of the leaders. Lots of clean up here.... perhaps add something like File:Supranational European Bodies-en.svg to the European countries. Anyone know why some people like this editor wont talk to people..they did communicate in the past with others? -- Moxy (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no need for clean-up. The image you propose has OR, NPOV and simple comprehensibility issues - but that's a content issue. As for the editor not responding - s/he made 2 edits after you posted on their talk page so you followed up with a peremptory message that hardly encouraged responsiveness and then opened an admin noticeboard incident. Let's just move on. NebY (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont undersnad what your saying ...images removed from sections talking about "foreign relations" with an image to match the text. As for your assessment of what has happen....how do you propose we get someones attention ...go to there house call them on the phone? Need editors to have valid reasons to ignore others concerns. Not responding after 15 plus edits when a concern has been raised is problematic to say the lest..no OR or NPOV problems..just someone that has a problem with American leaders.....they did not remove similar images from 150 other countries that don't have Americas in them. Mass image removal is cause for concern. -Moxy (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There was no debate whatsoever. The issue has been to WP:DRN? If the editor has removed the picture, it is still incorrect. Unless he replace with a lot better images. Noteswork (talk) 11:17, 29 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 never 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 somehow you have found plenty of time for tagging, edit warring and holding lengthly debates ~~Xil (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Copyvios have been deleted. No further admin action needed here. De728631 (talk) 10:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

---

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)

Oh yeah, I've seen it. Somebody else took me to the noticeboard once and didn't tell me about it, so I didn't think it'd be a big deal. Besides, I didn't really wanna make Banshee01 mad at me. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Survivorfan1995, read WP:BOOMERANG. Noteswork (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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"[58]. The post refers to "clueless Jew-tagging troll"[59]. The same post also reads: "Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls"[60]. 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."[61] 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" [62], 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" [63] - 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 [64] (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?" [65] 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. [66]. There are multiple further instances of such tendentious behaviour scattered over multiple Wikipedia talk pages - Ed Miliband [67] 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."[68] 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. Debresser (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)

John—let me call your attention to the aptly titled thread from 2012 The Jewish issue (again. In it you and "AndyTheGrump" carry on with the same offensive language that I am calling to our attention in this thread. You say "There is no need to be offended by the term "ethno-tagger" unless you are one." Aren't you part of the problem? As an administrator you seem oddly tolerant of "AndyTheGrump"'s reference to "infantile obsessive-compulsive Jew-tagging" in that 2012 thread. Bus stop (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have a slightly more nuanced suggestion.

There are three issues here, the content dispute, AndyTheGrump's behavior, and Bus Stop's behavior.

1. ANI does not hand down rulings on content disputes, and Andy has been here often enough to know full well that a wall of text that is mostly about the content dispute is wasting everyone's time. Being right does not excuse bad behavior, and being wrong doesn't make bad behavior worse. Give Andy a stern "TSK TSK" and a finger wag, or possibly a very small trout for this.
2. Bus Stop's behavior is clearly harmful to Wikipedia, and he has repeatedly shown that he is utterly incapable of conforming to Wikipedia's policies when the topic involves Judaism in any way. Give him an indefinite topic ban with an invitation to apply for removal after he has spent at least six months as a productive editor in other areas.
3. AndyTheGrump's behavior isn't anywhere near as harmful, but it is wrong, he knows that it is wrong, he doesn't care, and he counts on the fact that many administrators do not consider his behavior to be a blockable offense. There is a long history of one admin blocking Andy followed by another admin unblocking him.

Because of the above, I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy. First a warning so he knows what is going to happen, then one day, then two days, three days, etc. I also suggest that if anyone disagrees, they should discuss it now and seek consensus rather than engaging in further block/unblock cycles.

This is close to what has been suggested above, but I think it is a bit more nuanced and better addresses the recurring conflict between admins. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I appreciate the nuance. Let me nuance a bit more (or less): this isn't about a conflict between admins, since admins are just as conflicted about civility blocks as regular editors. As I hinted above, Andy often goes too far, but that's "too far" in my opinion. Now, I'm more liberal (if that's the right word) than many others; if Andy gets blocked for a civility infraction I might not protest, though a block for "Jew-tagging" I will not agree with, since this is ridicule than disrespect. But I don't like the idea of escalating blocks, even though I can't quite explain why it rubs me the wrong way--I guess it's the suggestion of the robotification of blocks. Maybe. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Bus stop has been adding category tags to articles based on sources that identify the individuals as Jewish. User:AndyTheGrump has been removing / edit warring over these category tags, asserting that the sources don't support the claims. There's room for a principled disagreement here. But AndyTheGrump has shown a complete inability to act appropriately, best exemplified by this edit, with the summary of "I've had enough of this Jew-tagging troll" in which AndyTheGrump goes on a rather lengthy and extremely offensive anti-Semitic rampage in which he attacks Bus Stop as a "a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll" provoking Bus Stop to take this "to ANI because I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll", insists "that Wikipedia isn't a platform for Jew-tagging trolls" and talking about "your Jew-tagging agenda", an edit that crosses a line of decency that is entirely unacceptable. To call AndyTheGrump's behavior merely "wrong" is a drastic understatement of gigantic proportion. Malicious personal and religious attacks of this nature call for an extremely lengthy block of several months to years for User:AndyTheGrump, if not a permanent ban, not only for this utterly offensive incident but on top of a rather chronic behavioral problem that has resulted in a lengthy series of blocks. Once the AndyTheGrump issue is resolved, Bus stop may have a more productive experience dealing with editors who are willing to work on a collaborative basis. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the above entirely unwarrented accusation of antisemitism, I formally call for User:Alansohn to be blocked indefinitely. Meanwhile, anyone interested can check my edit history, and verify that I have been involved in no edit-warring over categories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, don't be silly. Drop the drama. Alansohn appears to be a very poor reader of the hyphen, and their histrionics are just so much noise. Drmies (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—let me give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that your comments are not antisemitic. Then please explain to me your word constructions involving the word "Jew". We don't find "Jew-tagging" as terminology used beyond the borders of Wikipedia. We may have the need to come up with new language to discuss our unique working methods. But "Jew-tagging" is harsh language; nobody would want to be a Jew-tagger. As much as possible you should be using standard English. I think you should simply steer clear of inventing compound terms including the word "Jew". I'm not easily offended. But that terminology is offensive. If you don't find language used by for instance prominent journalistic outlets and other good quality reliable sources, it is a good indication that you should think twice before using that language here. Bus stop (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you find the terminology offensive, perhaps you should consider whether the practice might be seen as offensive too. But you already know that it is, after User:RolandR, who also self-identifies as Jewish - and nonreligious - pointed out how personally offensive he found attempts to impose religious categories on others to be. [69]. I note that you failed to respond to his post. Perhaps you could explain why you chose not to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any type of block or ban at all against User:AndyTheGrump. He has now had several weeks to apologize for calling me a “patronising little troll” lacking “an ounce of human decency” who should “Peddle your filth elsewhere.”[70] But no apology whatsoever. On the merits in the present instance, Bus Stop is wrong and Andy the Grump is right (as I have already said at BLPN). However, Grump exceeds all bounds of decency, and undermines the project with baseless personal attacks. As a Jew, and a veteran of the US Army who served in Germany, I am utterly appalled at Grump's foulmouthed tirade at me, ostensibly because I have some sort of callousness toward victims of the Nazis, which is patently absurd. I have warned Grump before to tone it done in his interaction with other editors,[71] as have countless others, and I have now had enough.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would someone kindly tell me who's being anti-Semitic? I really want to know who I should hate. Meanwhile these two have made an unmitigated disaster of the BLPN board. Can an admin tell both of these annoyances that their antics are causing a disturbance on that board and to get a room and let the adults go about their business?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's not a good idea to put out a fire with gasoline. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like to see "Jew" tossed around as a pejorative in any context, but Alansohn, there's a gulf of difference between "you are a troll, tagging Jewish biographical articles inappropriately" (i.e. what was actually said) and "you are a Jewish troll, tagging biographical articles inappropriately" (i.e what you are insinuating). Tarc (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's a huge gulf between "you are a troll, tagging Jewish biographical articles inappropriately" (what may have been intended) and "I've called you a clueless Jew-tagging troll" (what was said on multiple occasions by User:AndyTheGrump). Use of the word "Jew" in this pejorative manner is intended to be offensive on a religious basis, and that's the definition of anti-Semitism. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As everyone is clearly aware, it is Bus Stop who insists on labelling people as 'Jews', not me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Grump was not being antisemitic himself, but rather was implying antisemitism on the part of another editor. And anyone could be Grump's next target. Maybe it will be User:Bbb23 for reverting religion back into the Jordan Belfort infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My intent was certainly not to suggest that Bus Stop is an antisemite - as far as I'm aware, he self-identifies as Jewish, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt this. He is however clearly obsessed with labelling people as Jewish, and will go to inordinate lengths to argue a case for such labels, even when clearly inappropriate. As for Bbb23, I can't see evidence of any such edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no big difference between calling Bus Stop an antisemite and what you called him. Bbb23 diff here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

An edit made 11 days ago, and already reverted? You seem to be pulling 'evidence' out of thin air. As for what you 'see', your perception seems to be driven by what you want to see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your campaign of insults at BLPN has been going on so long now that you don't even realize the section of BLPN was precipitated by that edit of Bbb23.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. The section at BLPN was 'precipitated' by Bbb23 raising the edit there himself. I actually only participated in the discussion after I noticed that Bus Stop was yet again citing the very same unreliable source to back up his arguments. As my second post made clear, I had little enthusiasm for getting into what would inevitably be a long and tedious debate. With hindsight, I should probably have followed my instincts, and left the discussion for others. As much as I'd like to, I'm not going to be able to rid Wikipedia of the relentless policy-violating ethnotagging, tagging-by-religion-(unsourced) and the like all on my own, and I rarely get involved in such discussions lately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, yes, Bbb23 brought the matter to BLPN when his revert (the one you forgot about during your interminable tirade at BLPN) was itself reverted. Now go and take the last word if you like, because I have nothing more to say to you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see why the tern "Jew-tagging" is considered offensive. That is exactly what is happening here; editors (in this case Bus Stop) tagging people as Jewish, without reliable sources for such a tag. Andy is not making any comment, positive or negative, about Jews; he is commenting on those who seem to be obsessive in classifying others as Jews. It is this Jew-tagging that is offensive, and in my view antisemitic, not the act of pointing this out. I would support a topic ban, tagging or categorisation ban, related talk page ban and whatever other steps are necessary to put a stop to this constant flouting of Wikipedia's BLP policy. And I would vehemently oppose any sanctions against Andy for opposing this Jew-tagging. RolandR (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not true. As far as I know, Bus stop believes he does have reliable sources to support his tagging. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Bus Stop believes - or at least argues - that a reliable source for a living person being identified as Jewish is sufficient to label the person as Jewish by religion. WP:BLPCAT is however entirely clear that such sourcing is unacceptable. Unsurprisingly, since it isn't a source for what is being stated at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on both parties. For those that don't know or for those who aren't keeping score, AndyTheGrump and User:Bus stop have been having this particular epistemological argument for almost four years at last count. Both parties have presented their arguments ad nauseum in every available noticeboard and forum. The fact of the matter is, they have both presented their cases, and rational people can choose which side to support and which to oppose based on the evidence they choose to accept or reject. In my opinion, AndyTheGrump's comments could be construed as offensive to Bus stop. At the same time, Bus stop's tagging could be interpreted as annoying by AndyTheGrump. At the end of the day, both editors have different interpretations and approaches, and they must learn to respect each other, and more importantly, consensus. I would like to see this thread closed with no sanctions on either party. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Could this be construed as a personal attack on me? "AndyTheGrump" says "Bus stop is simply an obsessive Jew-tagger and should be ignored accordingly."[72] Edit summary: " response to Bus stop's usual attempt to turn Wikipedia into 'The pop-up book of famous Jews"[73] Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It could, if there were not a fair slice of truth in there. You do act like you have an obsession with adding ethnic categories to articles on people, regardless of policy and regardless of what the people themselves say. It would be better for everybody whose time is currently being wasted, and for you, if you were prevented from doing this. --John (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • You could interpret it that way, yes. But you could also take it as face value and laugh it off. My own personal opinion is that AndyTheGrump did not intend to use the word "Jew" in an insulting way. It's problematic, of course, because without the right context, someone could misinterpret it as antisemitic, which I don't think it is. You could argue that it is insulting. In any case, I've been following this specific debate for years, and I don't think Andy meant to attack Jews as a religion or an ethnic group, but he did intend to attack you for tagging biographical articles. And of course, we know the community has a problem with enforcing PA's, so you're back at square one again. Unlike others, I don't think you should be prevented from doing this, because I've followed the discussion over the last four years, and on many occasions you've shown that you have reliable sources for your tagging. So the problem isn't your selective tagging of articles, it's the policies and guidelines of how to categorize BLP's. But, I am curious about John's comments above. John, do you believe that editors who have what you call "obsessions" on Wikipedia, should be prevented from acting on those obsessions by the community? Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Highlighting part of your comment with yellow is really annoying. It gives the comments of one editor extra weight. Sort of like SHOUTING IN BOLD CAPS, When adding emphasis, in my opinion bold, italic, and bold italic suffice. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem that compounds the language problem ("Jew-tagging") is the offbeat understanding of Jews. "AndyTheGrump" says: "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"[74] Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Um, nice try Bus Stop, but anyone reading the diff will see that you have cherry-picked an irony-laden phrase out of context - one where I point out that according to the Halachic law you so frequently invoke, Adam Levine may well not be Jewish - and I go on to write that my opinion (in accord with Wikipedia policy) "If Adam Levine considers himself Jewish, and is proud of the fact, good for him - but that is for him to decide, not the Wikipedia Committee for Ethnobureacratic Classification and Stereotyping." AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—there is no "irony" in your statement: "And incidentally, if he isn't 'religiously Jewish' (which he isn't), is he 'Jewish' at all?"[75] This is not an ironic statement. You argue for a bright line of distinction between observant Jews and nonobservant Jews. It simply doesn't exist. But I never ask you to take my word for that. I show you sources. You can see that in this thread. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• • But, this isn't the place to continue the argument now, is it? Best to let this one go. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have my doubts about no sanctions, Viriditas, because I cannot believe that either Alansohn or Bus stop are in good faith in their arguments in this thread. Alansohn claims that Jew-tagging is "offensive on a religious basis" and evidence of an "anti-Semitic rampage" deserving "an extremely lengthy block of several months to years"; Bus stop claims that Andy's "word constructions involving the word "Jew"" are incomprehensible and shouldn't be used on Wikipedia because they're not used "by for instance prominent journalistic outlets and other good quality reliable sources". Do I really need to point out that Andy's not using those words in an article? He uses them in, and in order to refer to, "our unique working methods", that is to say to refer to to the wikipedia practice of "tagging". Bus stop, are you telling me you don't understand what Andy means by Jew-tagging? Suppose he had been talking about civility-tagging or NPOV-tagging, in an internal wikipedia discussion (again, of course nobody should use them in mainspace), would that also be inappropriate because those terms are not used beyond the borders of Wikipedia?

I agree that Alansohn deserves a block for his unconscionable accusation of antisemitism, and so I support Andy's call for a block. That's a personal attack if there ever was one. Alansohn made it here, and after Tarc had tried to explain what was wrong with his argument, he reiterated it here, in if possible even more IDIDNTHEARTHAT terms. And a topic ban for Bus stop per User:RolandR above seems entirely appropriate to me. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Bishonen—are you deliberately misconstruing what I said in this post? I did not imply anything was "incomprehensible". You say "Bus stop, are you telling me you don't understand what Andy means by 'Jew-tagging'?"[76] I did not say or imply anything remotely like that. I find problematic the off-the-cuff, flippant, invention of compound terms incorporating the term "Jew". Bus stop (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think she's saying that you said you didn't understand, she's saying that you've demonstrated that you don't understand. Seems straightforward. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. As a general observation, this guideline says it's fine to have a category like "Jewish musicians" based on ethnicity rather than religion. And putting someone in that category doesn't amount to being a "Jew tagging troll" which is an obvious and very disparaging allusion to Nazis affixing yellow stars to Jews. This is not a religious categorization, so I don't see why it would require treatment by editors exactly as a religious categorization.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps Wikipedia ought to get rid of all ethnic categories. I don't know. But people working within the existing categorization system ought not be constantly compared to Nazis, either explicitly or implicitly. Such comparison rightly offended User:Alansohn even if he expressed himself poorly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so now you are accusing me of comparing Bus Stop to a Nazi? Based on nothing but your fertile imagination. Talk about clutching at straws. Or tilting at Windmills. Or whatever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

When I say "Jew tagging troll" it's an obvious allusion to Nazis affixing yellow stars to Jews. When you say it, it may be intended as a wonderful compliment, who knows? How about just not using language that others will construe as a personal attack? You might get more accomplished that way. I know what kind of foul language you're unapologetically capable of, Andy, so don't try this Miss Innocence routine on me. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Your fertile (if somewhat jaundiced) imagination is of little relevance to this debate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's for others to decide, and they may well err as you have (serially).Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion the terminology of "tagging Jews" brings to mind the "tagging of Jews" by the Yellow stars. I do not find the reference at all farfetched. I failed to mention it but this reference seemed obvious to me. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with "X is Jewish". The issue is contentious and requires much more nuance that Bus stop seems capable of. In any particular case, it may be justified to interpret sources to assert someone's Jewishness, but the discussion at WP:BLPN#Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT indicates that anything plausible will be used by Bus stop to justify a tag, including "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews". The term "X is Jewish" becomes meaningless if it might refer to X's mother, or upbringing, or beliefs, or current religious observance, or cultural affiliation. By contrast WP:BLPCAT asserts "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello? I just explained that current guidelines treat being "Jewish" as an ethnic category, and not just a religious category. If you think it ought to be just a religious category, then change the guideline I just linked to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone is arguing for including "Religion: Jewish" in an infobox, it would seem safe to assume that they are applying a religious categorisation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If you would kindly reread the last comment by User:Johnuniq, he is arguing against the idea that "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews". That argument seems to contradict Wikipedia guidelines such as this one. Uniq did not mention infoboxes, I did not mention infoboxes, and infoboxes have nothing to do with whether the statement "Jews may be atheist ... and still Jews" is a correct statement. Anyway, I have things to do, and would prefer not to get into a week-long pie-throwing contest debate about this like you (Andy) conducted at BLPN. So, I'm out of here (at least assuming that no one proposes sanctions against me now). Have a nice January.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I seem to be the only person here who sees Andy's term "Jew-tagging" as an analog to "Jew-baiting", a reference to a mode of behavior seen as insensitive and often unsavory, but not necessarily full-throatedly antisemitic. I see no reason to conclude the term is either a reference to Nazis or itself a manifestation of antisemitism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you're the only one. Clearly Andy has found a polemic shortcut for "categorizing as Jewish by either faith or ethnicity". Bus stop may call that antisemitic but we know why they would; why Alansohn would call it that I don't know, though I'll AGF and just blame it on poor grammar education. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The language we are discussing is unnecessary. The language we are discussing is wholly gratuitous. We don't have to find such language antisemitic to find it unacceptable. Our level of discourse should be based upon the best that is out there. We shouldn't be looking inward. All of the good quality journalistic outlets tend to follow carefully scripted language practices. They adjust their language usage as terms come into and go out of vogue. If a Google News search finds zero usage for a term, it is a good bet that we shouldn't be using it either. This of course applies in article space, but it is a good idea to endeavor to keep Talk page spaces in conformance with the best quality language usage available. Bus stop (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The behavior we are discussing is unnecessary. The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The best quality language usage available would not include the terminology "Jew-tagging". Again: we don't have to find it antisemitic to find it unacceptable. The historical use of the Yellow badge is a form of "Jew-tagging", is it not? Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any sanction, whether it be a BLPCAT topic ban or a full BLPBAN, for Bus stop. Although I don't necessarily condone AndyTheGrump's overly-expressive language here and at the related BLPN discussion, I certainly understand (and empathize with) his frustration. I stopped commenting at any BLPN discussion regarding Jewish categories involving Bus Stop a very long time ago as the experience was too painful. I'm sure I'm not the only one who became worn down by the IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses and endless repetition of the same arguments. I'm grateful that Andy has shown more fortitude than me and I don't support any sanctions against him at this time regarding this issue. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• For <insert deity's name>'s sake, "Jew-tagging", "bear-tagging" ... it's not offensive whatsoever. It's random or systemic tagging for classification or tracking purposes - exactly what Bus stop should be banned form doing ES&L 01:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban for Bus stop

Reading through the above thread, the only sanction that I can see emerging as at all widely supported is a topic ban for Bus stop. The following ten users have proposed it in different terms:

1. Dougweller: "I'm suggesting a site ban on tagging articles with ethnic or religious tags."
2. AndyTheGrump: "an indefinite topic ban on anything relating to Jewish identities and living persons is the appropriate remedy"
3. Ultraexactzz: "I'd support a topic ban from all BLPs. Simple, clear, and cuts off the entire problem area."
4. Drmies:"I second Dougweller's call for a topic ban on BLP categories, and am not opposed to Ultraexactzz's proposal."
5. John: "I support a topic ban for BLP categories for Bus Stop. This is one incident too many."
6. Guy Macon: "Give [Bus stop] an indefinite topic ban [when the topic involves Judaism in any way] with an invitation to apply for removal after he has spent at least six months as a productive editor in other areas"
7. RolandR: "I would support a topic ban, tagging or categorisation ban, related talk page ban and whatever other steps are necessary to put a stop to this constant flouting of Wikipedia's BLP policy."
8. Bishonen: "a topic ban for Bus stop per User:RolandR above seems entirely appropriate to me."
9. Johnuniq: "Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with "X is Jewish".
10. Ponyo: "Support any sanction, whether it be a BLPCAT topic ban or a full BLPBAN, for Bus stop"

• I'll try to summarize the options:

Option 1: Bus stop is topic banned from adding ethnic or religious categories to BLPs.
Option 2: Bus stop is topic banned from adding any categories to BLPs.
Option 3: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages and discussions relating to Jewish identities and living persons.
Option 4: Bus stop is topic banned from all BLPs and their talkpages.

If anybody feels they can summarize it better, do please feel free, because I'm not particularly confident about this four-barelled proposal; it seems a little byzantine. Please discuss below, and if you support a ban, please indicate which option(s) and also for how long. I'll start the ball rolling:

• Support an indefinite ban per whichever of options 2, 3, and 4 gets more support. (My reservation w r t Option 1 is that I can see it leading to endless argument about which categories qualify as ethnic or religious and which don't.) Bishonen | talk 00:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

(edit conflict) Bishonen–there have been no diffs brought. I read at the top of this page: "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." I would be opposed to a Kangaroo court style of justice. Please bring diffs. Also please respond to this. Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

They know they don't need evidence for a topic ban. Hell, most editors are blocked with little to no evidence. You seem to forget how this place works. The irony, of course, is that the evidence presented in this thread by your detractors exonerates you, demonstrating that the conflict over categorizing Jews exists independently of your participation. In fact, the evidence presented against you has little to nothing to do with your contributions. To conclude, the rationale for this topic ban is a fraud. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting the way the process operates. When asked for evidence in the form of "diffs", those who support sanctions against me turn a deaf ear. Obviously few "diffs" are available and not enough of good enough quality to justify sanctions. Bus stop (talk) 04:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support an indefinite ban per whichever of options 2, 3, and 4 gets more support. Bus Stop's extreme tendentiousness in the above thread engenders empathy for AndyTheGrump, as does the unseriousness of AndyTheGrump's detractors — goethean 00:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support each and every -- I first ran into him at Judaism so the problem is not only BLPs, but it is sure where the most heat has been generated. I dislike draconian solutions, but this one has been long in coming. Collect (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all options, with preference given to the most severe restriction. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Bus stop is passionate, and he courageously speaks his mind. Tedious at times; perhaps unrelenting at times; but he doesn't back down and he never - never attacks other editors. To each his/her own and some sensitivity is called for...Modernist (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2-4 as above. Israel/Palestine, Judaism, and related topic areas are a nasty, hostile area to edit in, which is why I have largely abandoned it. Any action that pries a tendentious editor out of the morass can only be a net positive. Andy's rhetoric is sub-optimal, but asking anyone to turn a cheek to what Bus Stop has been upto for years is simply too much to expect from anyone. Tarc (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support All, but especially options 3 and four 5. His mode of discussion of the categories is far more problematic than his adding of them. He is either incapable of understanding plain English or pretends to be. In either case he can't or won't discuss these issues constructively. Tedious+unrelenting=tendentious. (edit) Supporting 5 rather than 4; not 4 per AndyTheGrump, yes 5 per my experiences with him over the years in Palestine/Israeli matters, which parallel his tendentious editing in BLP as discussed and displayed on the present occasion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe Bus Stop may well have been brought around to seeing the error of his ways if he had been spoken to with a minimal amount of politeness, instead of with the ridicule, contempt, incivility, personal attacks, and disparagement that were richly on display in the BLPN thread. That is still possible, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I thought "diffs" were important. Can those "supporting" bring a collection of recent "diffs" for my supposedly problematic input? I read at the top of this page: "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting." Bus stop (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a question for you, Bishonen.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a question for Bishonen. Bishonen was also asked a question here. Bus stop (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No. Those instructions are intended for the context of initial reporting of a problem. When an editors own contributions within the ANI thread clearly indicate the basis of the ban proposal diffs would be a bureaucratic redundancy.NE Ent 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NE Ent—it is not "bureaucratic redundancy"; it is an absence of evidence. Bus stop (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support--I'll have 2 and 3 please. [Drmies on the run.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.40.38 (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support 3, indefinitely. I suspect that 1 or 2 might well be seen by Bus Stop as a license to continue the same pattern of talk-page tendentiousness. I can't in good faith support 4, given that I've not really seen sufficient evidence of his behavioural problems extending beyond issues around 'Jewishness' to convince me it is really necessary, and I get the impression that some of the art-related work he has done has been beneficial to the project - editing subjects where he feels less personal involvement might just possibly bring around a change of heart, even at this late stage. If his behaviour (which is likely to remain under close scrutiny) does then prove problematic beyond the matters discussed here, we will of course have the option of imposing further topic bans etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support any or all. Seven years of tendentious and disruptive editing in this area is probably a long enough period to draw conclusions about a pattern of conduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2 and 3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 2. Would not outright ban him on talk pages of those pages covered in #2, but a stern caution is if Bus Stop can't drop the stick when clearly the rest of the discussion has moved on, that's grounds for blocking as well. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all per ToAT. NE Ent 02:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all topic ban proposals. Ironically, the evidence listed in this discussion allegedly showing that Bus stop has been "tendentious" and causing conflict actually shows the complete opposite and exonerates him. In the three primary examples listed in this thread, namely Adam Levine, Ed Miliband, and Jordan Belfort, Bus stop was correct in alleging that these people self-identify as Jews. This has angered several editors who have been trying very hard to remove this self-identification from these and other articles. This current conflict results from a dispute at Jordan Belfort, a dispute that has nothing to do with Bus stop. While it is true that Bus stop has had problems in the past, he has stayed out of trouble since 2011. If one looks closely at the evidence in this thread being used against him as a justification for a topic ban, one is forced to conclude that Bus stop is innocent and that this discussion is another example of Wikipedia groupthink at work. Certain editors on one side of this dispute are attempting to silence Bus stop, who has been calm and civil while dealing with a barrage of personal attacks on the noticeboards. A topic ban would reward those who would seek to impose sanctions on their ideological rivals and punish those who remain steadfast and strong in the face of such intimidation. I believe he was wrong to accuse others of antisemitism, but his error is understandable considering the confusing verbiage. I don't, however, believe this mistake should result in a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Viriditas. Anyone voting for sanctions against me should read this Jordan Belfort thread on the BLP/N. I didn't initiate it. I didn't even argue for "Religion: Jewish" in the Belfort Infobox. I support our policy on WP:BLPCAT. I understand it and I support it. But I nevertheless reserve the right to respond to comments that I think are misguided—either innocently or by caprice. The discussion went on, but I wasn't the only driving force behind its perpetuation. Bus stop (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Bus stop certainly did not put "Religion:Jewish" into the Belfort infobox (unlike other editors), and he is not arguing for "Religion:Jewish" in the Belfort infobox, and he is about to be topic-banned because of....the Belfort infobox?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Viriditas and Anythingyouwant's reasoning above which are both very well put. I may not agree with all of Bus stop's tactics but I have seen over the years a pattern of backing him into a corner and then bringing him to these sorts of noticeboards. It's despicable, frankly. freshacconci talk to me 02:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, freshacconci. This is a game that "AndyTheGrump" plays. In his very first post in the Jordan Belfort and WP:BLPCAT thread he/she says "And there is no way whatsoever that Wikipedia is ever going to define anyones religion on the basis that their mother was Jewish. That is not only contrary to policy, it is just plain stupid."[77] Why is he referring to defining religion "on the basis that their mother was Jewish"? This has nothing to do with the preceding conversation. Certainly nothing said by me. And is it "just plain stupid"? Orthodox Judaism maintains that it is the mother that determines whether the child is Jewish. Is this "just plain stupid"? "AndyTheGrump" starts off abrasively. Is this the way Wikipedia should conduct itself? I started this AN/I thread to address a problem. It is difficult if not impossible to have an intelligent discussion with someone whose input is so abrasive. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The process is interesting. Due to the peculiarities of WP:Boomerang one can't address problems such as abusive editors such as "AndyTheGrump" without having sanctions brought on oneself. The process is such that "AndyTheGrump" is free to heap abuse on others without any possibility of repercussion. Bus stop (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support any/all. The intersections of culture/ethnicity/religion wrt judaism/jewishness is a complex area and needs to be approached carefully. Someone who is so determined to force through his own interpretations needs to be removed from the topic area. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support whichever option casts the widest net. Epicgenius (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support 1, 2, and 3. I have not done the research to justify supporting 4. Tagging ethnicity/culture/religion may be fine if conducted by an organization with a formal structure where the meaning of the tags can at least be guessed, and where consistency can be assumed, but it is problematic here where people can argue (against the WP:BLPCAT policy) that "X is Jewish" is justified by tradition or descent or culture or religious observance, while others believe that such thinking is from the 1950s—when a reader sees "X is Jewish" are they supposed to think "Oh! That explains it!"? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Note: all the !votes above this comment were posted before option 5 was added. This means that supporting my suggested topic ban was not an option. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all per Alansohn's comment in the discussion up above. Bus stop has been adding categories based on sources, and Andy's been removing them with his characteristic level of civility. Sanctions should be placed for removing information based on sources, not for adding it. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Alansohn 110% that the "Use of the word 'Jew' in this pejorative manner is intended to be offensive on a religious basis"[78]. All arguments to the contrary should be rejected summarily. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support options 2 or 3 per my comment in the preceding section.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 05:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Bus Stop has only acknowledged a problem, that he found as either ethnic slur or racial slur. It is offensive, "Jew tagging" has only 200-230 results, on Google. Making it no official, but made up insult. Kindly check both's block history. Who is less disruptive. Banning is certainly not a solution for Bus Stop. Noteswork (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all five ban options. --John (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, what is Bus stop doing wrong here? Does the Who is a Jew? argument make it semantically impossible to tag Jews as Jewish? I did not see any evidence of improper behavior by Bus stop, while Andy's outright rudeness is evident even in the discussion above. Shii (tock) 08:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all five sanctions, having read through the frankly depressing thread above. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what Andy has done, and that discussion belongs in a separate thread; it's clear that Bus stop is completely unable to edit productively in this area, and has no grasp of BLPCAT or WP:RS. Several editors here are clearly letting their dislike of Andy take precedence over what is happening (Alansohn and Anythingyouwant being two obvious examples; Alansohn not even bothering to read what Andy actually wrote properly at pretty much any point in the thread). Noteswork's oppose vote borders on the ridiculous (of course it won't come up on Google, considering that it's a direct reference to a Wikipedia process!) If you want to propose some sanction for Andy, open up a separate sub-thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Outright bullying is what I see, and loads of apologetics for incivility. It is not OK to call editors Jew-tagging trolls. I see masses of Palestinian Arab-troll tagging, with people adding that identification to articles when it is so false and without sourcing as to be ridiculous. Nobody has put a name on it yet. Thank you Grump for giving it a name.--Silmiyyah (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support all bans. Bus stop has continued to edit against consensus and to have entered into numerous disputes with other editors. Obviously they cannot edit in a collegial manner. TFD (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD, nowhere in this discussion is there any evidence of Bus stop editing against consensus. Nowhere. And there is no evidence of any incivility either. Perhaps you are responding to the wrong discussion? It is AndyTheGrump who is accused of editing in a less than collegial manner, not Bus stop. And as for consensus on the matter at hand, Bus stop did not act against consensus in the matter of Jordan Belfort, which is where this latest dispute originated from in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Topic bans. The verbiage being complained about is only offensive for the use of troll, but I think Andy had reason to use that term. "Jew" is not offensive. I asked about this on the Judaism project some time ago when I was concerned over its use in articles. Andy told the editor to go to ANI if they wanted to complain. That IS NOT BAITING! I tell people that all the time when I am finished discussing their complaint of something they didn't like. It gives them the information they need to make a formal complaint. It is not baiting and is not actionable. I am concerned that Andy may have overreacted, but if someone is tagging articles to just proclaim the subject is Jewish...it is as wrong as labeling someone as gay if they do not self identify as such. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Except, this ANI report does not involve Bus stop tagging anyone, and in the three articles listed as "problematic" in this thread by Andy, all three subjects self-identified as Jewish. Viriditas (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I understand that Viriditas, but the complaint regarded someone being called a "A Jew tagging troll". Like many editors, they may well have tagged some correctly, but if the issue is someone who is out of control and obsessed to a point that all they seem to do, or the majority of their work is to tag subjects as Jewish...that just seems like a red flag for a temp topic ban regardless of that editor opening a complaint against another.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
      • After reading your post and looking a tad further I think it best to forget all bans for the moment and refocus on the content issues. Andy may have over reacted to an editor that he felt was too gungho but seems to have done little wrong aside from complaining about a non issue. A thicker skin is needed to edit Wikipedia. No reason to ban the editor for just being correct and another not liking that fact. I have altered my !vote.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support' 3; open-minded about all others. It is necessary to put a stop to this constant tagging, and the interminable talk page discussions. And let's please dispose of the red herring here: Neither Andy not anyone else is proposing removing any mention that Belfort is, or identifies as, Jewish. What is at issue here, and in many of the previous arguments, is Bus Stop's insistence that if, under Jewish religious law, a person is considered Jewish, then this is sufficient evidence to insist that their religion be listed as Jewish, regardless of their own statements. RolandR (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - A number of !votes here seem to be based on misconceptions. A key issue seems to be that Bus stop advocates the view that RS based information that supports ethnicity=X for an individual can be transformed into religion=X (or some variation such as nonobservant), in an infobox for example. He claims this transformation is valid and consistent with the decision procedure described by WP:BLPCAT under certain conditions, when X=Jewish (and perhaps for other ethnoreligious groups although I haven't seen evidence of that). This view is inconsistent with BLPCAT, which says "Categories regarding religious beliefs...should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ...in question, and the subject's beliefs...are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources...These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs..." A number of examples of his advocacy of this transformation of information about ethnicity into information about religious beliefs have already been provided. This is not about removal of information based on self-identification. It's not about anyone adding categories based on sources, and someone else removing them. It's not about it being "semantically impossible to tag Jews as Jewish". It's about the addition or advocacy for the addition of information about religion/religious beliefs without self-identification and sourcing that supports that information. The editors who have !voted based on misconceptions should go back and review the discussion, the examples and amend their statements accordingly. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean, that's not true. You wrote that "a number of examples of his advocacy of this transformation of information about ethnicity into information about religious beliefs have already been provided". The examples that have been provided are of Jordan Belfort (self-identifies as a Jew), Ed Miliband (self-identifies as a Jew), and Adam Levine (self-identifies as a Jew). There is no "advocacy" by Bus stop here. Quite the opposite, actually. Ironically, in all three instances above, we have editors obsessively arguing for days on end that even when these people self-identify as Jews they still cannot be categorized as Jews. So no matter how much one adheres to BLPCAT, someone will try and dispute it based on what it means to be Jewish. The problem here has nothing whatsoever to do with Bus stop. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Look more closely e.g. Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_2#Planned_WP:BOLD_edit (search for 'Bus stop (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010) or Talk:Ed_Miliband/Archive_2#Ethnicity_in_infobox (search for 'Bus stop (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2011'). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—in this thread you have said to "AndyTheGrump": "So, you haven't made any policy violating edits based on a conflation of ethnicity and religious beliefs or a misuse of reliably sourced information about one aspect of a person's identity, ethnicity, to draw policy violating conclusions about another aspect of their identity, religion. Thought not."[79] Bus stop (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And, Sean.hoyland, in that thread you have said to ""AndyTheGrump": "Come on Andy. Surely it's trivial for you to dig up a diff that demonstrates one of the many occasions you have treated Christians as an ethnoreligious group where the ambiguity of the statement "I'm a Christian" by a living person confused you to the extent that you were unsure which aspect of their identity they were referring to, their ethnicity or their religious beliefs, but because you know what it means to be Christian, even in a ethnic sense, you went ahead with Ethnicity=Christian in the infobox anyway."[80] Bus stop (talk) 10:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Was there a question ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• oppose -- I agree strongly with Viriditas, and urge the person who will close this to read his post carefully. In addition: this issue emerges in part from Andy's conniptions, which might lead some to suggest with me that if this issue causes Andy angst then perhaps his focus is best placed elsewhere. Bus-stop is persistent (one might say dogged), but he is civil. If others disagree with him, fine, but I don't see disruption here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to give him that. He is really Civil. Noteswork (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do Wikipedia's rules allow an editor to advocate their model of X (identity in this case) and/or apply that model to articles about living people without evidence that complies with WP:BLPCAT ? When does that kind of behavior cross the fuzzy line into disruption ? It seems to me that the degree of civility isn't relevant to these questions. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree Sean; in this case civility is crucial and indicative of character - especially as these long drawn out discussions become heated. Bus stop is an important - if dissenting voice - to many of the articles that he contributes to. While others often disagree with him, and while his opinions are unpopular regarding certain BLP subjects his voice should not be silenced...Modernist (talk) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nicely explained by Modernist. Indeed, Bus stop has been less disruptive for last 3 years. We know there are editors who commit higher amount of offense. If he is amusing WP:Goodfaith and has suggestion based on references. He can be accepted, not certainly opposed. Noteswork (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that many people hold that view of civility here. One of the consequences is that editors who want to engineer content to match their model of the world are best served by employing civility to achieve their objectives. Civility is a valuable tool under these circumstances and performs better than incivility, but both are just surface features. The objectives remain the same and are independent of the presentation style. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree Sean that civility certainly helps putting forward your objectives and points of view regarding the world - and how you present material in articles - however the predominant criteria still rests on reliable sources and writing quality. I should add - Bus stop often backs his input with reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

He does indeed often find sources, that's true. He is not a bad person. I could say many good things about his editing but I hate to dwell on the positive. Unfortunately he has a hobby horse and it's his horse that causes problems. Given that he's a painter, and given that so very many articles about artists are in a bad state or don't exist, I just wish that he would spend his time more constructively, like you, rather than wasting it trying to convince people that it's okay to make decisions about someone's beliefs and putting that in an encyclopedia without their input. It's just wrong and pointless. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This whole thing is ridiculous. Andy started throwing around slurs, and when he was called on it, the primary victim of those slurs was attacked. Viriditas and Nomoskedasticity and the rest are 100% correct, and the usual religion-hating crowd should be slapped with a trout. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Religion-hating crowd? Citation needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As I explained in the section above this one, I think this is not the right forum to come to this conclusion. WP:RFC/USER is where I think this should go, and I think the intention should be guiding Bus stop rather than blocking him. His contributions over the years have been valuable, and his behavior normative. A user like that deserves the effort a RFC/USER who provide for giving guidance. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all proposed measures against "Bus stop" because this thread presents no evidence of disruptive behavior or even links to prior discussions of such. So it surely looks like a Wikipedia:POV railroad to a hitherto uninvolved observer/editor. If this has been going on for years as claimed, surely a RfC/U can be filed with some evidence. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Support civility wp:trout to AndyTheGrump though; that problem has been documented above well enough. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• On a procedural note I'd like to mention that User:Bishonen who created this section [81] should have listed not only those in favor of a topic ban, but those opposed as well. As is, he creates an unfair impression. Debresser (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, they shouldn't have, and to suggest that is daft. There was, at that point, a consensus emerging that some kind of action was needed, so Bishonen opened the thread, citing the views of those who viewed that this particular course of action is necessary. Now, there is probably no consensus either way (it looks roughly 50-50), so wikilawyer-esque comments like that really aren't needed. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I make it 20:14, and we can probably strike out some of the 14 as being people with various anti-Andy agendas. Not sure if we can call this consensus yet, but it isn't 50-50 by any means. --John (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No one has an anti- bus-stop agenda?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And how would an "anti-Andy" !vote be determined? I only know him in passing, so I take exception to the bad-faith suggestion that some of the oppose !votes are merely anti-Andy. I am personally troubled that using a slur like "Jew-tagging trolls", regardless of supposed context, is merely brushed aside and the victim of the slur is then attacked. It's pretty shocking and points to some systemic issues on Wikipedia. And for such a draconian measure -- up to 5 possible choices that could lead to various bannings -- to be determined by a simple 50%+1 vote is equally troubling. I always thought that Wikipedia was not a democracy and it was a matter of argument and not numbers of votes, thus the !vote designation. freshacconci talk to me 19:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Really, Debresser? I should have listed User:Viriditas? I couldn't find anybody else besides him explicitly opposing such a ban in the thread above. If you can, I hope you'll list them here. Actually, it seems natural to me that with the one exception, the people likely to be against a ban didn't say so in so many words, in the kind of discussion taking place above — not even you, Debresser, not even Bus stop as far as I can see. That was one of the reasons I created this section, for more focused attention to the question of a ban, so that those against might post explicit opposes, so that consensus about a ban might be sought. (I also assumed that Viriditas would post in this section, as indeed he has. Do you feel ignored by the way I opened this section, Viriditas?)

By the way, I have my own procedural note: Somebody has removed option 5 above, which was added by Guy Macon here. Excuse me for bolding, but that one I think is important. Guy put a note about his option here; that's still there on the page. I can't where the removal happened in the history, ANI history being what it is, but it wasn't Guy. Several people have addressed option 5. It seems destructive to silently remove it. Please, at a minimum, add a signed note about why. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

It was removed in this edit.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Not only isn't this the proper forum, but there is no evidence provided here of an issue with Bus stop, though there is ample evidence of User:AndyTheGrump using thinly veiled racist language. I'm sure that there are other examples of compound / hyphenated terms using the word "Jew", but "Jew-lover", "Jew-hater" and "Jew-baiting" come to mind. None of these use the word "Jew" in a vaguely neutral connotation, and the provocative nature of the term AndyTheGrump has manufactured is unmistakable. Imagine if Bus stop had been categorizing articles for people as LGBT or African American based on reliable sources, and substitute for "Jew" the equivalent offensive slur for sexual preference / race in the term "Jew-tagging" that AndyTheGrump has used repeatedly without compunction. If wanting to stand up to AndyTheGrump for his persistent use of thinly disguised racist rhetoric marks me as having an "anti-Andy agenda", then so be it. Alansohn (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Is Alansohn to be allowed to continue to make these vile and entirely unfounded personal attacks on my integrity without sanction? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Options #2 and #3. BMK (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Now that I've read the mysteriously removed Option 5: Bus stop is topic banned from all pages related to Judaism., I support it as well. BMK (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal. I propose that this disgusting thread be closed as inappropriate and that AndyTheGrump be requested to offer a real apology for using an inappropriate term in a collaborative and collegial setting. In academia, and I'm certain in other Real World settings, Andy's language would have not been tolerated, and he would have been sanctioned in some fashion in an academic institution. Bus stop's "crime" (i.e. annoying some people) would have earned a stern warning at best. I say close this now and we all move on. (I'll be holding my breath over here). freshacconci talk to me 19:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I say you don't have a leg to stand on, given the actual evidence and opinions offered by many many people above, but I'll not be holding my breath for you to notice, either. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support #3, at minimum. Plenty of evidence in this very thread for such a measure -- and Bus stop's attempts at FUD notwithstanding, the links are here to easily go and check his behavior on the various Talk/Noticeboard pages. And while we're at it, 1) an official warning (at minimum) or block for User:Alansohn's reprehensible attempt at stifling commentary by invoking anti-semiticism; 2) User:Anythingyouwant, that axe you have is nice and shiny, but maybe you should go grind it somewhere else. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Short incivility block for User:AndyTheGrump

Per the statements in the discussion above:

• Debresser: "AndyTheGrump should be blocked or voluntarily refrain from editing for a week for making such comments."
• Guy Macon: "I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy." (This was out of context.)
• Anythingyouwant: "Support any type of block or ban at all against User:AndyTheGrump."
• Johnuniq: "The behavior we are discussing is wholly gratuitous and is unacceptable."

I suggest that User:AndyTheGrump be blocked symbolically for 24 hours, with further blocks if incivility continues. There seems to be a broad consensus for this already. Shii (tock) 19:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Emphatically support, and lengthen the block if there is consensus for doing so. At the BLPN discussion, Andy called User:Bus stop “a complete imbecile or a clueless Jew-tagging troll with OCD” (Obsessive–compulsive disorder, a psychological disorder). Also called him, “someone who wishes for Wikipedia to publish lies.” Tagging Jews is common parlance for what the Nazis and other antisemites have done: “Nazis were boycotting and tagging Jews in Germany, persecution that was maybe not well—known in the rest of America but was talked about in Brooklyn.”[82][83][84] Andy has rejected criticism about these connotations, calling such criticism "vile and entirely unfounded". In any event, even putting aside the antisemitic connotations, the incivility warrants a block, especially as a culmination of years of same.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as this would be the epitome of a punitive block, which we do not do around here. The allegations of antisemitism here are becoming troubling as well, and I wouldn't be surprised if this rhetoric is sanctionable under WP:ARBPIATarc (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. The object is to curb the grossest form of incivility. And note well: I have never accused AndytheGrump of antisemitism, but rather of using language (intentionally or unintentionally) that connotes another editor is antisemitic.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, why would I be trying to suggest that Bus Stop is an antisemite? He self-identifies as Jewish... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say what you were trying to do, as I cannot read your mind, but what you did do was spew a lot of hateful insults. (Generally speaking, the loyalty of Benedict Arnold to the United States was widely questioned even though he was an American general.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, who are you comparing to Benedict Arnold? You've lost me... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore the parenthetical if you don't understand it. It's just a parenthetical after all. And now, I must take my leave for awhile. I wish that everyone did not have to endure this mess, but it seems very important to get it right.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, this entry is my opinion as to whether or not there should be a block. You may disagree, even vehemently if you wish, but please do not call one's opinion "wrong". That is condescending and rather snotty. Tarc (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Instead of calling me "snotty", how about explaining why a block would do nothing to deter future transgressions? I believe you are wrong to say such a block would be punitive. It would deter future transgressions. Gotta run now. Looking forward to your reply, Tarc, hopefully without more insults.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support symbolic block. Normally, I'm opposed to these sorts of tit-for-tat proposals that usually escalate the situation. Case-in-point, the response to Bus stop's initial complaint being a proposed topic-ban against Bus stop. However, in this case, Andy's comment goes way over the line. A genuine apology would suffice in my book, but I'd have to be assured that he understands why the comment is inappropriate. freshacconci talk to me 19:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, and object to being quoted out of context.

The top of this section quotes me as saying

"I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy."

but what I actually wrote was

"Because of the above, I suggest a slowly escalating series for blocks for Andy. First a warning so he knows what is going to happen, then one day, then two days, three days, etc."

I do not support a block for what has been presented here. I support it for future (and more clear-cut) incivility after Andy is warned that he has to stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I apologize for quoting you out of context. I had to read through the conversation twice and unhappily missed the context of your comment the second time. Shii (tock) 22:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Grossly contrary to blocking policy, and unjustified by behavior. And the comment by User:Johnuniq, listed above, was a characterization of Bus stop's behavior, not Andy's, indicating at beat that the OP here does not properly understand at least some aspects of the debate -- if not worse, given the inappropriately selective quote mentioned above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, doesn't the blocking policy allow blocks for gross and habitual incivility? Also, maybe I missed it, but User:Johnuniq cited no diffs of problematic editing by Bus stop, right? I entirely agree with Johnuniq that Wikipedia's categorizing by ethnicity/culture/religion is problematic, but current policies and guidelines allow it. If it's a religious categorization then it requires self-identification, but not if it's only an ethnic categorization; that's what the current Wikipedia policies and guidelines say. Bus stop may (or may not) have argued for changing those policies and guidelines, but did he violate them???? And how does any of that excuse the quoted rubbish from AndytheGrump?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You're being purposefully obtuse. Blocking policy does not allow "symbolic blocks". Johnuniq did not cited individual diffs, but condemn Bus stop's already well-documented overall course of conduct, saying ""Support topic ban to prevent Bus stop continuing their campaign to tag every possible page with 'X is Jewish'". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support a short incivility block of a few weeks to start and be prepared to escalate from there. Read this article for some background on the use of "Jew" as a pejorative. You might be able in some contexts to say someone "is a Jew" and get away with it, but when you use "Jew" as an adjective in "Jew-tagging" you cross a line into Jew-baiting. User:AndyTheGrump has repeatedly emphasized that he was trying to provoke Bus stop into filing an ANI and the use of rather clear racist code words appears to be part of his incitement. Take a look at how we at Wikipedia define this issue at Jew (word)#Antisemitism "The word Jew has been used often enough in a disparaging manner by antisemites that in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was frequently avoided altogether, and the term Hebrew was substituted instead (e.g. Young Men's Hebrew Association). Even today some people are wary of its use, and prefer to use "Jewish". Indeed, when used as an adjective (e.g. "Jew lawyer") or verb (e.g. "to jew someone"), the term Jew is purely pejorative." The lack of any awareness of the issue on the part of User:AndyTheGrump of his repeated use of his manufactured term "Jew-tagging", using the adjectival form of the word "Jew" in a clearly pejorative manner, only compounds the issue; He certainly didn't mean to call Bus stop a "clueless Jew-tagging troll" in a good way, but rather as the very definition of a WP:NPA violation. A block might end this continuing abuse and finally get his attention. Alansohn (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the weasel-worded excuses that Alansohn is currently posting on his talk page for a gross personal attack on me he clearly regrets making,[85] I think his comments here need to be taken with a pinch of salt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your repeated use of racist code words and your refusal to acknowledge -- and apologize for -- your shameless use of "clueless Jew-tagging troll" as a religion-based personal attack only further demonstrates that you are the problem here. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your continued accusations of racism and antisemitism, even as you attempt to deny making such accusations, further demonstrate your gross hypocrisy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI: There is a short discussion of Alansohn's attack on Andy on my talkpage. Apparently he's still talking about Andy's "religion-based personal attack", and my opinion is still that he should be blocked for his baseless IDHT charges of antisemitism. Bishonen | talk 22:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC).

• Oppose Huh? What is a "symbolic" incivility block? Either you block, or you don't. Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose What the hell does it mean to be "blocked symbolically"? There is nothing in the blocking policy which supports "symbolic" blocks, and the quotes cherry-picked by Shii supporting a block have been misrepresented. Andy has vehemently denied the comments were meant to be antisemitic and has explained that the comment was made in relation to Bus stop's propensity for tagging (i.e. adding a specific category) BLP subjects as Jewish regardless as to whether there is consensus for the inclusion of the category, or whether policy supports the categorization. Continuing to insist Andy meant otherwise when they outright deny it, and there is a very plausible alternate explanation is an untenable position because you cannot prove another individual's intent. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As others have noted blocks are preventative not punitive. MarnetteD | Talk 21:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per all my my comments above. I'm nonplussed that Shii can see "broad consensus for this already". Bishonen | talk 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose unless Alanshon is blocked as well for his series of escalating accusations. Also, I suggest an interaction ban be imposed on the two of them if this keeps up. Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - no evidence of this being anything other than punitive. Alonsohn has, yet again, allowed their dislike of Andy to overtake common sense, and so has Anythingyouwant. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As above, not to mention the fact that Andy committed no incivility that I can see.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Wow Shii (tock) 22:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - A "symbolic" block is a punitive block. BMK (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest possible terms. It is utterly outrageous to suggest that Andy's behaviour is in any way antisemitic. His entire course of behaviour here has been to counter the gratuitous tagging of people as Jews. The term "Jew-tagging" is no more antisemitic than "Jew-baiting" or "Jew-hunting", and was entirely appropriate as a description of Bus Stop's behaviour. I repeated the term in one of my edits above, and if Andy is to be sanctioned for the use of this term then, in the interests of even-handedness I too must be sanctioned. Therefore I demand that I too receive the same "symbolic incivility block". RolandR (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. User:Anythingyouwant, that axe you're holding is nice and shiny, but maybe you should go grind it somewhere else. --Calton | Talk 22:24, 29 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, 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

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

---

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)

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

Revdel request and possible compromised account

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

---

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)

• The user is not an admin, rollbacker, or crat (the "verify" link in each userbox can be used to check that). I've removed those userboxes. The account appeared constructive early on, and then took a sudden turn to the trollish on 1/26. This would seem likely to be the current problem; if someone doesn't beat me to it, I'm going to up the block to indef as a compromised account. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Erpert, I understand that you're trying to be helpful, but the information you provided The C of E was incorrect. The edit fell under revdelete criteria #2 and I have removed it accordingly, and the account does indeed appear to be possibly compromised. There's no need to rush in and comment on so many ANI threads; I know the intention is good, but it isn't necessary. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked Indef by Fluffernutter. Admiral Caius (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Cornerstone Motorcycle Ministry battleground

Avergobbe (talk · contribs), WeAreFaithful (talk · contribs), and 129.170.195.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are using Cornerstone Motorcycle Ministry as a battleground. Avergobbe has posted vague legal threats in the article, a direct legal threat at User talk:WeAreFaithful. They are bickering over who is the actual president of this organization, and who owns the copyrights and trademarks. Neither is citing reliable third party sources. We'd all be better off if we could AfD Cornerstone Motorcycle Ministry but there's just enough coverage to keep the article. I'm going to try to improve the article with the Christianity Today source (any help?) and shift the focus away from this unverifiable battle over control of the organization. Requesting temporary blocks and/or page protection as needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I've given all three editors notices about edit warring, which they don't appear to have been given before. If the reverting continues after this, blocks will be in order. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The notability of that organization is weak. It's way below the standard for WP:NONPROFIT. The references are a few brief articles in very local small-town newspapers. Send to AfD? John Nagle (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Weak indeed, but good enough for a page. Noteswork (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editor: User:KikeFolan (talk)

I would like to see some advice or action taken regarding this particular editor. We have some problems with him. He makes controversial editions and we try to talk with him. However, he never answer us and still doing his editions, (now, vandalism) He was blocked sometimes (for example, he reverted some editions in OVW Heavyweight Championship and was blocked) Now, he still doing the same in WWE and his editions were reverted, but he never listen. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked and unblocked Kikefolan, I'm running on a delay here with some wonky internet and didn't see your comment. -- John Reaves 00:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Please ignore this comment. -- John Reaves 02:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Well, here's the thing. You didn't properly notify them (you should, so do that ASAP). If you had, I could have considered blocking them for being non-communicative and for editing against consensus. We might still do that, of course. I think you should give a couple of the most egregious recent diffs, with brief explanations of what's wrong with them--after you notify the editor of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know. i tried to talk with him a lot of times in the past, but he never answered. For example, in the OVW Championship, sources said Jamin Olivencia won the title on April. However, he changed to March. I talked to him, I showed him sources, but he never answered and changed the date to March. Also, I have problems with this user in Spanish Wiki and it's the same thing. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • What do you know? That you still haven't notified him of this discussion? [Drmies on the run.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.40.38 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see 4 quick reverts. And no discussion. Noteswork (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Username

Is the editor's username permissable? BMK (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was considering that as well, BMK. As a furriner I can't assess that, really. I'll gladly see an argument and explanation, if you want to offer one. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I did it. However, since December 2012, he never answered us. He was block twice, warned by 7 users and he never reacted. About the name (he was warned for the name too)... I don't know. I'm from Spain and, usually, Kike (or Quique) its a common name, diminutive from Enrique (Henry) EDIT: OK, I recently discovered what Kike means. Yes, kind of offensive. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    • In American English, "kike" is certainly a harsh and derogatory term for a Jewish person. I'm not Jewish, but I believe most Jews would find it offensive. (As with most other ethnicities, there are numerous slang terms for Jews, but I think that "kike" is considered to be the equivalent of "nigger".) I wasn't aware of the usage in Spain - if that's what the editor intended, then perhaps they would be willing to change to "Qique", which I believe is meaningless in English, or "Enrique"? Perhaps someone could ask? BMK (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This term is extremely offensive in US English. I know Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source, but when you've got 28 entries all calling it offensive, there's a trend. See here. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Given the meaninglessness of "Folan" by itself, this is plainly not being used as a slur: it's kǐːkɛː, not kaɪk. To paraphrase the helperbot's comments at WP:UAA, "shit" naturally occurs in many names from [insert part of world here], so we must be careful not to block people whose usernames with "shit" come from that context, unless of course they're causing problems aside from their usernames. The same is true here: let's leave KikeFolan alone except for the (admittedly serious) behavioral issues. Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose its entirely possible the user's intent was not intentionally offensive, but would that excuse a user name N*ggerFolan or C#ntFolan--the only two words I can think of that are more derisive for a biological class of people in American English? Does that have to be brought up as a separate issue or in a separate place? I am not looking for the user himself to be blocked, I just happened upon this and am totally ignorant of other issues. But if this name can't be ruled out, what name can? μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it within our operational abilities to ask the owner of the account if the term "Kike" is a reference to "Jews"? We may not have official policy on this but this would seem to be a way forward unless there are strong objections to such an inquiry. Bus stop (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If "Nigger" or "Cunt" is a common name or name-abbreviation in some part of the world, and if the context doesn't demand that it be interpreted as stand-alone, we need to assume good faith. AGF on a username is very different from AGF on the username's operator's actions: bad behavior unrelated to the username is no reason to object to the username, and when the username can fit into a broader context, we need to see evidence of intentional disruption in the username choice before objecting to it. Nyttend (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Is your point to be intentionally offensive? There's no such exception to offensive user names. There's no AGF to an editor who doesn't respond to direct questions on his talk page about an offensive name. Wikipedia:User_name#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames doesn't say anything about an offensive name being fine as part of a user name if it's an abbreviation in some part of the world. The word k*ke is highly offensive in English, the user edits in English, the user's been challenged about the name and not responded. An indefinite block on that basis will allow the user to appeal and explain the reason why the name is neither offensive nor unjustified based on some imaginary language. I find it impossible to argue otherwise, and won't be commenting further. μηδείς (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the links in the user's block log? This user is quite active at es:, and Spanish is not a made-up language. It's not my fault that you're offended by something totally innocuous in the user's home wiki. Are you sure that "Medeis" is inoffensive in every single language of the world? If not, you'd best be careful visiting other wikis, lest you be blocked for an offensive username. Imposing English username standards on someone with a valid username from another wiki goes against the spirit of WP:SUL, just as it would for the Dutch to block a "User:Fokker" because of the meaning of "fok" in Dutch. Nyttend (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess I'm sorry I brought it up. Given the information about its use as a name in Spanish, and the editor's history on Spanish Wikipedia, I'm quite prepared to believe that there was intent to offend in the name, but the user nonetheless should be sensitive to its effect. If they're not willing to change to "Qique" or "Enrique" or something else entirely, perhaps they would consider putting an explanatory note about the name on their user and talk pages, so that people who are concerned can at least get the same explanation that HHH Pedrigree provided here? BMK (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and this is not the same thing as "shit" turning up more or less randomly in a string of letters, the capitalization makes that clear. BMK (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The username has a reasonable explanation, PC wardens should pipe down and stop seeing the negativity they "want" to see. We're an international encyclopaedia, we even have Kike (disambiguation) which would have helped explain this to those who automatically jumped to the instant conclusion that the user name was offensive. If "shit" or "cunt" turned up in a user name, it'd be unlikely to be a foreign language issue, it'd be disruptive. (Although we do have Scunthorpe, mishit, shitake, shittimwood and shittah to consider...) "kike" on the other hand is just a regular shortening of a common name used by Spanish-language speakers. Time to close this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this thread is definitely pointless, someone should archive it expeditiously. Epicgenius (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Suicide comments

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

---

Not sure, but this may need admin attention. Editor not notified, as user talk page is semi'd. 54.226.217.226 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks more like a doomsday fanatic, the suicide aspect is specuation. Concerns should be directed to emergency at wikimedia.org though, not here. -- John Reaves 23:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

WMF has been notified, as discussed on ref desk talk page. Better safe than sorry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Outing.

Could someone please take a look at Talk:Vemma, specifically the tail end of Talk:Vemma#MLM vs, Affiliate marketing and Talk:Vemma#NY Post Ref. I have been editing the article for a while, and Jcsquardo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently referred to me by first name (dif). I have never publicly linked my name to my account, and I don't know how he or she found my first name. This is pretty creepy, and seems like a clear violation of WP:OUTING to me. This editor seems to think that I shouldn't be bothered if I have nothing to hide, which shows a gross misunderstanding of, well, reality, but Wikipedia policy, as well. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I can see how it would be possible to research your information, however, I will leave a note with Jcsquardo telling him why it is not appropriate. -- John Reaves 23:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(Redacted) John Reaves, duly noted I won't reveal any other secret information on this user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsquardo (talk • contribs) 01:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Do normal people do Google searches for the username of every editor they disagree with? If you want to be 'professional', as you condescendingly say on my talk page, perhaps you should focus on edits, not editors. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jcsquardo: It appears that you haven't understood what we've been telling you, since you've done it again in this thread: it is inappropriate to discuss other users' personal details. It is inappropriate to discuss how someone can find another user's personal details offwiki. It is inappropriate to tell another user that you know everything about them and oh by the way, you don't like them tattling so they'd better not do that again. Please consider this your final warning: if you discuss another user's off-wiki identity on Wikipedia when they haven't disclosed it themselves on Wikipedia already, or if you insinuate that you have another user's personal information that you are holding in reserve, you will be blocked with no further warnings. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

That link (diff) shows Jcsquardo threatening another user at 01:34, 29 January 2014 in a section titled "Outing". A wikilawyer could argue that there is no threat because Jcsquardo is promising to not reveal personal information, but the promise involves telling anyone interested how they can get that information. Fluffernutter's above statement is good, but I think Jcsquardo needs something even stronger with a clear statement at their talk being the minimum. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Johnuniq. This crosses the line and is actionable. Jusdafax 07:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you interacted for months already. There's sure some trace. I know its incorrect to call by name, unless it is allowed by User, breach indeed. Noteswork (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had removed this last comment by Noteswork, since I couldn't make heads or tails of it. However, since user CombatWombat42 saw fit to restore it, I have to ask: who is "you"? Trace of what? Etc. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

By "trace" I was pushing a point, that there can be some obvious way, from where other user got to know the real name of this person. Since it is unknown to us. I tried to pin point that it may have happened through some process. He may have copy/pasted the edits by the user around, and search, or he may have seen similar attitude outside wikipedia. So he would become sure, that this is him. Thanks Noteswork (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Noteswork: Please don't speculate about how to find other users' identities. I understand that you're just trying to figure out what happened here, but your insight isn't furthering this conversation, and is in fact likely to lead it down another problematic path. And as a side note, might I suggest that you back away from commenting on this board? I see that you have been commenting on nearly every thread today, but your comments are generally not of much use, and in some cases they are very confusing to everyone else. It would probably be better if you got some more experience with Wikipedia before you got heavily involved in administrative areas like this noticeboard and WP:SPI. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

reporting self-threat user for blocking and rev deleting

Reported to WMF, let's just leave this to them. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have reported this editor to emergency. According to policy such editors are also to be reported to admins for blocking and rev deleting. This editor is fresh off a 30-day block from Dec 19, and has been warned repeatedly of their disruptive edits. Asking to predict how many suicides there will be in 2014 at the Ref Desk diff is disruptive at best, and suggesting we know the solution diff at their talk page amounts to self-threat, as do edit summaries about life sucking and how we are all f**ked. If this is not the place to seek blocking and possible rev delete, please advise where is. μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC) There is a section two above this one about the same issue that I closed to minimize drama. As you have already reported the user, I suggest removing this section to avoid undue attention and letting WMF handle the issue. -- John Reaves 04:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I just reviewed their older edits (and realized I've blocked them before!)they seem to be focused solely on Doomsday prophecies, not necessarily self-harm. -- John Reaves 04:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC) I disagree. When the user creates a thread entitled "suicide" and talks about how life sucks and "the solution" they are not talking about a comet coming to hit the earth, even if they do also mention doomsday scenarios as well. I am also asking whether this is the proper venue for such editors. I can understand you might disagree with me, but I think another admin's comment would be helpful, as would be a comment on whether this type of report belongs elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC) As I mentioned above, all we can do here is speculate, which is not helpful. I do think this is the right place and other comments are welcome. -- John Reaves 04:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I am not looking to speculate--or to be exact, have my speculation be taken as verbum dei, just make sure I have reported the matter to the right venue. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Comment: Honestly, 30 days block is quiet old for claiming that user is suspicious. It usually take less than 5 days for committing intentional breach of wiki policies. User may have weaker idea about WP:Notability, but that is certainly no edit warring. Noteswork (talk) 05:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (Non-administrator comment) I don't recall anyone mentioning edit warring. But more seriously...nothing is being done about this? According to WP:SUICIDE, all such threats should be taken seriously. How about closing this, revdeleting the userpage, and tracking down the IP? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Won't help really, even if he had a account before, a single ip change clears it all. I agree that suicide threats shouldn't be taken lightly and it is another myth that People who threat suicide, usually lies.. There is surely some better idea. Noteswork (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Template in Category namespace

I've discovered Category:Airbus Helicopters aircraft which has no members other than itself, and the page content has the typical features of a navbox template. If I had found this in e.g. mainspace, I would have moved it to Template:Airbus Helicopters aircraft; unfortunately, being in Category: space, it has no Move tab. What is the procedure to follow here? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You could have used WP:Teahouse instead for asking such questions. Noteswork (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Noteswork, that's not helpful whatsoever. ES&L 12:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's nothing at the top of this page, or in its editnotice, that says so; indeed, the editnotice for WP:AN states "If your post is about a specific problem you have (a dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue needing an administrator), you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead". This is a narrow issue needing either an admin, or somebody with higher rights. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It needs someone with higher rights. We admins don't get a "move" tab for categories either, and since it's not some weird kind of security/higher trust needed, I doubt that bureaucrats or even stewards would have a tab. You'd need to find one of the software administrators, in all likelihood, and they'd move it by changing around information in the database rather than using a "move" tab. I don't think that they'll want to spend a bunch of time on something like this :-) A much simpler solution is the old copy/paste move — I've performed it (see my edit summary for this edit), so the page is now at {{Airbus Helicopters aircraft}}. I then G6 deleted the category, since this is one of those unavoidable technical glitches that G6 is meant to resolve. Finally, try going to Special:MovePage/Category:France, or Special:MovePage/Category:Buildings and structures in Wabash County, Illinois, or Special:Movepage/Category:anything else, and you'll see what happens when you try to move a category. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, since I am also an admin, I could have performed a G6 but I wasn't sure if a cut/paste move was permitted or if there was some other technique that I didn't know about. Anyway, done now. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, sorry; I didn't remember you were an admin. I thought you meant "I can't move it; can admins?" Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kermanshahi move warring

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

---

Kermanshahi has moved the article 2013 Camp Ashraf massacre three times without consensus. He is calling editors terrorist supporters, not the first time, and is also changing my fucking comments at RPP[86][87]. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

And this edit to my talk page shows he is not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. He is pushing a POV. to me the pain and harm MKO terrorist have caused to so many hundreds of thousands of people is worth much much more than a simple wikipedia ban Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them, before I saw this. GedUK  13:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Good job Ged UK. Noteswork (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Single purpose spam account

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

---

User:Jai Ram Tripura is a single-purpose (spam?) account. The account mainly edits Ram Thakur article, and its only aim to prove the subject was a god like figure. He adds dozens of honorific, unsourced claim that the person was "incarnation" "God". See this edit. He has been warned, blocked already. Tito☸Dutta 13:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) }}

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

User Citation Needed, refusing discussions and posting threatening message on my talk page.

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

---

Would like to report a self proclaimed editor "Citation Needed". The incident start with me editing page Cryptocurrency, adding worldcoin to the list. FYI, Worlcoin is #8 on Market Capitalization among Mineable Cryptos, and I have offer links from 3rd party to avoid WP:GNG.

User Citation Needed immediately started to delete information, with the reason quoted, "nope" only. I undo his deletion, and asked if he would like to talk about it before we further keep undoing each other. and he posted this in Crytocurrency: (same order as history page.. so need to scroll down a little bit to see where it starts. 14:07, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,283 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Notable cryptocurrencies: http://www.coindesk.com/top-altcoins-2013/) (undo)

14:00, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,282 bytes) (+1,355)‎ . . (There are LONG articles, that's what I am saying. example: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/01/24/worldcoin-community-funds-well-system-africa/, Market Cap at #8 also self explanatory will appreciate talk before removing people's work) (undo)

13:56, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-1,355)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by Kevoras (talk): Are they actual pieces on Worldcoin, or are they fluff mentions that are about a sentence fragment long? (TW)) (undo | thank)

13:54, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras ( (25,282 bytes) (+1,355)‎ . . (repeated interruption and biased opinion by user Citation Needed, despite valid links. MSNBC mention multiple times litecoin/worldcoin, and never ripple, further there are articles in moneyweek/WSJ, suggest googling.) (undo)

13:49, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-1,355)‎ . . (Undid revision 592958845 by Kevoras (talk) the MSNBC video is about bitcoin and only mentions this cryptocurrency. A couple of mentions isn't enough. Plus, I've made articles about coins too.) (undo | thank)

13:43, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,282 bytes) (+1,355)‎ . . (Unfair edit. MSNBC is hardly a crypto blog, deleter user 'citation needed' is using personal juedgement with little knowledge on the matter, advice him stop editting this article.) (undo)

13:40, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-1,355)‎ . . (Disagree all you want dear. It's not notable, it doesn't belong, and a bunch of crypto blogs won't change that.) (undo | thank) 12:34, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,282 bytes) (+277)‎ . . (citing web in correct format) (undo)

12:03, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,005 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (adding another valid source for Worldcoin to qualify here. Recent philanthropy work in Africa was unique and well broadcast in China.) (undo)

11:30, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (25,004 bytes) (+98)‎ . . (→‎Notable cryptocurrencies) (undo)

11:27, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (24,906 bytes) (+979)‎ . . (Undid revision 592879229 by Citation Needed (talk) Disagree with deletion, we can talk about it in the talk page if you want, but quoting 'nope' as reason is poor reason. cheers.) (undo)

00:06, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (23,927 bytes) (-979)‎ . . (→‎Notable cryptocurrencies: nope.) (undo | thank)

Then understanding said user might not want to discuss on said page, I posted on his talk page, which he editted it out immediately and made pretty impolite reasons of not talking to talk:

14:54, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (21,159 bytes) (-515)‎ . . (user refuses to discuss) (undo)

14:53, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (21,674 bytes) (+515)‎ . . (I tried talking. good thing all is logged, noted. I will raise a request of vandalism instead then if you dont want to talk and keep interrupting then. willing to talk anytime. until then. KR 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)) (undo)

14:11, 29 January 2014‎ Citation Needed (21,159 bytes) (-515)‎ . . (Why should I waste my time on you, again?) (undo | thank)

14:09, 29 January 2014‎ Kevoras (21,399 bytes) (+240)‎ . . (undo)

It is then I realized he was the same user that suggested multiple deletion of actual noteable Cryptocurrencies in circulation. And right now he is subjecting my newly written Worldcoin article for deletion. I have questions about his intentions, maybe he has a conflict of interest and wish to eliminate competiting Crypto for his own personal gain?

he also wrote on my talk page, which is clearly a threat to me.

I have no idea what you're trying to pull. I would really stop accusing established editors of various things if I were you. Citation Needed | Talk 15:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

you call yourself... ""established editors"" not the way you are refusing to talk about subjects. It is you that I am not sure what you doing. and appears to be vandalism out of spite and pride. I welcome talk and discussion anytime, as for now, how about you stop the immature talks, and begin discussion on crypto? and what is actually noteable and what not? I know you like to pull Non-noteable as that's your ace card, but I have already shown you links from 3rd party and a market cap that cannot be lied. Would you like to come clean on why you refuse to accept top10 Crypto, but accept names like Ripple and Primecoin? I would like to see how much you know in this area. As you obviously don't like me (don't know why), may I suggest we invite a few others to join the chat? this will help the topic to be non-biased, and that is what wikipedia is about, dont you think? KR 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I am still asking him to talk to me, but with no luck. I am not sure how to do this, but he's clearly allowing incorrect info on the cryptocurrency page to stay, while removing others. and I feel that is hardly what Wikipedia is about. Talking about Cryptocurrency, and not allowing Marketcap as starting point of validation, kind of makes that whole page pointless. As cryptocurrency is a very new advanced network solution, and of course noteable media mentions will be limited. (still are, and I posted.) However, market Capitalization on mineable cryptos is clearly the way to distinguish how important each Crypto currency is.

Would you be able to suggest what action I should take? I apologize if this is a long letter, but I am kind of new here, and only wish to do things right.

thank you. KR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs) 15:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's WP:3RR smashed into a million pieces. The problem with most Cryptocurrencies is that it is very hard to find anything that classes as a traditional WP:RS. Citation Needed definitely has been incredibly patronizing here; I can't really criticize the usage of "nope", as I've done that, but "Disagree all you want dear" is absolutely out of line. You shouldn't have re-added the topic on their talkpage after they initially removed it, but that can be attributed to a rookie mistake. As to the notability of this particular currency, I can't determine much, but it could be borderline. The content dispute should be dealt with at WP:DRN, and I suggest you open a thread up there pronto, as you could very easily be blocked for violating 3RR (I count four from Citation Needed, and four from you). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Much Obliged, I will open a page there, so the matter can be settled. I hope my intentions were found ok, as a person trading with bitcoins since 2009, I do feel that Market Cap is probably the 'only reliable' way of measuring noteability. (as Crypto can be famous today, and die tomorrow, Market cap will drop to zero to reflect that. While articles might takes MONTHS to catch up.) Anyway, for now I will leave everything it is, as they are all well validated ... hopefully when the DRN is resolved, we can have a better standard. thanks again. KR 16:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevoras (talk • contribs)

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

Attacks on SamuelFreli's page

An moving IP is attacking my user page and my talk page since I requested the removal of some pictures violating copyright on Wikimedia Commons.

As the IP is changing : 83.54.141.86, 83.54.141.125 and 83.55.252.121 (on Simple English), is there any way to block him or at least protect my user page and talk for a week or so?

Additionnaly, it as been found on Wikimedia that the IP is associated with PPnocho (talk · contribs) ([88], mostly active on es.wiki). Thank you! --SamuelFreli (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I have semi protected your user page for one week. --AdmrBoltz 16:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Award by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention of 'Editor of the Week' to User:Gaijin42

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

---

Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention has just awarded Gaijin42 'Editor of the Week' [89] for :" fostering neutrality in articles where most editors' points of view are widely separated. Gaijin often contributes to articles on gun control and related topics. He somehow manages to skillfully draft text acceptable to both pro-gun and anti-gun POVs. Through many contentious discussions on article and user talk pages, he remained neutral and civil, working to keep the focus of discussions on encyclopedic content. He is steward of many articles. Gaijin contributes to articles over a wide range of other topics. He created over 30 articles; his total edits top 10k". Given that Gaijin42 is currently deeply involved in a contentious ArbCom case - with multiple parties calling for sanctions to be taken against him concerning allegations of partisan editing - and has already been blocked both for edit-warring and personal attacks in relation to gun control issues, this nomination can only be seen as pointy, an abuse of the Editor Retention project, and an attempt to interfere in the ArbCom process by means liable to bring Wikipedia as a whole into disrepute. I therefore call for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention to be formally warned that any further examples of such partisan and pointy behaviour is liable to result in sanctions being taken against those involved, and/or the project as a whole, and for the Award to be formally withdrawn. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't see anything but disrupting to make a point here by WER. Given he is involved in an ArbCom case and facing sanctions, at best they tried to make a point, at worst they were intentionally disruptive to the Arbitration proceedings. KonveyorBelt 17:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's like a barnstar or "WikiLove" messages. Do we really require ANI to intervene in the awards of puffery? Tarc (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If it was just an individual awarding a barnstar, it wouldn't matter - this is a project purporting to represent the community - and Gaijin42 seems to think it significant enough to mention it in his evidence to ArbCom. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• It took me quite a while to sort through the rather useless project page to figger this out, maybe, but it appears to me to be mostly a useless page/project where Hanlon's Razor applies more than POINT. This seems to be the page before the editor was awarded, and it looks like it's just a matter of which editor reached the top of the list when, based on negligible feedback. I suggest that part of the ER Project might be better shut down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think you're overestimating the Editor of the Week process to assume any sort of conspiracy. The nomination was made by one person and seconded without explanation by another and pretty much automatically put into the queue - there's no voting on EoWs, no discussion in most cases, and no (public?) verification of the claims made in any nomination. It's possible a point was being made here, but it's far more likely to have been on the part of the nominator than on the part of the Wikiproject. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Andy can trout slap a wiki project whenever he wants. If ANI is to do so, can we please have a link to its discussion?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  What discussion are you looking for links to, Anything? The links in my post just above are literally the sum total of all discussion preceding the award that I was able to find. Which is to say, there basically wasn't any discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fluffernutter, your links and Sandy's are what I would have expected in the initial complaint, thanks. Accordingly, I think the members of that wiki project were perfectly entitled to compliment the editor in question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, as the nomination was made back in November, any accusation of intentional disruption of the ArbCom is a dead end. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Man, who cares? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Maybe time to quote the classic poem

But here is something that's not news:

Editors differ in their views:

The jest that cheers one user's muse

May leave another with a bruise

Can't we all straddle this wide fence

With just a bit of common sense?

One of the few barnstars I have received brought the giver to AE, btw; so give Wikilove on your own risk ;) Iselilja (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Global reference link changes

As a result of a change of domain name three or four years ago, there are a significant number of reference links that point to content on our old domain that are now therefore dead links.

However, the content referenced is still online under the new domain name and merely requires a correction to the links for them to work and thus provide some renewed usefulness to visitors.

Given that many of the links are contained within the protected reflist, how can we go about getting these links changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caribnewsnow (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We can look up the links if you provide a list of articles, or we can look up the articles if you tell us what URL you're talking about. Are you referring to www.nycaribnews.com, www.caribnewsdesk.com, www.caribbeannewspapers.com, or some other site? Nyttend (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I checked out the user's contributions, and it appears the new domain they are referring to is "caribbeannewsnow.com" as shown in the other edit they made.--Rockfang (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm dropping a note on their talk page about the username as well before the zealous UAA block drops. Blackmane (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Caribnewsnow: These references are actually in the articles themselves, not transcluded in the reflist. Epicgenius (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour by unregistered user

76.181.106.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has not been a productive user and has been warned for various acts of vandalism. As well as content on their own page which appears as an attack against a series of TV series, they have entered into a discussion on the talk page of another IP - 71.74.76.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - using wholly inappropriate language. I warned the IP about proper use of talk pages and drawing attention to some particularly offensive content. My approach has been, let's say, rebuffed. See [90]. This may require action by Admins. Leaky Caldron 18:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this IP caught my attention several months back, but I saw that they became active again today, so I dropped Jpgordon a note to see if he could take a peek. (But now that it's here at AN/I, he's off the hook! Thanks, JPG!) Both IPs above geolocate to Westerville, Ohio, and both IPs are rambling on their respective talk pages, so my guess is that the same editor is using both IPs to ramble to himself. Other editors to consider: Sock operator KuhnstylePro hails from Madison, Ohio, but that's not geographically close to Westerville, and he's not known to talk much. The editor in question here reminds me more of 173.11.226.201 and 50.8.27.98, who similarly have posted rambling, critiques to the cosmos about shows they love or hate. [91][92][93]. These IPs geolocate to Houston, Texas. Alternatively, AllenComedian1999 has a similar rambling style, although he is absolutely incoherent. His IPs are centered around Olive Hill and Morehead, Kentucky. Hope that helps. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've enforced a wikibreak for the first IP. --John (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Clavdia chauchat

Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs)

Unfortunately this user is becoming increasingly difficult to work with; her civility problems have already been raised at ANI back in December 2013, yet she continues to smear an entire WikiProject (yes, of which I am a member) as "circle jerks" - complete with a link to the article on the sexual practice, just to make sure her meaning is crystal clear, latest diff here. Interesting to note her problematic editing/edit warring was brought here just last week. As she seems unable to engage in civilized discussion, without restoring to repeated childish insults, I seek wider input here. GiantSnowman 19:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• That's unacceptable. I have warned and will block for any repetition. --John (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks John. GiantSnowman 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This is pure WP:ADMINSHOPing. No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here. This noticeboard doesn't exist for you to keep telling tales, over and over again, in the hope that a (fellow) weak or incompetent admin will do what you want and hand out a block. Much worse has been flung in my direction but my eyes remain dry and I'm not running here every five minutes, wasting peoples' time. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the issue of your language and civility problems has been raised once before here; if you think it is "three or four" then that obviously indicates we have a larger problem than I first thought. GiantSnowman 20:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, suffice to say all the complaints were completely ignored. That suggests that not everyone shares WP:FOOTBALL's outrage (which you regularly express on their behalf). Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because only members of that WikiProject have concerns about your behaviour. GiantSnowman 20:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review the last comment by Clavdia chauchat (talk · contribs) at WP:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gorman and her previous comment, where she accuses me of "ethnic cleansing". I am really offended by her behaviour and do not think she's being civil one bit towards me. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved Admin please review Fenix down (talk · contribs)'s comment at the same discussion. He accuses me of being "arse about tit", which has wounded my inner child. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Template:Uninvolvededitor: "A (fellow) weak or incompetent admin..."? Clavdia, I can't even begin to tell you how many things are wrong with that statement... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Claudia's been a problem from the start, and is clearly going to continue to be so. I'd propose a topic ban from anything to do with WikiProject Football, because I've struggled to find anything this user has provided that is productive in this area. I particularly like how "No action has been taken the first three or four times you and your pals brought this same thing here" is perceived to be a good thing to Clavdia; what would actually be a good thing is to never having been brought here at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• I would support a topic ban for all these reasons. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban. There are obvious civility issues at play here, but her first comment in the AfD has enough substance to it that I would view it as a productive contribution. Civility and personal attacks are enforceable issues on their own, but aren't justification for a topic ban. If you'd like to topic ban her, please provide diffs that go beyond an AfD with an uncivil comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Move over redirect and history merge request

Can someone who is far more confident than me about these move 168 Hour Film Project to 168 Film Project and merge the histories. The request comes from VRTS ticket # 2014012910013538 the project has changed its name to 168 Film Project. Nthep (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved 168 Hour Film Project to 168 Film Project and merged both histories at that title. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)