→Unilateral IBAN imposed by one administrator: How am I supposed to answer Gamaliel's inappropriate question while I am allegedly topic banned? I prefer not to be indefinitely blocked.
For everyone who has commented in this discussion, from anything unrelated to actual content writing.
For everyone who has commented in this discussion, from anything unrelated to actual content writing.
*'''Support''' As proposer.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
*'''Support''' As proposer.[[User talk:Maunus|User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·]] 03:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
=== Enough ===
This has apparently been going on for a few days now, with the same few people talking in circles. I'm going to take some bold actions in the interest of putting this thread out of its misery. First of all, {{user|Is not a}} ''is an'' obvious alternate account, and is being used to engage in combative and contentious editing. This is an inappropriate use of an alternate account. Our [[WP:SOCK|policy on alternate accounts]] is very clear: such accounts may not be used to segregate combative edits or conflict, per [[WP:SCRUTINY]] and [[WP:GHBH]]. I've therefore blocked {{user|Is not a}} indefinitely; the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics.<p>I will recuse from any action regarding Ubikwit and Collect and leave the proper handling of their behavior to other admins, noting that neither has exactly covered himself in glory: Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 06:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.
When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts.
Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.
I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples: 8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question". 13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI). 5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.) 11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"
Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Swordfish, after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.
You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. 0x0077BE(talk · contrib)15:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@0x0077BE: I can't agree that things were handled in a responsible way. To give a relevant example, at one point we were asked, "If 0x0077BE and Burninthruthesky think The Statement is true for some control volume other than the infinitely tall sliver, they need to tell us specifically what control volume that is and provide citable sources for their assertion."
Qara xan [1] keeps removing sourced information! it is really getting annoying now and i am surprised that no one have seen it yet. In the Malik-Shah I article, he keeps removing the Seljuq statesman Nizam al-Mulk out of mention during the campaign of the Seljuq ruler Alp Arslan in Caucasus in 1064, when the source I added clearly says that he took part in the campaign;
Alp Arslān was quick to resume his military activity. In Rabīʿ I, 456/February-March, 1064, he undertook a campaign in the northwest which resulted in significant gains at the expense of Byzantine Armenia; Neẓām-al-molk and the sultan’s son, Malekšāh, operated separately during part of the campaign, each taking a string of fortresses. They rejoined the sultan to take Sepīd Šahr and Ānī.
And when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil (or ignores me and continues his reverting). I seriously don't know what to do anymore. I have created over 320 articles and expanded even many more, and tried to expand the Malik-Shah I article too, but sadly he is stopping my progress. By the way, I have notified him about this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to the talk page? I have already done that, and as i said, when Qara xan runs out of words, he suddenly keeps accusing me of being uncivil, or ignores me and continues his reverting. So I don't think that would work. A admin told me this would be the best place to fix this problem. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran: Actually, a lot of your comments can be taken as uncivil. For example:
if you randomly accuse me of vandalism (you probably don't even know its meaning) — User:HistoryofIran
Take a look on Al-Mu'tadid FOR EXAMPLE (writing it with caps lock so you actually read the word properly). — User:HistoryofIran
Or maybe because you speak a very broken and confusing form of English. — User:HistoryofIran
I don't know the Wikipedia rules well? that is coming from you? don't make me laugh. — User:HistoryofIran
didn't i already tell you that i had to convert it? is your English that bad? if so, then please leave the English Wikipedia, because you are making it hard for everyone here when you simply revert stuff and then don't understand a word of what others say. — User:HistoryofIran
I'm sorry, but how is it uncivil when I tell him his English makes it harder for himself and me to fix the problem? seriously, you should read some of the stuff he writes and how he responds. About the caps lock thing, there are actually many times where he doesn't really want to properly read what I write (which can be quite irritating when I am trying to solve a dispute and he does such things like that, like he didn't even care). Yes, he don't know the meaning of the word "vandalism", or else he wouldn't randomly accuse of me being one in order to avoid discussing with me. About the Wikipedia rules, there are actually many cases where he breaks the rules, yet tells me and other users to learn about them, which is quite irritating and I am not the only person he has done that to. I think the problem is that the way I write can be easily misunderstood. Of course, I never mean to be rude or something like that. If it is really that easily misunderstood-able, I will write in a different way. But even if wrote in a different way I would probably still randomly accused of being uncivil, as it is not the first time Qara xan have done that and I am not the only one he has done that to (here is a example [2]). Anyway, now with that problem hopefully fixed, can we get back to the main subject? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens (that's me) and Ghmyrtle being accused of both being the same user - sockpuppets.
There was a bit of an editing brouhaha over at Casual (subculture), and an IP editor seems to have now registered under the name of Richie bedfellows.
During the exchange he has accused GhMyrtle and myself of being the same editor twice in different edits.[3][4]
I objected to this each time and gave him the chance to redact - his response is here[5], however, he invites me to not "be waiting around for the weekend to finish, my friend" - so I'm not.
Both involved editors informed.[6][7]Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He's posted provocatively on my talk page again, exactly one minute after doing so on his own page - inviting @Orduin: to message him, whereupon he will reveal his suspicions. I've replied, asking him to post here instead. His reply seems to suggest that he thinks Orduin is watching his talkpage (which may be the case - but also may not). Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking deeper, it seems that Richie and the IP editor are not the same - Richie was just duplicating the errors made by said IP editor, so I've struck that particular comment. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the latest posts on your talk page, the editor in question has pretty much confirmed that it is him editing while logged out. This also casts doubt on the previous IP edits to the Casuals page, which are not only similar in tone, but geolocate to the same region. That (somewhat ironically) suggests that Richie is in fact a long time sock puppet himself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Either he's stupid enough to do so. Or he did it accidentally. Whatever it is, you cannot know for sure without a CheckUser, so there's no point accusing. They might IPs in the same region but who's to say Richie's related. I'm just giving Richie the benefit of doubt. And tone's is something which only experts in linguistics can comprehend, definitely not us. The accusation was of course a grave offense. I believe his failure in providing evidence and not showing up here is of great concern. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - I was just drawing attention to the fact that the duck test - if applied - would be more likely to pass Richie and the IP addresses, than GHMyrtle and myself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Thanks for catching the vandalism that I missed on this. It's been hard to keep up with the frequent vandalism to this article today. I have asked for page protection, which I do infrequently, for this page because of the high level of vandalism by several IP users today. Donner60 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction on your recent ANI closure. I am pretty sure MyTuppence was only blocked for 1 week. The sock account was indeffed. Thanks for taking care of the close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am currently using this IP address (it's a public computer). I was attempting to figure out how to propose for deletion the article Yonassan Gershom. The reason I was attempting to do so is because this page is written by the person of the article. It's a self-promotion biopic. Being from Minnesota, Mr.Gershom is not WP:Notable either nationally or regionally. In Minnesota, he is a local author and that's about as notable as he is. While the original AFD discussion added some thoughts about links to the Mineapolis Star Tribune - it was known to promote local books. If you asked soneome from Miami who Yonassan Gershom is they wouldn't be able to tell you. Even a simple google search produces limited results that appear to be self-promoted or discuss his books (of which have limited distribution). All respect to Mr. Gershom - he isn't wikipedia article worthy. Blanksamurai (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to update the information on this page and you keep deleting it and putting the old information back up which is not accurate and true. Why do you keep doing it? and can you please stop. Michelle has not modeled since 2005, nor ihas she been with Next Model management then. Montana108 (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message is intended to celebrate the holiday season, promote WikiCheer, and to hopefully make your day just a little bit better, for Wikiclaus encourages us all to spread smiles, fellowship, and seasonal good cheer by wishing others a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Share the good feelings and the happiest of holiday spirits from Wikiclaus !
Hello,
I'm Claudia and i'm a user on Wikipedia, and was blocked out of nowhere by ponyo on some block evasion grounds.
Several days ago, i forgot to log in to my account when i made an edit adding the birthday to the Christina Hoff-sommers page, and found that the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked. It strikes me as strange that this block was put on the IP out of nowhere, so instead i have to edit from my appartment to ask the an/i to review the block on the IP address. I don't care about my account and there's no point blocking this IP as i'm moving march second to Vancouver.
Please review the block on the address, or explain where the block evasion accusation originates. Was there a user formerly known as Claudia McHenry that was an unruly user years ago?
Thanks.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its going to be difficult to review an IP block wihtout knowing the IP address. Could you provide further info. Also its a bad idea to come to WP:ANI and admit to being a blocked account socking via an IP. Unless the block also involved the talk page of the IP address you would have been able to appeal the block there. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To me this idea that someone who accidentally doesn't log in can then be blocked, and then later accused of being a sockpuppet evading a block, smacks of the same sort of backwards logic and everyone-is-a-criminal mentality that lets police arrest people for resisting arrest (when no other crime is evident). The details of the block are not difficult to find in User:Ponyo's log [8] (date January 23). In any case, the chronology appears to be: (1) 199.101.61.190 (talk·contribs) edits Christina Hoff Sommers to add the day and month of birth, but without sources, and is immediately reverted (with an edit summary indicating that the reverter treated the edit as a good faith one, but unhelpful); (2) Ponyo blocks the IP for no obvious reason with the edit summary "block evasion"; (3) Claudia McHenry (talk·contribs) logs in, and politely asks Ponyo what the block was for; (4) Ponyo makes the block on the IP permanent, blocks Claudia, and prevents Claudia from appealing the block by using the setting that prevents her from editing her talk page. Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction on Ponyo's part. Maybe Ponyo can come here and explain? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, i'm sorry if i broke a rule by not logging in before editing that page. Serg, the guy who edits from the IP accoutn usually says his edits were undone or something like that.
Also if i'm breaking a rule by posting here, i appolojize deeply.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you are missing something DE and you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" (I have not seen P overreact to anything in all the years of their adminship) until you have "all" the facts. Ponyo has been working with SPI reports and checkusers for months now and this could well be related to that work. MarnetteD|Talk23:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you should not use terms like "gross overreaction" ... until you have "all" the facts. Sheesh. DE said "Unless I am missing something major, this seems like a gross overreaction", thus hedging and softening his statement not one but two different ways. Seems like MarnetteD's objection to the use of gross overreaction was an overreaction, if perhaps not a gross one. MHO. ―Mandruss☎00:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock per the above. I have the same problem, as many of the IPs used by my mobile device are connected with known, long-time abuse accounts who use proxy IPs offered by my provider. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really. This is an almost laughable case of jumping the gun. This thread needs to have "all the facts" and a reply from Ponyo before any decision is made on the block. MarnetteD|Talk23:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I travvle a wholel ot so if i seem to jump accross the map, it's because i attend different sociological events including talks, as well as i'm currently in the process of moving to Vancouver so i can get better care for my mesothelioma. So if people see me on bad Ip's, then you know why. I'll do my best to remember to log in from now on if that's the issue.
209.202.4.50 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I’ll do that from now on, apologies
I’m sure that ponyo’s a good person and I have nothing at all against them, nor do I wish to attack them in any way. I only want to know why they are charging me for a murder I did not commit.
I've attempted to contact Ponyo several times to ask him/her the reason for this block, and my post on his/her page gets promptly deleted and i get promptly blocked. I then sent an e-mail to their account using the e-mail this user function, no response, and it's been one week, which is plenty of time to get back to me. If something was truely wrong then i think Ponyo would have explained it or would be willing to explain it to me.
Instead, i question, the question is deleted, i get blocked and have to go accross town to have any chance of defending myself, it's madness is what it is.
I really hope Ponyo replies to this or is at least willing to leave a message on my account's talk page with an explanation, else i be unblocked or at least the 199 IP be unblocked.
I'd highly recommend that if people suspect any bad activity that they first notify the user of this activity and how they came to that conclusion before they even think about blocking and speedy-deleting it.
Even with 34 years of studying psychology and sociology behind me i still don't understand how this could be considered benefitial to Wikipedia in any way. Again, i don't think Ponyo's a bad person, i just want to know why he/she screams bloody murder when i did nothing wrong to my knowledge. I admitted my mistake to Ponyo and that should be enough. End with a "don't do i again please" then move on, not "block her," then move on and hope that this goes away.
I came here with the intent to help Wikipedia, and help it i shall, I'd like to follow the rules while doing it and if problems arise, i want a chance to address them before any punishment of any kind is dished out. That's all i ask Ponyo, you're a good person, but you made a mistake.
Sorry if i seem angry in this post, it isn't intended to be any form of attack, i'm just stating things from my point of view that's all.
Good night, i have a long day tomorrow and won't be able to reply for a while after, i'm going to be away untill the 8th, so won't be able to reply back untill then. Thank you guies for your help.
In case User:Ponyo didn't see the notification from the name-dropping earlier in this thread, I've left a note on their talk page asking for their input here. @MarnetteD: I agree with you that we should not unblock before making more of an effort to get all of the facts. And probably my "gross overreaction" was not a sufficient assumption of good faith: what I should have said was that we are no doubt missing some important piece of information, because if we look only at the evidence we already have then this has the appearance of a gross overreaction, but that seems unlikely given Ponyo's history of working the sockpuppet beat. However, until we see the evidence we should assume Claudia's good faith as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. Sorry for the late reply, I've been sick since Thursday and only logged on briefly to put up a wikibreak template as I won't be able to get back to regular editing for at least another 2 - 3 days. In an abundance of caution I have emailed Callanecc a detailed explanation of the evidence behind the block in order to avoid any possible privacy breaches. That being said, I have absolutely no doubt that "Claudia" is indeed a sock of a LTA account and that you are all being trolled. The messages from the 209.202.5.171 IP are textbook to many posted previously by the same sockmaster. It's striking that a mother with "34 years of studying psychology and sociology" displays the same blatant grammar and spelling errors as their blocked "son" as well as the many other personas they've used in the past couple of years to try to get around the block. The master account has been referred to BASC many times in the past - they know the path to a potential unblock if they want to pursue it. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots22:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so. But I am far more concerned with the lack of responsiveness, the appeal to secret evidence, the lack of non-admin oversight, and the transparency of blocking rationale, than I am with the effort made by one individual to resume editing. I have seen far too many false accusations made against users with trumped up, or in some cases, zero or invented evidence, to make a case, rather than actual evidence that the community can look at. This need to invoke secrecy, to claim that one is guilty before being proven innocent, sets a terrible precedent. Blackstone's formulation should be the guiding principle, with WP:ROPE our method. Viriditas (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason checkuser evidence is not publicy available. If we arent able or willing to trust the judgements that the users who can review this information make with regards to it then there are n awful lot of people who claim they arent socks who we are going to have unblock. CU evidence is one of those things that is given access to people who have shown suitable judgement and consensus for the tools by the community and on that basis I thik some level of trust has to be offered to those who can use it and the decisions they make from it. Amortias (T)(C) 23:53, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the newbie, wet behind the ears response, but I know how CU works. However, I will once again reiterate, the slow response to this user's request, the appeal to secret evidence, and the notion that the average editor cannot be trusted to comprehend a simple argument for keeping a user blocked, is and remains a serious problem. This authoritarian approach runs counter to the operation of a free society, to just application of laws, and to democratic oversight and transparency. As such, I do not agree with them or their application, no matter what the given rationale continues to be; time and time again, I have seen this kind of power corrupt "trusted" people, and evidence can be used to block the innocent, both intentionally and unintentionally. You may embrace this kind of unjust system, but I do not. There was no harm in unblocking this user, and a case could have been made that did not reveal "secret" information to restore the block. There is more harm in your chosen approach than there is benefit. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This rhetoric is all good and well and I wish the world online and off was more in line with these sentiments. But I would have thought that someone who is not a newbie would certainly have encountered WP:NOTDEMOCRACY before now. I accept the except Ponyo's explanation of why they could not respond before today and I would hope that you are not suggesting that P made up an illness. The bottom line is what do you think is going to happen now. Ponyo is not going to be blocked. Unblocks are not going to be handed out to any IPs involved. The system here is not going to change based on this thread. It should be noted that editing is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. As the person in question is, no doubt, enjoying all this fuss I would suggest that the thread be closed. MarnetteD|Talk00:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MarnetteD, it would help greatly if you would read what you link, as NOTDEMOCRACY has nothing to do with this discussion. I apologize if the phrase "democratic oversight" confused you, but you seem to have evaded my points (and those of two other editors) and launched into a litany of red herrings. I already made my points, and your response is extremely unhelpful. Why should Claudia remain blocked? If your answer is, "it's a secret and we can't tell you", then I will say again, that's unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ponyo doesn't want to tell you who the sockmaster is, because then you will know the geographic location of the sockkmaster. Named accounts are not linked to IPs to protect the privacy of the account holder. This protection of privacy is extended to everyone, even to long-term sockmasters and LTAs. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like MarnetteD, I accept Ponyo's explanation (and the fact that there are reasons not to put certain kinds of sockpuppet investigation information in public places). As an unblock looks unlikely and there is no other administrative action to be taken, I think this thread is ready to be closed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the evidence from Ponyo and I'm comfortable that the Claudia McHenry account and the 209 IP address are being used by an LTA sock master. As Diannaa says there's not a lot of information that I can give due to the privacy implications, especially because I'm not completely aware of how much information the sock master has released themselves. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've never been interested in any private information, so that's a misunderstanding on the part of editors up above. What I'm railing against is the misuse of CU, either intentionally or unintentionally, and the "trust us, we're experts" line that non-CU's and non-admins are routinely spoon fed. I've seen editors falsely accused of being sockpuppets, and in my own case, I was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet by an admin on Wikinews who blocked me during a content dispute where he was involved, and then attempted to fabricate sockpuppetry evidence to keep the block in place. So I hope you understand that I am skeptical of so-called "trusted" members of the community, and I think that we need more safeguards in place to protect the accused. The burden is on those accusing Claudia, and if that burden can only be met in private, without community review, then I'm afraid this process is flawed and subject to abuse. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven’t been able to post, lately, I had a few meetings and I have to fly out again today.
I don’t want to start a bunch of Drama; I want any drama over this to end. I’m only asking for a chance to be able to defend myself from these accusations here which quite frankly came out of nowhere and are unfounded.
Even if you at least grant me talk-page access then I’ll at least be able to contest the claims made against me when I’m finished with my meetings.
I don’t expect a full unblock in the near future if some crazy person is going around creating accounts and causing problems here and my account is linked to it, but I do expect to be able to defend myself. It certainly wouldn’t look good for Wikipedia if people can just be blocked because of secret/invisible and probably non-existent evidence that nobody has the right to know of for reasons and not be able to defend themselves from these accusations.
Now if you guise don’t mind I have a 6:00 AM flight to Toronto to catch so I won’t be able to respond for a bit. Have a good day.
I would say that the admins unblock 209.202.4.xxx-206.202.5.xxx. Let's give some rope, I mean seriously. Ponyo, Callanecc and Dianaa are very respectable and sensible admins. I'm sure they would always give a correct judgement. Here, I believe a bit of rope is necessary. Even if we get trolled, how far would she get? We have ClueBot NG and 100s of editors patrolling edit filters and RC. She might hang herself with all that rope but atleast the community will not (can not) be blamed. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And good work, Viriditas. Your arguments were really interesting to read. MarnetteD, do not rush this up, please, this thread is quite a serious issue. Ponyo, your explanation might be correct but then there's reasonable doubt. --Ankit Maity«T § C»13:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we will not be unblocking a confirmed sock account of a LTA sockmaster in order to give them "rope". They can appeal to BASC, the information has already been provided to them. Only another Checkuser, or an admin in consultation with a checkuser, can undo a checkuser blocked account or IP address. Another Checkuser, Callanecc, has already reviewed the evidence and endorsed the block. There is nothing left to do here except close this section and deny this sockmaster the attention they continue to receive. If Viriditas or others have concerns regarding the Foundations Privacy Policy then the discussion needs to be had here. If anyone believes that there has been an abuse of checkuser tools, the you can email your concerns to the Audit Subcommittee.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots19:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way for the majority of the community to know if any misuse has occurred, that's the point. What if an error was made? Let me give you a brief example using myself: within the last year or so, I've edited Wikipedia from two sets of IP addresses, one, my static home address, and two, a dynamic set of IPs used by my mobile device(s). If I try to edit using my mobile device without logging in, many times I'll get a message saying that my IP address has been blocked for being used by a LTA account. Now, obviously, I'm not that person, and that particular set of IPs is probably used by tens of thousands of people. But would the average CU distinguish between these things, if let's say, I was a new user? Little things like that make me very skeptical of the current process. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's very likely that CheckUsers would notice, even if the user agent is identical (which on a mobile range is less likely than normal) accounts with no edits are only blocked if it is sure that they are the same, which there are ways to tell with I won't go into. If it's not definite that they are the same, they're usually left unblocked (ROPE) and kept an eye on them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are of course times when the data isn't clear, which is when that particular phrase is used, and hence when blocks aren't handed out. There are also times (usually the case) when CheckUser data is helpful and indicates links between accounts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get how are we giving attention to Claudia. We've blocked the Tor network completely, not to mention random IP autoblocks here and there and ofc the most reputed proxies are blocked too. Fine, but how about granting the IPBlockExempt right to Claudia and put her on some admin's to-do? Is it that hard? Well, not possible? Need BASC approval? But then think of all that BASC drama (it clearly says ~6 weeks and we know it's never less that that). In all that time, she might just edit through a VPN and that's that. Yes, and ofc we still expect editor retention. --Ankit Maity«T § C»15:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ankit Maity, your post above is indecipherable. "Put her on an admin's t-do". What does that even mean? There is no "Claudia". There is one de-facto banned sockmaster who is pretending to be "Claudia" in order to be unblocked. This is just one of many names/personas they have used to be unblocked over the years. It is the sockmaster who needs to have their block reviewed by BASC if they wish to legitimately edit here again, though the possibility won't be entertained until they stop evading their block. You are only giving them the attention they crave by continuing to discuss this particular case here. You can either take my word for it as a volunteer who has been thoroughly vetted and tasked to identify and block socks in order to protect the encyclopedia against abusive editors such as this, or you can continue to rail against the injustices levied against this "new" editor using only a fraction of the evidence publicly available.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if she is very clearly related to the LTA master - and I'm inclined to believe two experienced checkusers on that front - then giving her a an IP block exemption would, to be blunt, be exceptionally stupid. It is very rare, after all, to see two checkusers be this certain about CU data, in my experience. IP block exemption is also only intended for highly trusted users who happen to edit from a LTA range, or something like that; a new account will not fall into that category. And you're absolutely not supposed to edit through a VPN, or any such cloaking device... although I've done so myself by accident a couple of times in the past, because some CyberGhost VPN addresses are not blocked. Look at the history of this IP; it's been CU blocked for block evasion on and off since 2013 - and if you don't believe that, the IP edited the same page in 2013 and 2014 and this year. It's clearly still the same person behind the IP itself. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)16:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument (and diffs) supports Claudia's case. She claimed that "the IP address that my son usually edits from was blocked". That's entirely consistent with the diffs, which show someone editing an article about the PBS Kids series Cyberchase. Can anyone explain why Claudia would even touch these articles? Sorry, I'm having a difficult time believing the CU case against her. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm having a difficult time believing that someone with mesothelioma - an absolutely vicious cancer caused by asbestos exposure where the victims in many cases have life expectancies of mere months, and for which treatment is pallative care / pain-relief rather than curative - is faffing around on Wikipedia when not getting 6am flights around the place. Or have I missed something? BencherliteTalk20:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) ???? If "Claudia" wants to be unblocked, they needs to make an appeal under their original account, whatever that is. (Alternatively they will need to convince a CU they aren't a sockpuppet.) From what I can tell in both cases, there would probably be no need for an IP block exemption, since the problem isn't that "Claudia" is editing from blocked IPs, but they are a LTA sockmaster. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2)
If you came here because someone asked you to, then please be unbiased towards the rest. The overwhelming amount of unjustified votes need to be disproved. This applies in general and is very much in effect. --Ankit Maity«T § C»16:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.[reply]
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
After a previous ANI-discussion, which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.
4 january 2015 he followed me at the Dzogchen talkpage diff. I asked him to stop Wikihounding me diff, which he didn't diff. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff.
26 january he posted comments at the Anatta talkpage which I consider to be WP:HARASSMENTdiff.
"Also am preparing a DRN Notice about the author who rewrote this article. In the case of the articles on Buddhism one of his main characteristics is that he chooses a single POV which he presents as "the facts" and does not mention any articles critical of it and does not mention any competing POVs in the article. And also includes unsourced material in his articles. He presents an impressive case for his views which convinces other editors - that is - until you do a literature search and read the citations. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"
"Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion."
Neutral as presented and at this time.Comment It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor, Robert Walker, has conduct issues in the area of Buddhist-related topics. That was obvious a month ago. It was also apparent that there were content issues concerning Buddhism. At the time, I advised Robert Walker to request dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in order to prevent "silent interaction", that is, following JJ and opposing without making the interaction obvious. This stalking needs to be dealt with. The combination of a topic-ban and an interaction ban is less drastic than a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Send to arbcom. After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. jps (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If discretionary sanctions are in place then we should send this over to WP:AE. If they aren't, then we should ask arbcom to broaden them. jps (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The basic problem is that I cleaned-up the Karma in Buddhism article, and Robert didn't like that. He wants a roll-back to the version before my clean-up, and a discussion of my edits, without wanting to participate in that discussion (the talkpahe already contains extensive explanations of my edits, and they are supported by several competent editors). He's been filling several talkpages now with his demands, repeating over and over again that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles. He's also stating for a couple of months now that he's going to file a DRN-request, without doing so. And now he's started to canvass other editors, and trying to re-open a debate about which he knows nothing at all, en passant attacking me again. So, I'm through with him. Let him use the normal dispute resolution, that his, file his DRN, or just stay away. But not attacking me over and over again, without even remotely trying to or engaging in a form of concencus-building. He's only making it worse and worse. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Joshua Jonathan has given three diffs as instance of Robert Walker harrassing him: 1, 2, 3. I am afraid I do not see any uncivil language or attack. --AmritasyaPutraT09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further comment on the third link provided by Joshua as proof of harrassment: well, a discussion getting closed in less than 24h with a clear verdict is a mockery of a discussion. I also think the appeal is fully justified and a patient hearing is due instead of attack on those who chose to question the closure. Or rather haunting those who questioned the closure is a clear case of attack as it has been done rightfully within due limits in a civil manner. --AmritasyaPutraT09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amritasya, I'm talking about "harassment": following me around, stating at various talkpages that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles, without substantiating those comments. What he also did when he requsted to reopen this debate, suggesting that I'm biased and a poor editor. As if I'm the only one thinking, no, recognising, that the "Indigenist" position is fringe, or that I'm incompetent. I think it's quite clear from my edit-record that I'm a competent editor. So yes, when those kind of insuniations happen again and again, it feels like an attack. Robert keeps repeating "I'm working on a DRN", but we're still waiting. Instead of brandmarking me, he should actually try to resolve his "dispute". He's not doing so; he's only repeating his allegations. So yes, I've had enough of it.
If you think that's too much, here's the diff for the Dzogchen talkpage. Here's my intitoal response, in which I already noted his Wiki-hounding. Also read Jim's response. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff. Also have a look at the history of the Zogchen talkpage to see ho he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ad infinitum.
Thanks for detailed, clear response. Now it makes sense. Wikihounding. I have faced it too. I hope admins take appropriate action, I have withdrawn my oppose vote in-place. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutraT06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Skip the "intimidate", and try to understand, for one time, what's going on. And if you want to help Robert post his DRN, you could have closed your RfC weeks ago already, as I've asked you before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd rather see a one-way interaction ban. To me the problem is that Robert Walker is following Joshua Johnson to pages that the latter has edited, and this disruptive behaviour needs to be addressed. While a topic ban would prevent RW from following JJ to pages related to this topic, it doesn't prevent RW from following JJ to other topics should JJ choose to edit them. However, a topic ban will prevent some such disruption and it's better than no remedy at all. Ca2james (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interaction ban
I found Robert Walker's entry into the WP:FTN thread whose closure he has requested be reviewed, in the middle of the thread. I concur with User:Joshua Jonathan and User:VictoriaGrayson that he has been stalking Joshua Jonathan's edits, since WP:FTN is not a place he had previously edited. Recommend a one-way interaction ban on interactions of Robert Walker with Joshua Jonathan. That is, Robert Walker may not respond to any posts by Joshua Jonathan. This may seem harsh, but following another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as Robert Walker is clearly following Joshua Jonathan and disruptively inserting himself into conversatios where he has shown no previous interest and has a lack of expertise. I'm not convinced a topic ban is necessary because once he stops following the other editor around, his disruption in those areas should stop. Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But he still can posts at talkpages where I am active? I see a complication there... And if we interpret it strictly: what if he starts to engage a talkpage on a Buddhism or Hinduism related page, and I start editing there too? It would give me a strange kind of "privilege", as it means he would have to back-off. That's not fair, nor clear. So, I'm afraid a topic-ban is still more appropriate. Plus, indeed, also avoidance from my part of areas where Robert is active. Although, he's merely editing a very selective range of talkpages, so in practice this may work. Some admin-feedback would be welcome too, at least for me. Anyway, thanks for the efforts, Robert McC.! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Joshua is correct that a one-way interaction ban does work like that. It does not require any avoidance by Joshua. It is true that this is a harsh remedy, but stalking another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. One-way interaction bans are fundamentally unfair. We should ban both of them if they've both been behaving badly, or if Robert's been the only one causing problems, we should block him. If JJ wants to antagonise RW, he can annoy him with impunity (like Foghorn Leghorn with the dog), and while if JJ acts in complete good faith, someone else could come in and cry "ban violation!" on a page where RW was still trying to obey the ban. See JJ's comment, too, "what if he starts to engage..." He's right. Too much room for wikilawyering and too much room for bad-faith participants to game the system. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why should I receive an interaction-ban, when Robert is following me around? I am already avoiding him. It might mean that the first one to edit on an article or talkpage "owns" the page. With due lack of humility from my side, it would be a loss for Buddhism and Hinduism-related pages if there is a possibility to stop me from editing on those pages in that way, because one editor objects to my edits. That would be basically unfair. So, if that option is to be ruled out, something else must be thought of. At least it should be clear to him that "dispute resolution" does not mean throwing around accusations at the pages where I am editing, and that he should actually post his DRN, instead of repeating he's going to do so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!16:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that you ought to be banned: I meant that he shouldn't be I-banned from you unless you deserved to be I-banned from him, and that he ought to be blocked outright if he's been causing problems and you're innocent. Not having investigated the situation carefully, I don't want to support any sanctions on him or to oppose the idea of sanctions in the first place; that's why I offered no opinion about your proposed topic ban. I just want to ensure that any sanctions be reasonable and workable, and a one-way interaction ban isn't either of them. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since some respected administrators think that a one-way interaction ban is inherently unfair or unworkable, and since there is evidence that Robert Walker has been stalking the edits of User:Joshua Jonathan, I have to offer a second-choice greater remedy, and that is a site ban.
!vote - Can someone do me a favor (since you voted) and summarize what happened? I believe stalking someone's edit history is perfectly fine. But an one-sided IBAN is not. --Ankit Maity«T § C»16:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking is fine when someone's edits are structurally problematic, not when you just don't like someone's edits. Here's my summary:
The editor in question, Dorje108, has been critisised for three years (tags: diffdiffdiffdiffdiff)(talkpages: diffdiffdiffdiff), without a change of habit, but defending them with WP:IGNORE (diff) ;
I've explained my changes extensively at the the talkpages. Nevertheless, Dorje has hardly, if not, responded there, just like he hasn't participated in the thread and the RfC which he has opened himself (Rewrite & Secondary sources);
Four concrete concerns have been raised by Robert:
He objected to my clean-up, which I did in response to concerns which have been raised for three years now:
He likes the details and the quotes, and wants them to be re-inserted; other editors don't, following Wiki-policy; those details have been condensed, and the quotes have been removed or put in notes;
He disagreed with the statement "Intentions lead to further consequences" (or something like that); that sentence has been changed;
He also objects to some of the new information that I added:
He objects to Anderson; I've explained that she's been published by solid publishers, builds on the work of Norman, Schmithausen, Gombrich and Bronkhorst, who are the best scholars available of Buddhism;
He objects to the statement that "karma" was a minor concept in early Buddhism; this statement is voiced by multiple scholars, including Schmithausen.
Of those four objections, only no.1 still stands. The detailed info is still available, but appropriately condensed; if he wants some more quotes included (preferably in the notes), he can point out which quotes, so we can discuss them;
I've offered to Robert to go through those edits again several times diffdiffdiffdiff. Nevertheless, Robert doesn't want to discuss these changes as listed at the talkpages diffdiff, and he doesn't want to edit those articles diffdiffdiffdiff; he only wants a rollback, so other editors can discuss my edits one-by-one before I make them.
NB: Robert McClennon has been following Robert W. for a longer time yet, and adviced him to pursue a DRN; VictoriaGrayson is an active editor at Buddhism pages; AmritasyaPutra and Kautilya3 are active at India-related pages. Dorje108, on the other hand, was informed by Robert W. diff. Dorje voted diff, and two minutes later responded to Robert W. at his talkpage diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the detailed summary. Well, next time, just do me a favour and call editors by their usernames, it gets more difficult otherwise. I would oppose a site ban and go with an IBAN. But then, we'll have to wait till an admin comes. --Ankit Maity«T § C»15:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to topic ban
I want to keep this short as I have warned in the past about length of my post. Do I get a chance to reply? If you are interested in my POV on this proposal, please see reply to the topic ban. (Here I am using the third of my Work arounds for lengthy talk page posts which I developed in response to the previous ANI action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertinventor (talk • contribs) 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I was posting this response but the topic was archived when I saved my edit; since this has been re-opened, I figure I'll post it now.
DRN is for content issues, not conduct issues, and it isn't necessary to look through an editor's contributions to file for dispute resolution.
Whether you went to a page because you found it by looking through his contributions or someone pointed you there, you went there because he was there and that's WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which isn't allowed.
To me it looks like you don't like Joshua Johnson's edits or approach to editing and so you're following him to pages and posting about his edits. That's harassment and not allowed, and it's why I support the one-way interaction ban. If the iban isn't going to pass then I support a topic ban. Ca2james (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well - whether it is a user conduct issue is one thing that needs to be determined. Robert McClennon advised us to post it to the DRN first. This is explained in the DRN notice: See DRN Notice Draft. He did do BRDR instead of BRD and it seems to us that he breaches POV and many core wikipedia guidelines with his edits - on all five of those articles. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of wikipedia policies and did all this in good faith. And I don't understand what makes what I just did such a big deal. Of course if it is prohibited then I have to go by wikipedia policy! But if it is, I didn't know that at the time. Note, that I am no longer interacting with JJ or posting to talk pages on India, Buddhism, or Hindusim until the notice. Robert Walker (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do please read my reply to the topic ban where I say that both things that were represented by JJ as edit stalking were in good faith. For the Anatta article, then I saw ScientificQuest's post to JJs talk page User JJ: Anatta and so went to the article where I saw that JJ had reverted 47 of SQs edits with just a cryptic comment[10]. And SQ is a newbie editor doing his first attempt at a major edit[11], on a topic he could consider himself to be expert on as he is doing a masters on it. And this was his third attempt to add material to the article, all of which was removed with cryptic comments a newbie would not understand [12]. It was not in support of the DRN indeed makes things harder to rollback - it was just out of sympathy to support an editor I felt was being treated badly. For more, see Anatta talk page posts
And in the other debate - first note that when I posted the suggestion for a closure review, the response was overwhelmingly overturn and it was finally closed with Consensus - overturn. Also, I didn't join it in an article talk page, but in a forum where there was a reasonable expectation that a contribution from an editor not involved in the debate would be welcome. Of course since the objections to me taking part I have since left that discussion. For more on all this, see Migration hypothesis debate. Robert Walker (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, this discussion was auto archived by a bot. That was because of 36 hours of inactivity when nobody responded to my reply. It has just been restored from the archive)Robert Walker (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Robert Walker, it is definitely a conduct thing. I actually agree with you on the Aryan Migration content and am opposed to Joshua Jonathan regarding the content.VictoriaGraysonTalk01:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was more than a month ago that I suggested to Robert Walker that he take his issue to WP:DRN. Since then he had repeatedly said that he is planning to go to DRN, but for whatever reasons, he doesn't do it; he only talks about doing it. Because one request was filed at about that time that was much too long, like his own talk page posts, he may have thought that requests for dispute resolution at DRN are supposed to be tediously long. That particular thread, by the way, was closed as failed. By this time, his statement that he is planning to go to DRN has become stale and implausible. I know that he doesn't like User:Joshua Jonathan or his edits. He asked me whether making extensive rewrites to a "mature" article was a conduct issue for which he could report Joshua Jonathan. I said that it wasn't, and that it was only a content dispute. Robert Walker: Either file a DRN request, or don't file one. Stop using it as an excuse to stalk Joshua Jonathan's edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Robert, first of all, JJ warned me long ago that any attempt to deal with this through actions was likely to boomerang on me. See Get over it and move on. As a result we have been extremely cautious and careful, to have the most accurate presentation we can. I have nothing at all perseonal against JJ, it is because of the content. As for whether it is a user conduct issue - we hope it is not, and our sincere hope is to be able to return to collaborative consensus based editing, as was the norm on these articles before about July 2014. But in the circumstances it did seem necessary to research it as a possible user conduct issue, and that's why I felt it necessary to search his edit history.
Then, these ANI actions have delayed the DRN draft by about a month. It was nearly ready at the beginning of January. But JJ first took me to ANI for my overlong talk page posts, most of which I posted in December and earlier. After that I was quite shaken, and even though it was resolved as "no conclusion" and I was given a second chance, I felt necessary to log out of wikipedia completely and forget about it for nearly a week. During that time I decided I want to go ahead with the action, to preserve core wikipedia values as I see it, even if I get topic banned or site banned as a result. So we started drafting it again - and he takes us back to ANI again in response to what seems like us to be minor issues, as I had no intention at all of edit stalking him and didn't look at his edit history (that was research I did long ago now). But I understand how the synchronicity - that I was given the link to the fringe noticebaord discussion off-wiki soon after the discussion on the Anatta talk page can seem like edit stalking, and if I'd thought of that it would probably have been wise not to interact.
Then this ANI action was auto archived and we were getting ready to submit it again - when it is restored from the archive and the proposal for a site ban added. We have just continued with drafting the notice through all this, but I have posted here a few times. If I am site banned or get a topic or interaction ban, of course the DRN notice can't go ahead. But in case that doesn't happen we will have it ready, as good and accurate as we can make it.
Note also that User:Dorje108 is an editor with less time for wikipedia than most of us. He has most time for wikipedia at weekends. As a result collaborative work between him and me on the DRN notice tends to happen at weekends - and during the week - slower pace of interaction. And as I want the DRN notice to be a collaboration - essentially I'm doing it for him because he hasn't got time to do it himself and because we both feel that there is an issue with these edits which needs to be addressed. But he is the editor of the articles most directly impacted of the two of us. I have never edited any article on Buddhism except for fixing one broken link, because in my view the articles were already excellent (before these edits) - and my concern there is as a reader. My own main interaction in the past, before this dispute, was just to suggest areas of wikipedia that might need attention of the editors of these articles. Robert Walker (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, Robert. It brings us back to where we started: Dorje108, who's been ignoring the issues with WP:UNDUE, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:SYNTHESIS for three years. This comment pretty nice summarizes it:
I have inserted an over-quotation tag because "using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style" (WP:Quote).
As a first step, I propose to remove the "Contemporary glosses" section ("Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section") and the quotes in note 2, 3, 11, 12, 24, 27 and 30 (but keep the refererences).
We're all grown-ups here, who can take responsibility for our own actions and edits, so let Dorje108 take care of his own affairs. The talkpages are still waiting for his replies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!14:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an Admin to assess and close the above discussions
I concur. There is nothing new to be said here. Please close the discussion so that Robert Walker can submit his DRN (which I am supporting) and we can deal with some of the underlying content issues. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Is not a
Is not a (talk·contribs) WP:NOTHERE Attempts to obstruct and my participation and disrupt sourcing discussions at notice boards, doesn't address content issue at hand, asking me to stop looking for sources.
[13]
Insinuates I’m associated with Larouche, making a personal attack and casting aspersions.[14]
Denies evidence of my association with Larouche, harps on about defamation, suggest blanking the page in his edit summary.
[15]
Fails to follow WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:PUBLICFIGURE
Removes this tertiary source, which has been in the article continuously, it appears, since May, 2007, when it was first added as an External link here, and then used as a reference in January 2008 here.
He failed to get consensus for the removal on Talk, claiming that it was an “attack site”. I decided it didn't need to go in the article anyway, as it was a tertiary source and other sources could be used in the main body, and added it back as an external link after he removed another external link, and I was reverted without discussion, with a threat of taking me to AN/I while repeating a BLP claim he has refused to answer queries about. I re-reverted, he didn't file the AN/I, but simply reverted again[17].
Finally, he has made some spurious claims in an attempt to derail a topic ban appeal I have pending at AE.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I shall leave this to others to discuss, since I am busy. Administrators should read the talk pages of the associated articles and at WP:BLPN and note that Ubikwit's SPI investigation request was closed with a suggestion that Ubikwit read the SPI description before filing another. Ubikwit received similar advice on at least one occasion here. isa17:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That must just be an action of poor judgement. Otherwise, can you give us the diffs. in a list, so that it's easier to review. I can understand your exasperation but if enough, admins will declare an IBAN. Till, then fix this thread, please. --Ankit Maity«T § C»17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user "is not a" arrived at Wikipedia with longstanding experience and knowledge of old Wikipedia matters. I got very suspicious when this supposedly new person mentioned the incorrigible sockmaster Herschelkrustofsky here. This is not a new user; usually such persons are evading a block or ban rather than simply abandoning an old registered account in good standing. Binksternet (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather focus on content issues at appropriate talk pages, but here let me give an example of the biases I have been trying to clean up at the BLP Robert Kagan:
OMG! Binksternet!! What are you doing!!!! Don't you know that WP:AGF requires you to throw away all your accumulated past experience and treat this editor like a long-lost friend, your best buddy from college or your cousin you haven't seen in years? Ask him in, serve him tea and crumpets, put him up for the night -- nevermind that your Spidey-sense is tingling away to beat the band, that he arrived at your door with a blackjack and brass knuckles, you must give him (or her) the benefit of the doubt. Not very cricket, sniffing him out like that. BMK (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ubikwit, alas, has had major problems in the past with edit war behaviour, and has been cited for such by ArbCom. On Neoconservatism he has 4 reverts in just over two days, in Robert Kagan he has 4 reverts in just over two days, and so on. Some of his edits on Kagan were clearly problematic in the past, [20] was a revert to call Kagan "Jewish", etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree somewhat. Both editors have been problematic on this page. I am not made a slew of edits removing any neocon reference and spamming templates. But they've correctly removed some EL and other BLP issues. Same with Ubikwit; some good edits, some not (like the one Collect linked above). EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 22:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: Collect referred to an edit regarding a BLP issue I had encountered for the first time, with respect to which consensus was reached on this Talk thread there is other relevant background here[21] and here.Owen (talk·contribs) appears to have "recused" himself from the article due to the dispute over that issue.
Meanwhile, regarding this exchangestarting herebefore being hattedhere, the text on the page could only have been in English because there is not Japanese translation of the book, and no translation function. Is that gaming the system (claiming he can't read the source)?
With these links, Ubikwit documents his discussion about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA of American Jews, his linking to an antisemitic site, and his other soapboxing about American Jews and others adopting a "democracy" argument for supporting military aid to Israel and opposing aid e.g. to Egypt, the topic of The Israel Lobby.
This is so distasteful, that I'm done here. Do what you want, here in public.
@Is not a: those are serious allegations. Please substantiate them or strike your comment. And by substantiate I do not mean refer to some unspecified link somewhere else in the discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Is not a: So you linked to somewhere else where you made this accusation? And then I followed your link there and I was unimpressed. Let me try to make this simpler and take this one step at a time: Specify, here, by name, with your next edit, the anti-Semitic site allegedly linked to by Ubikwit, or strike your comments to that effect. Gamaliel (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is quite enough of that. As one who tries to be a righteous gentile, I take accusations of antisemitism quite seriously. I also think it is not an accusation that should be thrown around the encyclopedia lightly. User:Is not a has responded to this matter on their userpage with a link to a news article on a particular publication whose name I will not repeat because the name of one of its founders is in the publication name, thus making the claim of antisemitism a BLP violation. According to the Wikipedia article on this publication, a publication with which I am completely unfamiliar, it has been accused of antisemitism in the past in the rough and tumble of political discourse, but I can find no evidence that this publication is actually antisemitic. Neither the Anti-Defamation League nor the Southern Poverty Law Center label it antisemitic. The ADL does call it "anti-Zionist", however, but the SPLC has used it in some of its articles as a reference regarding cases of actual bigotry. Most significantly, its founders are Jewish. Thus I conclude it is both a BLP violation and a violation of WP:CIVIL to repeatedly hurl that accusation against this publication and this editor. Given this, the gamesmanship on display here, and the dubious edit history, I am imposing a 24-hour block and an indefinite one-way interaction ban on User:Is not a preventing them from further interaction with User:Ubikwit. I also think it would be appropriate to consider evidence on the matter of stronger sanctions. Gamaliel (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have to say that Wikipedia it's sometimes hard on to tell the players without a scorecard, but if the link that "Is not a" (stupid name) posted on his talk page is supposed to be antisemitic, I just don't see it; and I say this as an unabashed liberal who is generally (but not knee-jerkingly) pro-Israel, but who has found value in the writing of both Robert Kagan and his father Donald Kagan. Some of this kind of crap comes about because people insist on things being either black or white, even though the geopolitical world is much too complex for that to be true.
In any event, it appears that Gamaliel has blocked "Is not a" (still a stupid name) for his personal attack on Ubikwit, and I support that block. Which camp that puts me in I have not the slightest idea. BMK (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel: Note that "Is not a" has a personal attack against Ubikwit on his userpage at the bottom (and a similar one against Binksternet on his Talk page under the subheading "Clean hands"). Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel:Now that I see what source he is referring to, I think that a simple reference to the WP article's "Reception section is revealing.
It should not be permissible to attempt to impinge editor's integrity by launching a blatantly POV attack aimed at undermining the competitions sources, so to speak, especially where such serious allegations are being made. That is an offense beyond violating NPOV at the article's content level, and represents a sort of preemptive personal attack because one editor has a POV that is opposed to the POV of a reliable source (note that the source itself was not even challenged in that thread) that another editor has proposed.
I note that the subject of this report has retired, but he caused a lot of trouble in a very short time, and I agree with Binksternet that the editor is not a new editor, though the SPI I filed failed and it is not easy to connect such people to past accounts. They will resurface and again skew the editing environment off balance, trying to take out the competition through a smear campaign.
All the more reason that en.wiki needs to drop the proscription against so-called "fishing expeditions" and allow CUs to be run when there's a reasonable probability that a "new" user is a returning one. Too many times these malefactors get away with their abuse of the system simpy because who they are is not immediately apparent. We should not be in the position of rewarding those who use the system to hide their connection to previous identities when we have the tools to identify who they are, and block or ban them if appropriate. BMK (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, and don't understand the privacy issues that are claimed to prevent doing so.
The way things stand, hypothetically speaking, any individual of organization with resources to pay someone to sock for them on Wikipedia can wreak havoc, exercising far too much influence on the editing environment, at the expense of individuals that contribute their time and effort as individuals. There must be a better way to implement preventative measures.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑12:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to sourcing, it should be noted that I made it to the Kagan article via the Nuland article, to which the subject of this thread referred. I made it to the Nuland BLP via the Ukraine conflict in connection with a content dispute over the "F--- the EU" remark. A pro-US faction was negating all sources from Russia, including an official statement by Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, published in the state owned media. There were numerous RS/N threads, and I opened a thread at IRS that was inconclusive. The Lavrov statement (and by extension, the Russian pov) was barred, and I withdrew from editing about the Ukraine crisis. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:54, 10:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
break
As an individual that has been associated with the "Israel lobby", it would seem that such categorization is merited, but two reverts have been made, with the reason given in edit summary, "request by article subject on talk page" and a link to blpcat. I don't know whether the assertion about the Talk page request is verified or not, or whether it matters, as it would seem that Kagan is a public figure.--User:Ubikwit (signing was on the original page) [24] shows Ubikwit does regard the "Israel Lobby" as being important to Kagan. Note also that [25] had been warned in the past about his positions and [26] topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to make insinuations impinging my character, WP:NPA. This is not a guessing games forum, so if you have something you might want to allege, then do so in a straightforward manner. Also, signing my signature in your post is incorrect practice.
Have you read the article I cited on the talk page that you quote above.associated with the "Israel lobby" If you have, and, like Is not a, don't like the source, either, and would rather condemn the entire site, then just say so. You're entitled to your POV.
HJ Mitchell stated that the diffs didn't show that I violated the topic ban.[27]
Open Frederick Kagan thread at BLP/N at 11:15 on 1/31[28]
After some discussion of first round of sources, Collect agrees that F. Kagan could be characterized as a neocon with proper attribution. [29]
At the Neonservatives talk page, he reverses himself, and attempts to impede further discussion, claiming that the BLP/N thread opened only hours early had “was a “Fail”. [30]
I state that his statement is a unilateral attempt to curtail discussion. [31]
He then accuses me of “quote mining” and claims consensus.[32]
I ask him for the second time to cease with the pointy disruptions, and not to falsely accuse me of misrepresenting sources.[33]
Meanwhile, The Four Deuces (talk·contribs), to whom Is not a referred, was also involved in impeding that discussion, claiming that he disagrees with the existence of the lists on Wikipedia in the first place, because he doesn't like the criteria for inclusion.[34]
I cited your precise post. That you find this to "impinge"(sic) your character is sad. I corrected the "signing" lest anyone think you somehow just posted here. And as I did not say you violated your clear topic ban, I am unsure why you need to iterate that bit - what is clear, sadly, is that you appear to be highly interested in Jews and the "Israel Lobby." You recently edited History of the Jews in Afghanistan, Ten Lost Tribes, Menasseh Ben Israel, British Israelism, Jewish Buddhist, Judaism in Nepal, Lev Tahor etc. all dealing with Judaism. And accusing TFD of "impeding" anything is a non-issue here - the fact is that you appear on the basis of your edits to be exceeding highly interested in Jewish issues, and have been topic banned in the past from Arab-Israeli articles broadly construed. And my advice that you consider that when you are the only person making a claim and others demur that you consider the very slim chance that you might be in error is standard Wikipedia advice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (impinging no one)[reply]
Do either of you have any sanctions you want imposed or actions you think should be taken? If not, this discussion should be hatted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like a 1-way interaction ban imposed against Collect. He has been responding to my posts in a somewhat erratic manner, sometimes changing his position abruptly, which generates friction and consumes time to clear up misunderstandings. I find that disruptive, and it impedes the overall discussion on Talk pages when it sidetracks the main focus.
Above I asked whether one interaction that was hatted as just such a distraction was a form of WP:GAMING, and that is a case in point.
The above comment demonstrates that Collect read the currently open AE thread, but [[IDHT|didn't read the last comment by HJ MItchell that the allegation he now declares is that I violated my topic ban has already been addressed with respect to the above-diffed discussion. I don't see any reason why it should be necessary to have to answer every overlooked point or unfounded objection and the like that Collect makes to my edits. Obviously he objects to my editing topics related to "Jewish issues", because he doesn't like my POV or sources, apparently. I have tried to ignore him, but he repeatedly shows up and causes me to spend time on things like responding to the baseless accusations he makes above. Occasionally I edit in areas related to American politics, and would like to avoid such distractions in the future. As I don't think I've demonstrated the above-described behavior against Collect, I would like the IBAN to be a 1-way IBAN.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑20:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Ubikwit be told not to accuse other editors of being socks or of editing based on a POV without very strong reasoning based on diffs, that he not continue to specialize in "Jewish" issues, that he be told that the use of edit war on multiple articles at the same time is unwise, and that he be told not to attack or interact with "Is Not A." I suggest "Is Not A" should also be told to avoid direct interaction with Ubikwit.
I point out that I made no "allegation" that Ubikwit violated his topic ban, and I do not appreciate his iterated claim that I did so. Thus a two way interaction ban between Ubikwit and "Is Not A" along with the suggestion that Ubikwit avoid his "Jewish article specialization" seems to make sense.
I further note that I have not sought any interaction with Ubikwit, that I was going to oppose his ban from AN/I[36] were it not for his accusation that apparently almost everyone else is against him.
His use of AN/I is problematic vide [37] , and then attacks me at [38], [39], [40] all pretty much at the same time with a great many editors. I seek to ignore him, and have not sought here for any actions against him, and find this request that I be the one banned from mentioning him to be Kafkaesque. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence of his possible antagonistic attitude toward almost everyone is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Ubikwit for which he was blocked for two weeks for insulting User:AGK by saying Listen, AGK, your actions have consequences in this world. Isaac Newton pointed that out to the physicists, and I'm pointing it out to an undergraduate wannabe attorney from Scotland. Capisce? I fear his accusations against me are of the same ilk. Collect (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to make it clear: Ubikwit: I specifically and abjectly apologize for any instance here where I said you violated your topic ban. I trust that apology is sincere and accepted as such. Collect (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) (please try to avoid making edits within a continuing sequence by another editor - it amonts to refactoring his comments which he expected to be read as a sequence)[reply]
Note also that had been warned in the past about his positions and topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict "broadly construed" primarly due to his battleground attitude. There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic.
Which is a basically indecipherable passage, seeming to imply either that you agree that the source Is not a smeared as anit-semitic, or you assert, like Is not a, that I violated my topic ban. I don't see a third reading of your statement, so consider that you intended the later, based on an oversight, rather than the former, a more serious WP:PA. So I queried you about it, and your response was indeterminate. It seems that maybe you actually didn't read HJ Mitchell's comment, and upon recognizing that deny that you too asserted that I violated that topic. Otherwise, you have no grounds to comment on my editing what you refer to as "Jewish topics" on Wikipedia. Your POV in that regard is exceedingly narrow. You do not own those topics, and Jews do not own those topics.
Interesting since you had written on the Kagan talk page[41][42]:
The blog by self-identified progressive Jews might not be an opinion piece, but it did mention the two points in the same article. I do see xxx's point about the possible implication of "divided loyality". On the other hand, there are plenty of politicians (Jews among them) that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc.
Which some might accidentally read as an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby. Of course, I am sure, of course, you would not make such claims. Collect (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here again, if you still haven't read the article, "". And I would suggest also reading the "Reception" section I linked to for that publications, because the subject of dual loyalties appears to be something that they often address.
Moreover, such accusations in American politics are nothing new. It should be recalled that, before Kennedy was elected president, some Protestants and others used to say that a Catholic shouldn't be president because he would owe more loyalty to the pope than the Constitution, etc.
My position at Kagan's BLP was, of course, if it is common knowledge that Kagan is Jewish and associated with the Israel Lobby in reliable sources, why would Wikipedia not disclose the fact that he is Jewish. Once I learned about the current thinking on BLP policy regarding religious affiliation, that was the end of my participation. On the other hand, as I noted in the article, "divided loyalty" based on religious affiliation is not a foregone conclusion, as many people do not try to hide their religious affiliation regardless of their political stances on Israel.
The article, however, is unabashedly clear regarding the existence of various potential issues
"Middle East policymaking is now dominated by the Israel lobby and its affiliates. Advocacy of Israeli positions has replaced professional qualifications as the criteria for service.[43]
That brings this discussion back around to your apparent insinuation that there might be something "problematic" with my edit, which only appears to exist in [your] mind."There is no doubt in my mind that labelling a person as "Jewish" in such a case while asserting they are part of the "Israel Lobby" might be deemed problematic." I suggest that you cease and desist with what could easily be taken as making the exact same assertion here, albeit in a veiled manner, that Is not a made. Obviously, it doesn't matter if you don't like the POV of Mondoweiss about the neocons, Jewish and otherwise, and the Israel Lobby, with which I happen to agree. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑07:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, at the time, it seemed to me at the time, given my lack of knowledge about the defacto (it is not dejure, apparently, according to @Owen: WP blpcat policy about religious affiliation on BLP's, that since Kagan is not only a public figure but has served as a public official, the norm in American public discourse is not to hide information such as religious affiliation. So here’s one more passage from the article
Kagan pushed the Iraq war to George Bush as a battle to help Israel. He and his neocon friends wrote, “If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors… Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory.”[44]
Furthermore, a talk page discussion related to including religious affiliation, with reference to a public figure who may have a conflict of interest, is not the same thing as stating in the article that such is the case. The point of the Talk discussion was about including him in a Wikipedia category according to religion and ethnicity, which you have described as “labelling”. So your statement above regarding an editor specifically connecting "Jew" with "divided loyalty" and the Israel lobby exceeds the scope of the limited discussion about Robert Kagan. It should be noted that the issue at Kagan's article has been going on for years, I see, without any BLP policy statement being established.
BLPs seem to have a special consideration that does not fall under WP:NOTCENSORED,
@EvergreenFir: Why do you characterize that as an edit war? Are calling that a violation of WP:EW? The material (one link) removed from the article has been there with consensus since 2007, and there was no consensus on the Talk page for its removal. You introduce a new rational for your deletion with the edit summary "These do not seem to meet WP:ELYES", so I will study that when I get the chance, but we we'll have to take that discussion to the Talk page.
What do you mean by that baseless assertion? Do you have a logical rational? If so, present it, so it can be addressed in terms of reason, not you jumps of faith accusations from out of the blue. Why have you not commented above? The subject of the thread has had two sanctions opposed against himself, so your assertion is so out of line I consider it to be a personal attack. You false accuse me of filing a report that has resulting in sanctions against the editor I filed it against. Do you see the logical fallacy in your assertion?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑23:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel and Binksternet
I requested that Gamaliel ask for a review of his administrative actions here, on my talk page ([47]10:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)), to which he has failed to respond.[reply]
Here, I request first that Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN be made a two-way ban or removed, not only for fairness but to avoid violations of WP:BLP and other policies, which have been addressed in my contributions to articles ([48], [49]) (Regardless, I request an immediate suspensions of Gamaliel's unilateral IBAN for only this ANI discussion. 10:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Second, I am also confused that others have been discussing problems with the treatment of Judaism or Israel in related WP space without having been cautioned, where I was blocked in the middle of the night when I could not respond or alter any offending text. This does not seem to be consistent with blocking policy or fairness, particularly since I had indicated the lateness of the time ([50], responding to Gamaliel's ultimatum here, despite the time. 09:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) and there was no disruption being prevented by the Block, which seems to have been punitive.[reply]
Third, I would like a review of user:Binksternet's behavior particularly on my talk page. ([51] 09:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)) isa08:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 08:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC) 09:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, Interaction Bans are supposed to be imposed by a community consensus. Gamaliel did not have the authority to impose a one-way interaction ban. isa01:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BMK Considering that Is not a was blocked solely on the basis of his personal attack, perhaps, as Gamaliel suggested above, a more serious sanction should be considered, like a topic ban from all "Neoconservatism, broadly construed".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑11:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unilateral IBAN imposed by one administrator
Motion: Gamaliel's unilateral one-sided IBAN is void. Gamaliel or another editor is welcome to propose such a ban to be discussed by the community at ANI.
Support: Gamaliel's ban was improper because individual administrators lack the authority to impose bans. Gamaliel's ban did not represent the consensus of a discussion at ANI (although one can claim it represented agreement of BMK and himself, at least for an hour or so); also, it has not been entered in the community sanctions list, which is where ANI-sanction bans are supposed to be listed. Gamaliel's ban was not claimed to be a WP:BLP Arbcom-authorized ban, and it has not been entered into any Arbcom list of bans. isa09:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gamaliel lacked the authority to individually impose an IBAN. If Gamaliel wants to impose a ban, then Gamaliel need to have a discussion for example here, and then have it authorized as consensus. Such bans are logged as community actions.
Presumably, complying with the policies on administrators and bans does not harm the encyclopedia.
Gamaliel, please point to earlier discussions at ANI that advocated a one-sided IBAN, if you claim you had such authorization. isa06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whether or not an admin ticked the right box is not really the point. This discussion is taking place at ANI, and anyone wanting their interaction ban removed would need to show how its removal would benefit the encyclopedia. The discussion above shows that attacks on an editor were made, and when pressed for evidence, none was provided, so the IBAN is justified. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to answer Gamaliel's inappropriate question while I am allegedly topic banned? I prefer not to be indefinitely blocked. isa06:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is listed here only to permit it to be ridiculed or dismissed. Unfortunately, this proposal appears to be an attempt at wikilawyered bullying by Ubikwit to silence Collect.
Relucatant Support Noting how he wrote to AGK and the interesting phraseology therein, and a large number of editors seems to indicate the drama boards do not need this agita. Collect (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose*, for obvious reasons, and agree that RobertMcClenon deserves a WP:BOOMERANG of some sorts. And I would like Robert McClenon (talk·contribs) to remove the personal attack falsely accusing me of being a "vexatious litigant", or maybe to have him blocked for 24 hours if he refuses to do so. He did not participate, constructively or otherwise, in this thread at all until jumping in with these outrageous sanction proposals, and has been nothing but disruptive.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:53, 3 February 2015 11:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and agree that RobertMcClenon needs some kind of BOOMERANG for these two suggestions. Maybe a nice {{trout}} on his user page. Shii(tock) 00:22, 4 February 2015; 11:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extend Topic-Ban to All Jewish-Related Topics, broadly defined
Comment An utterly groundless proposal, outside the scope of the thread and based on accusations that I posted source to an anti-semitic site, which I did not, etc., etc., etc. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑23:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I never initiated all of this - and Ubikwit has repeatedly used AN/I to attack many others - and even attacked an Arb in the past. Sanctions made without any sound rationale are foolish at best. In fact, Ubikwit has had many problematic interactions with a great many editors, and singling me out makes zero sense here - truly. Collect (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Ubikwit hasn't shown that Collect is harassing him or that Collect's reports of Ubikwit and complaints about Ubikwit go too far. Oppose, although less strongly than one-way ban, for same reason, that Ubikwit is trying to silence a critic who is within Wikipedia policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Topic Ban and INteraction Bans all round
For everyone who has commented in this discussion, from anything unrelated to actual content writing.
This has apparently been going on for a few days now, with the same few people talking in circles. I'm going to take some bold actions in the interest of putting this thread out of its misery. First of all, Is not a (talk·contribs) is an obvious alternate account, and is being used to engage in combative and contentious editing. This is an inappropriate use of an alternate account. Our policy on alternate accounts is very clear: such accounts may not be used to segregate combative edits or conflict, per WP:SCRUTINY and WP:GHBH. I've therefore blocked Is not a (talk·contribs) indefinitely; the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics.
I will recuse from any action regarding Ubikwit and Collect and leave the proper handling of their behavior to other admins, noting that neither has exactly covered himself in glory: Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. MastCellTalk06:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User repeatedly violates WP:POINT, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, is stubbornly Wikilawyering, and repeatedly edit wars in the process as he willfully pushes his view without considering other editors' input.
Recent edit warring, & WP:POINT in article editing (in the first diff, he disruptively removes [while I was still improving the section] reviews I'd added from the album ratings box) - chronologically: [56] + my response: [57] + [58]; [59] + [60]; [61] + [62] + [63] + [64]; [65] + [66] + [67] + [68] (←linked to Wikiproject discussion in which he said himself recently it was only a guide)
I'd addressed his behavior in article and talk page with a cordial message on his page, asking him to stop disrupting and start working collaboratively.
I know I have a disadvantage here as Dan56 has promoted many GAs or FAs (reading over ANI, that apparently tends to give you automatic pardon of Wiki guideline violations), but this user has a history of eschewing collaboration, of disruptive and tendentious editing, pushing POV, OWN attitudes, WP:battleground, disrupting editing to make a point, not assuming good faith, genre warring, accusing others of what he is exactly doing or has done, and many editors have called him out on his behavior and editing practices in the past, on various article talk pages (particularly RfCs). Dan56 evidently is not interested in changing his behavior as he feels his promotion of GAs absolves him of any responsibility for his actions and that he's potentially answerable to no one (as his unsanctioned acts would lead him to believe), evidenced, recently, here and here. Most of my encounters with him have been on the band Garbage's articles, at which he arrived about 7 months ago after being canvassed by another editor (who possibly didn't know about the policy then) in a content discussion, and where he willfully employed the same editing tactics and violations he's still willfully and freely employing.
Please see see this relevant RfC here, which is the (recent) source of this dispute, and where much of the aforementioned is evident further.
Dan56 does not appear to want to contribute to a collaborative, disruption-free environment at this band's pages, where he has quarreled with me and engaged in all the aforementioned countless times. My request is a topic ban for this band's articles. What he's contributed (e.g., copy edit of reviews, date formats) (by essentially shutting out others, really) can just as easily be and have been contributed by myself or any of the other editors watching the article. And, as I pointed out in the RfC, If Dan56 had actually bothered to give me a minute or two to copy edit and fix issues and continue improving and augmenting the article, as opposed to just reverting and disrupting constructive edits none of that would occur. Of course, that appears to not be in his nature, particularly for these Garbage articles, for which he, going by all prior indication, has a bias against. --Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lapadite77 is personalizing a dispute which stems from my involvement at Talk:Garbage (album)#Album genres and the subsequent RfC for those genres, which didn't go Lapadite's way exactly, partly because I was invited by Andrzejbanas to weigh in and sided with him. Last October ([69]), I began cleaning up and expanding a section at Version 2.0 and have been involved there since. My recent revisions to Lapadite's edits were justified by guidelines I don't feel he can fully grasp at the on-going RfC, where he canvassed two of his recent collaborators at other "Garbage" articles to weigh in. Lapadite argued for his version of the article by drawing comparisons to other stuff in the RfC, so I dont believe he had any intention to drastically trim and properly paraphrase the quote farm he added to the article in question. The section in question is essentially complete, considering the notability of the reviewers and the viewpoints researched, so this is appears to be another attempt at creative control. Dan56 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I mention Dan56 had a history of accusing people of things, never admitting he has done anything wrong, and creating striking lies and misleading statements which are easily refuted by the actual, readable evidence? In that Garbage album RfC, which one can readily see, toward the end, editors called him out on his intentionally misleading tactics (for which he took 0 responsibility for and ignored the comments, and which he again similarly employed in this recent RfC, which I commented on). I created a new poll, because the other was corrupted by Dan56's tactics and lies and more useful content had also been included in the article, with an updated proposal based on recent article edits, and it went smooth and successfully. Exactly the opposite of what he claims here. This accusation - "this is appears to be another attempt at creative control" - and the hypocrisy is utterly laughable. As you can see, in accordance with my report, Dan56 does not believe he does anything wrong. All of the aforementioned, articles and diffs linked, speaks for itself, regardless of how Dan disregards and reinterprets his actions and assumes of others'. If one were to bring all the editors that have called out Dan56 on his disruptive behavior and editing practices throughout various articles they would all agree with this. I don't link to past talk discussions not directly pertaining to this dispute because it may be tacky and doing so might be interpreted negatively but I have no problem doing so if asked. This is far from a personal dispute or vendetta, which I don't care for. You can see my cordial message on his page, and after that Garbage album content dispute he linked, I had very amicably discussed with him on his page some content matters on another article; unlike him, I don't hold grudges and I'm not here for battlegrounds and disruptive practices, only to improve articles. Dan56's presence at this band's articles has been continually disruptive as his POINTy, POV-pushing, OWN, Wikilawyering, NPOV/Stick to sources-eschewal, genre warring (a significant issue during that album article discussion he linked) and lack of collaboration inhibits progress. For instance, If he hadn't disrupted improvement of that article's section (specifically the start of my constructive edits which, as I said in the RfC [contrary to what he too claims here] were far from finished) that section would've been completed right soon and without the need of all that came after it. Of course he credits the current version (which needs a checking of sources and copyediting for POV, cherry picking, sticking to source) to his mighty self, since, liked I stated above, he shut editors out and steamrolled his edits, and while RfC had just started. Again, this isn't the first time here Dan56 inhibits or significantly slows down progress here, takes ownership of an article and disregards collaboration, in the process perpetuating an environment of only disputes (as I remarked near the end of the current RfC I linked: "Is there an RfC that's not a battleground with you? To which he replied, "that's cute and all".). I strongly believe a topic ban is best. --Lapadite (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You need to file a report here. I recommend including only good evidence in the form of diffs. This thread will likely be closed, by someone else, accordingly. Or do you expect an admin to jump in and block the user per this report? Doctalk08:10, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I expected admins to comment on ANI and consider the irrefutable content in all the links provided. Why do you think I should file a report there instead? That page says it is inactive, and the topic dispute isn't limited to RfC conduct, it also, and primarily, regards editor conduct on this band's articles, hence my request of a topic ban, and not another kind; WP:TBAN →"The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia.". --Lapadite (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote, in another section on the talk page, at 10:08: [71] and 2 minutes later, made the following revert (including restoring of his tendentious, NPOV, undue weight-violating ratings replacement [mentioned in the first "Another tendentious edit" diff above]): [72]. The pre-copyediting version (his) that he restored is in many respects cherry picking, giving undue weight, and not sticking to source.
I sincerely hope what has been provided and continues to be provided (obviously, again Dan56 has no plans to change his habits here) is more than enough to see why I, with reason, request a topic ban for Dan56, due to his considerable, disruptive OWN issues on this band's article, his complete disregard for collaboration, his consistent tendentious editing, knee-jerk reverts of improvements he disagrees with, violations of WP:PRESERVE and all else aforementioned.
Can any admins bother to tend to this thread? All that continues to happen is disruptive and more disruptive editing from Dan56. Lapadite (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging a couple of editors, spotted while skimming ANI, that I believe are admins, to see if maybe this could start getting some attention (sorry if you're not one): Drmies, Stalwart111
I understand what Lapadite is saying, as some of my debates with Dan56 were similar in the past, but unfortunately, I think he's one of those editors that treads the line carefully, where he can come off as rude or abrasive, not its not really bad enough to warrant a block. Unless it starts escalating to personal attacks or hounding, I think a better approach would be to just keep starting discussions or RFC's, to come to a consensus that combats the WP:OWN issues. Sergecross73msg me20:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the disruptive editing guideline mentions some "tread the line" behaviors these kinds of editors may engage in such as: "Their edits often avoid gross breaches of civility, by refraining from personal attacks, while still interfering with civil and collaborative editing meant to improve the article". Dan56 doesn't do blunt personal attacks, although others may disagree, and this isn't a report on personal attacks nor a proposal to ban him from editing Wikipedia but a request for a topic ban, to rid of his considerable, still ongoing (after 7 months) pattern of disruption at this band's articles, his considerable OWN and WP:POINTy behavior, and considerable disregard for collaboration. He's still doing it, still reverting. And presumably this guy has many editors not wanting to speak against him, perhaps admins. Pretty much every other thread at ANI has several comments. This is just ridiculous. --Lapadite (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of Dan56's tendentious edits, is (first mentioned above) the constant replacing of a positive score with a negative score in the album ratings box (which already contains 10 review scores). It has been called out and explained multiple times on the talk page, noted how it's not only tendentious, but violates WP:UNDUE and WP:PRESERVE, but Dan56 keeps restoring it. There's also the persistent claim that reviews that agree on some element of an album are virtually incompatible in that regard in a reception section; summaries of reviews can't include similar opinions, unless of course for something that contradicts positive notions. Any admin's care about this pattern of disruption, OWN and tendentious editing? Seriously, this article would've been completely improved by now if Dan56 hadn't gone (and still continue) on a disruptive, tendentious crusade. --Lapadite (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical notes: IEE-488 is not a serial protocol. Commodore incorrectly described it as such as a marketing ploy (pretending the Commodore had an IEE-488 port when the truth was that you could buy an extra-cost serial to iEEE-488 converter). Also. Countertop is not a chemistry article and thus Wikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry) does not apply.
I suspect that this is a continuance of an existing fight under another username or IP address, but I don't feel comfortable naming names without better evidence than I have been able to find. --Guy Macon (talk)
Simple edit-warring (see Countertop), hounding, tendentious editing and either a fail of WP:COMPETENCE in restoring Wtshymanski's vandal reversion so as to restore obvious vandalism, or else being so blinded by their hounding as to lose track of the overall WP benefit.
As often happens, 31.48.73.38 went silent as soon as the ANI notice was posted. Blocks are for prevention, not punishment, so as long as he lays low there is nothing for an admin to do here. If anyone notices a new username or IP address suddenly starting to hound Wtshymanski, please drop me a note on my talk page. I made a note to remind me to check again in three days, and if there is still no activity, I will request that this be closed. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Constant addition of contentious material by obvious sock and/or meat accounts
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture ended with only a slim majority (8-5 at closing time, 7-3 a little over a day earlier, 6-2 one week after opening) in favour of deleting the page, but no one arguing that the current article wasn't rotten. I removed most of the contentious/POV/unverified material, but was immediately reverted by Jagello and a little later by KoreanSentry, who made only tiny cosmetic changes but claimed they had "verified" the material.
Neither of these accounts had ever edited the article before, and neither had they edited any other article for years before suddenly turning up and reverting me. I can't figure out exactly who is whose sockpuppet, or even if there was some off-wiki collusion by Korean nationalists who know each other in real life, but both of these accpunts are super-suspicious. Could we get some admin input?
I constantly monitored the article. That's all. This is no reason that I should become a victim of your false accusation backed on your personal ridiculous conspiracy theory. Even though there has been definitely no consensus over the massive blanking of the page, Hijiri88 constantly insisted on blanking the well-sourced sections cited from renowned and mainstream Western Japanologists. Now he is claiming that the contents of this article should be verified. But the text is well sourced from the renowned and mainstream Japanologists like Edwin O. Reischauer, George Bailey Sansom, Donald Keene, Lane Richards, Ernest Fenollosa, Louis Frédéric, Peter Kornicki and much more. The administrator User:Nihonjoe also confirmed that the information presented in this article is completely verifiable and backed by completely reliable sources.[106] According to the Wikipedia:VERIFY policy the mass blanking caused by Hijiri88 should be reverted.--Jagello (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. I did not state that. To quote what I actually wrote way back then (this is from almost 5 years ago): "We need to take very careful care in articles such as this that the information presented is completely verifiable and backed by completely reliable sources." Please do not mischaracterize my comments or lie about what I wrote. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But where you had gone? Hijiri88's suspicion is justified, you and KoreanSentry haven't been on for ages and you both have restored same amount of content. SamuelDay1 (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jagello's above assertions about the articles are false. All of the reputable sources mentioned in the article are actually being WP:SYNTHesized with remote fringe material. User:Nihonjoe made no such statement: they said that all the material should be properly sourced to sources that actually support the claims, or it should be removed. After four years, no attempt was made to improve the sources, so I went about removing it.
As to the user conduct issue at hand: why would Jagello be watching a page they had never edited? And why would they stay silent for a week-long AFD only to emerge from the shadows immediately afterward? And why would they not simply revert the post-AFD removals, but re-add material that had been out of the article for almost a year? If they were closely monitoring the article, why did they not revert these edits in February? Can we get a CU in this case, even though we can't be sure who the sockmaster is?
I agree with Hijiri here. I find it very odd and suspicious that Jagello 'monitored the article very closely' and hasn't made an edit on it until now. I don't think we have heard from KoreanSentry yet and what he/she has had to say about this. Eurodyne (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KoreanSentry restored past stable version of this article, but omitted my past contribution to this page. So I added my past edits to his reverting to the past version. I had to only monitor this page, even though Hijiri88 made mass-blanking of the well-sourced contents which represent truthfully the cited source, since I have become a university student. Now I have vacation again since this February allowing me some time to edit, during my semester time, I have little time and reluctant to engage edit dispute with my limited English skill, Although I was aware of the last AFD, I mainly searched the original source to get the page numbers for a month on the purpose of a better verifiability, trying to check every single citation in the text on this article. This was last summer vacation (three months: August, September, October) so I had time for this source analysis. And it was obvious that the proposal for the deletion would be declined, due to the large number of users who were against the deletion of the article.--Jagello (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Jagello: If you knew about and had a problem with my edits last February, why did you wait until October to revert them? If you didn't know about my edits in February, how do you explain your suddenly coming to the article and reverting them much later? Why were you closely watching a page you had never edited? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Hijiri88: Because of your argument without substance in vague manner motivated me check reversely your past contribution history. At that time I get to now that you blanked some sections on the article without any consensus already before the AFD.--Jagello (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What argument without substance? That's quite a claim. It would be nice if you would cite some specific examples. Also, if you were watching the page so closely that you found my October edits immediately, then how did it take you eight months before you noticed my previous edits? Who are you? Tell us which other accounts you have edited under.Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You blanked the sections without specifying, what theories or views are ‘fringe’ without substance in vague manner. This motivated me to check reversely your past activities regarding this matter. Because I wanted to know what theories you may think as fringe. Why are you repeating your question? Read again carefully. I have already answered to you. This is my only account. I don't have any other accounts.--Jagello (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to insert this in my above comment but it got a bit long and it raises a new concern about Jagello's user conduct not addressed above. Keene and "Lane Richards" (sic) are only cited in one paragraph that actually has hardly anything to do with Korea. Kornicki similarly was cited in such a way that it would appear he didn't even mention Korea -- he was writing about a made-up alphabet that no one in Japan ever used; I removed the paragraph in question as SYNTH months ago, and Jagello has re-added it numerous times without even once trying to address my concerns. The "Reischauer" source in question is actually a translation of a 9th-century Chinese language diary by a Japanese Buddhist monk -- WP:OR, anyone? Fenollosa and Sansom were both brilliant scholars, at the top of their fields in the late-19th and early-to-mid-20th centuries, respectively. Louis Frederic, on the other hand, was far from "mainstream". User:Nishidani, myself and several other users pointed out these and other concerns on the AFD, the article talk page, and edit summaries. Jagello has not even attempted to address these concerns, but has reinserted the questionable text word-for-word. By his own admission he is primarily interested in adding page numbers! Could someone please tell this person how to properly interact with other Wikipedia editors?? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri is correct that the page as restored, is a sourcing nightmare. Nothing there is credible unless the original source has been reliably checked, and those passages with sourcing I have checked nearly all turned out to be distortions, falsifications or second-date third hand opinions, dated or by non-specialists.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following is the lower part of a section Hijiri88 deleted without any consensus. Reischauer wrote two books. Ennin's Diary: The Record of a Pilgrimage to China in Search of the Law (Ronald Press, New York: 1955) and Ennin's Travels in T'ang China. The first one is a mere translation of Ennin’s Diary by Reischauer. The second one is a discussion lead by Reischauer on Ennin's travels, includes materials from other sources. This is cited from ‘Ennin's travels in Tʻang China'. written by E. O. Reischauer. This is obviously a secondary source.
The article says:
… at the time when the men of Silla were the master of the seas achieving Korean maritime dominance in eastern Asia.
Original source:
… , but in Ennin’s time the men of Silla were still the masters of the seas in their part of the world.
The article says:
The monk Ennin’s crossing to China on Japanese vessels and the whole catastrophic maritime record of the mission contrast sharply with the speed and efficiency with which Sillan ships quickly brought him back home to Japan.
Original source:
Ennin’s crossing to China and his subsequent voyage up the south coast of Shantung on Japanese ships as well as the whole catastrophic maritime record of the mission contrast sharply with the speed and efficiency with which Korean vessels whisked him up and down the Shantung coast and finally back home to Japan.
The article says:
Another indication of the gap in navigation skill between the Sillans and Japanese at this time was the employment by the Japanese embassy of 60 Korean helmsmen and sailors to help get the main party safely home.
Original source:
Another indication of the discrepancy in navigational skill between the Koreans and Japanese at this time was the employment by the Japanese embassy of 60 Korean helmsmen and sailors to help get the main party safely home.
My conclusion is the editors who contributed this section actually footnoted multiple sources, but the sources from Reischauer alone support exactly each relevant sentences in this section. So that there was no place to make any misinterpretation or synthesis of the sources, which is against the Wikipedia's policy.
Hijiri88's assumption or speculation merely by checking the titles of sources is weak and invalid as an argument for saying the source is misquoted. The contents in the article must be verified by checking sources. The source text should be given and made comparison with the relevant footnoted content on this page. This can be one reason, why Hijiri88 failed to get any consensus for massive removing the contents on this article.--Jagello (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is getting WAY off-topic (please keep article content discussion off ANI as much as possible...) but just to address this: given the rampant abuse of sources I have read going on in that article, I am instinctively suspicious of any material cited to sources I have not read. While I haven't read either of Reischauer's works (again, why do we have to rely on such old sources?), I can tell from the way the article cites him that it is entirely probable that where he simply said Ennin used a Sillan ship and that his countrymen hired Korean rowers, Wikipedians have extrapolated that this means Koreans were the best sailors in the world at that time. Additionally, of the seven Reischauer citations, two are actually from another source quoting Reischauer whose title isn't given. When it comes to pages like this, where 90% of the article is pure nonsense, Nishidani and I have every right to be suspicious, and the WP:BURDEN is on you to specifically address our concerns point-by-point, so that (1) you win us over and the material is re-added by consensus, (2) you fail to convince us, but we convince you that you were wrong on the substance, and the material stays out, or (3) you fail to convince us and keep arguing, so that eventually RFC or some such will establish a better consensus (probably meaning the material stays out).
Additionally, you will note that I never even said anything about SYNTH in relation to the content in question. My problem with the Ennin/Korean sailors section is the fact that 9th century Japanese diplomats and monks hiring Korean seamen does not constitute a "Korean influence on Japanese culture". This is why reliable sources don't discuss it as such.
But this is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. ANI is for discussion of user conduct, not article content. Please explain your highly suspicious behaviour to the Wikipedia community.
KoreanSentry seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth, so at least for now I don't see any need for admin action. But Could someone please block Jagello? Everyone here seems to agree that he is engaged in some form of sockpuppetry or the like. On top of this, he's a POV-pushing WP:SPA who is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to start fights. I've been arguing with this guy since October on the talk page, and he is stillrefusing to be coherent or recognize what others' problems with the article are. I'm getting pretty tired of having to explain these things to him over and over and over again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though, Hijiri88 tried to make unconstructive vandalistic mass blanking without any resonable and valid argument. I used very often talk pages, along with my restoration of the mass deleted article. I invited him for a constructive conversation in order to refrain from engaging edit warring. The result is he failed to make any reasonable counterarguments. Hijiri88, stop making false accusation against me!--Jagello (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLP with the whole nine yards (COI, Copyvio, NOT, MEAT, etc)
An editor with a self-identified COI (I won't give diffs here to avoid outing, but the editor uploaded an image as "own work", associated with his real life name, which is also given in the articles) added a large amount of NOT a webhost, directory, or indiscriminate list text to both articles (sample here.) Bibliophile227 (talk·contribs·logs) reinstated the text, that was earlier added by Ghz89med (talk·contribs·logs) without discussion on talk. Neither of them has engaged talk:[107][108]
I have also removed several instances of copyvio or too close paraphrasing, and correctly cited information that was previously uncited, which new accounts are reinstating or removing.
So, there's a lot going on (BLP issues, COI, NOT, possible MEAT, instances of COPYVIO/too close paraphrasing, etc), and I'm not sure to which individual noticeboard this might go, including possibly MEAT along with COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I now see (by scrolling to the bottom of the diffs), that the deletions made by the accounts is POV, since the source includes criticism of Tippett. [111][112] Perhaps that text-- not the well known divorce-- explains the appearance of these accounts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I like that source myself -- it's listed as a commentary, and it does have some rather snarky comments in the footnotes. This definitely appears to be a case of sock or meat puppetry, though. And I don't know about the outing issue -- I'm (perhaps unreasonably) suspicious of "own work" that appears to be sourced from Flickr.--SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear up any confusion, my name is Mariah (a little targeted googling will find my full name), and I am Ghz89med and Bibliophile227. You are right I am a producer for this radio program. The concerns you expressed are very valid. I should not have created other accounts and I won't do that again. I understand that my language might and in some cases will be biased, however, this page was in dire need of an edit and a build out. I will keep contributing to that, and I invite your edits as well. I will not revert edits by other users, unless there is a clear and legitimate (non-POV) reason to do so. I'm doing this in line with the standard practice for radio shows, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio, and as such, I will be adding an episodic list. Please edit and contribute so this can be the most in line with Wikipedia's best practices. I do invite collaboration, I know that's what makes Wikipedia great. I will be using this account for all future edits, because I want to be transparent. I don't like anonymity, so feel free to message me for an email address. Mariahism (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Mariah[reply]
Yeah, I know. I'm sorry. I got freaked out when you posted my IP address and my location (which I know, open source, fair game, but I got spooked). These are all the user accounts I have ever opened with Wikipedia. Going forward, I'll be using Mariahism for work edits and Bibliophile227 for personal. All other accounts that will going forward be unused: Ghz89med, Convsa2, Gibsonten, Artez28, Jacsman, and Stellapensac. Again, sorry about that. (unsigned edit by Bibliophile227 16:12, February 4, 2015)
And now you're posting from the Bibliophile227 account, so which account are you going to use? Can admins please advise if the others should be blocked? I remain concerned because there is plagiarism everywhere in the On Being article. I'm out of time for today, but it needs additional scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally posted from Bibliophile227 because I couldn't find this page without logging into that account. Again, thanks for your patience, I know you are quite a bit better at navigating this world. I am committed to resolving issues on the On Being and Krista Tippett pages. I'm sorry that I can't do it faster. I think SandyGeorgia is referring to the section "Digital Convener" moved to talk, this is not plagiarism but original research, just to be clear, which I understand now, is not permitted. It will stay off the page until there are secondary sources for it. Again, please feel free to reach out (yourself or other editors) with concerns, my email is on my user page. Mariahism (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am referring not to that text (which was uncited original research that I moved to talk), but to extensive other text taken directly from sources without quotation marks or attribution. See my edit summaries at On Being for those I've identified as I've had time. I am concerned there is more, but have limited time today to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note also the account User:Mhelgeson whose sole edits were to remove the speedy deletion tag [113] from Sustained Dialogue Campus Network which you created. I assume that is also yours? How many more accounts have you forgotten? In my view, this editor should be restricted to one account only and make a full disclosure of their COI on that user page. The others should be blocked. There's no reason whatsoever why s/he should edit from "one account for work" and another as a "personal account", especially given the COI shenanigans and deliberate deception that have been going on since 2011 with every single one of these accounts. Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Block all accounts except one. User has so many accounts they may have temporarily forgotten some. Preferably do it through SPI so that a CU can be run for other accounts to block, e.g. sleepers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would allow an "at home" account, provided the two accounts are clearly linked. It might be preferable to rename User:Bibliophile227 to User:Mariahism (at home) or to make some similar arrangement. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
I'm fine with just having the mariahism account. This account already has a COI notice on the page. All other accounts can be deleted. If there's more I need to do to make the other account deletion happen, let me know.Mariahism (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But now there is another thing that is becoming less and less clear as you post. You have uploaded images as "own work", and now it is not clear those images are your work, according to the different names you have used and the name you attributed those images to. Someone who deals with OTRS or I'm not sure what needs to verify who you are, because some of those images are still in articles. I'm not sure how this gets cleared up-- above my payscale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now everything needs to be checked for copyvio and plagiarism. Here's the latest example, an edit just made (in spite of me raising plagiarism for several days):[114] We've gone from uncited text everywhere, to now seeing that the wording is taken directly from the source, without quotation marks. ("The project resources have been used by ... Harvard Law School.") This is pervasive, I've found it on every source I've checked, and I don't have time to check it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the language SandyGeorgia identified as offensive above. Many of the copyvio flags are for articles not available via web, and the others, referred to by SandyGeorge as the "Mook article" have been thoroughly checked against the source for wording similarities. If others want to verify, please do. For articles not available via web I have offered to share PDFs and full text for others to check against, but these should be flagged on the page as requests of quotes, not as copyright violations.Mariahism (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is becoming unpleasant. The instances of taking text directly from sources, without quotations, are quite different from the growing list of failed verification to offline sources, which are becoming apparent only as quotes are requested on talk. It is gradually getting cleaned up, but more eyes are needed, and I wonder if the necessary objectivity and competence are on board. I'd be most happy to unwatch if others indicate they are watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darkstar1st on a site-wide purge of any mention of "libertarian socialism"
None of these mentions of libsoc are the least bit controversial, to my knowledge, and the political groups in question all describe themselves as libertarian, as typically confirmed by native-language articles. Offering citations doesn't seem to make any difference at all, so I don't know how to proceed. fi (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the ref for PPK and Darkstar1st appears to be correct. All references to liberarianism are in reference to Öcalan, not PPK. Can't comment on others, but the user does seem to be editing specifically on this issue. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. That document does specifically identify it as libertarian socialist unambiguously, in exactly the same way that a manifesto proclaiming Maoism would identify a group as Marxist-Leninist. Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism, just like a lemon is a type citrus fruit. B ⊃ A fi (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're assuming the result you want. You say a lemon is a citrus fruit, but another editor objects, unless you have a citation from a reliable source that says that a lemon is a citrus fruit, you can't use that in an article. If someone disputes it, you need a citation from a reliable source that says Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism, or you can't use it. Does your source say specifically that "Bookchin's communalism is a form of libertarian socialism" (or words to that effect)? If it doesn't, then it's not the source you need. Your prior knowledge is not sufficient, you need a source. BMK (talk) 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just patently silly. Wikipedia (on the articles for communalism, Murray Bookchin, libertarian socialism, for example) is absolutely plastered in references confirming that Bookchin's communalism is uncontroversially a type of libertarian socialism. What you're saying is like saying it's OR to call a "poet" a "writer" because a source explicitly called him a "poet" and there's no reference literally saying "writer." I'm not offering my personal knowledge as a reference; it's just documented all over Wikipedia that one is a superset of the other. A square is a rectangle, so we don't need a reference on something being a rectangle if we have a source saying it's a square. More importantly, the editor has not objected as you say and has brought no credible objection or dispute to the discussion. This is just a continuation of the abuse already on the editor's rap sheet. fi (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Common sense", for want of a better word, tells us that a lemon is a citrus fruit, and a poet is a writer. It tells us no such thing about the relationship between Bookchin's communalism and libertarian socialism. It is way outside the bounds of common knowledge, and therefore needs a source. BMK (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then "common sense" tells us, in the exact same way, that a Maoist is a Marxist-Leninist, especially when there's dozens of citations, all over WP, saying B ⊃ A -- same as references describing Bookchin, communalism and (shockingly) libertarian municipalism as libertarian. You can pick your favorite reference, but you're the first person to challenge this, as User:Darkstar1st did not. So, I don't even understand why we're talking about it. fi (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Finx may well be wrong, that is a content issue for discussion. However, if, as they claim, User:Darkstar1st is not discussing the disagreement, we have a behaviour issue. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
A quick look shows that, for example, this edit by Darkstar1st does have an edit summary that points to the a discussion section on the talk page. I think, therefore, that it would be a better plan to engage on the article talk pages than pursue this AN/I. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
In one edit Darkstar reverts the addition of a Spanish language source (in an article on a Chilean political party) with the edit summary "Engligh language sources only please". That is unjustified. We have no requirement for sources to be in English. For writing about political parties in non-English speaking countries particularly it would seem a particularly silly requirement.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·21:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the face of it, this certainly appears to be a behavioural issue - and if Darkstar1st thinks that it is appropriate to remove all mention of a significant trend in the historical development of socialist thought from Wikipedia, as appears to be his/her objective, we need to do something about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, as of now, the user is still edit warring and Wikilawyering all over the place. I don't feel like getting into fifteen separate games of revert pong, so I'll just let this roll on until someone wants to do something about the continuing pattern of disruptive behavior. fi (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend admin action. Well there is some pretty obvious POV pushing. It's a systematic removal of references to left wing libertarianism, presumably to POV push that it does not exist, and only right-wing libertarianism exists. So in effect it is vandalism, as a clear pattern has emerged. If left unhindered he may remove all mentions of left-wing libertarianism. --Mrjulesd(talk)23:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's a larger problem involving libertarian editors and articles. For an example, look what's happened to our article on free society.[115] This kind of assimiliation of a non-libertarian topic, takeover, and OR is going on everywhere. Darkstar1st is only one of many editors engaging in this kind of behavior. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think part of the problem is that User:Finx is a bit clueless about citations and original research. (See example.) In the example, Citation A, did not support the statement, but Citation B did. User:Finx did not understand that Citation B needed to be by the statement, not Citation A. Regarding original research, User:Finx seems to think that if a party is socialist, and says it has liberal/libertarian values, that makes it a libertarian-socialist party. [The same non-English word translates as "liberal" or "libertarian".] What Darkstar1st seems to be trying to do is to clean up this kind of thing.-- Toddy1(talk)09:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't stoop to personal attacks, but if you want to charge me with being "clueless" on ANI, let's review the absolutely mind-boggling level of incompetence you have displayed on the Freedom and Solidarity Party article. First of all, the citation already present before the titular POV warrior arrived used the word "özgürlükçü" which, beyond any reasonable doubt (as was explained), translates to "libertarian" in this context. So, no further citation was even needed. Assuming good faith, however, (and way beyond what is reasonable) the very first thing I did was add an inline English-language citation from a respected authority on the subject with a quote that just could not possibly be any clearer: "the ODP, or Freedom and Solidarity Party, is a Turkish socialist libertarian party founded in 1996." This was removed and ignored. When I pointed this out, it was ignored again by both yourself and the POV warrior, followed by complaints about the original reference using "özgürlükçü" instead of "liberter" -- which are synonyms, as can be seen here. When that objection clearly fell apart, the Wikilawyering moved on to ridiculous claims of OR: it's OR to assume that political groups claiming to be libertarian are... libertarian. I mean, this is just comedy. "Liberal" and "libertarian" are mutually exclusive groups: one is capitalist, the other, in this (and practically any) context, anticapitalist. That is also not original research. It's the most basic level of comprehension you can have on the topic. Libertarian, outside of its isolated use in the US as another word for advocacy of laissez faire "free market" capitalism, universally means socialist. The libertarian qualifier in libsoc qualifies the type of socialism (to distinguish from state-socialism), not the other way around, i.e. the type of libertarianism. When a socialist political organization declares itself libertarian, that means one thing only: libertarian socialism. If you are this confused or just know absolutely nothing about these topics, why not ask for clarification instead of calling others "clueless"? And, speaking of clueless, I invite you to find me one article on Wikipedia -- or anywhere else for that matter -- where "özgürlükçü" translates to liberal, let alone where that's a reasonable translation in the context of describing far-left socialist groups. The only thing in your contributions so far that would have even vaguely resembled a rational thought -- had it been concerning a non-socialist party -- is based off a funny Google translation error which you couldn't be bothered to verify when it produced an obvious absurdity. fi (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) and redlinking
NAC close by OP: Although some of the discussion focused on general matters regarding redlinks rather than on RAN's specific unique situation, it's still clear to me that it's very unlikely that any consensus will emerge to alter RAN's sanctions to direct him not to create redlinks for articles waiting in his userspace for promotion to mainspace. Since this is the case, I'm being WP:BOLD and closing the thread. Anyone who disagress with the close for any reason at all is free to reopen it without objection from me. BMK (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This would be fine, if a little sad, if RAN didn't want to redlink in connection to his userspace articles. Since his articles are unlikely to see the light of articlespace any time soon, any redlinks he adds are going to remain redlinks for quite a long time. This appears to contravene WP:REDLINK, which says:
Although red links to notable topics are permitted in lists and other articles, do not overlink in the mainspace solely for use as an article creation guide. Instead, editors are encouraged to consider WP:Write the article first, or to use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.
RAN is indeed writing the article(s) in his userspace, but since he can't publish them in mainspace, he's not "writing" them in any real practical sense. These redlinks essentially serve no purpose at all. There's no benefit to the reader to have a redlink to a non-existant article, and there's no need to prompt an editor to write the article, since RAN is already doing that. The redlinks will therefore just sit there, a distraction to the reader.
If RAN's sanctions are lifted, it will take no more time and effort to link the articles then, after they're moved to mainspace, then it is taking to link them now, when it serves no practical purpose. (Of course, RAN may be anticipating a waterfall of article moves if and when his sanctions are lifted, and taking the time to make links then would slow down what he perhaps hopes is an impressive flow of new articles.)
I came across this problem on the article Ottendorfer Public Library and Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital, in which RAN added the names of people who died in the hospital (which in itself is a WP:WEIGHT problem, since the article is about historic buildings and not very much about the operation of those institutions, so his list of deaths creates the false impression that what happened at the hospital is that people died). Most of the names he added had articles, but one did not, an obscure actor. He redlinked it, I removed it on the grounds that he should link it after he wrote the article (I had forgotten at the time about his restrictions), and he responded that he would write the article. Which he did. In his userspace where it will wait until....
It worked the other way as well. RAN is working on an article on "Eccentric dance" (which could well have problems if it ever moved to mainspace, because it appears to be more of a description than a true genre), and went around redlinking "eccentric dance" in various articles. I came across this in the Eddie Foy, Sr. article, reverted, and RAN reverted it back. A discussion was started on the talk page and RAN initiated an RfC, but he also tried to institute a compromise whereby he removed "eccentric dance" from the article and removed the name "Eddie Foy, Sr." from the article he was writing. To me, that seemed like no compromise at all. (The term has since been restored with a source.)
So... what am I looking for here? The question of when a redlink is and isn't appropiate isn't one of the great Wikipedia debates, but it sometimes can be prickly. I generally think that if it's likely that an article will be written, or should be written, a redlink is OK. If the subject is obscure then no redlink is needed. For an editor creating a new article, I don't think pre-linking is a good idea - write the article first and then link it - it's no easier to prelink than it is to postlink.
In RAN's case we have an editor who is well able to write articles, but whose previous misbehavior leaves those articles -- at this moment, and for the foreseeable future -- moldering away in his userspace. He is sui generis in this regard, and because of that, I propose that RAN be told that until his sanction is lifted, and he is able to freely move articles into mainspace, he may not prelink those articles. It think this would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 07:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothere? Norton's use of redlinks is no more annoying than a certain someone who uses hidden comments to add white space. I'm not seeing anything actionable in this report other than a possible case of harassment. If you want to discuss the philosophy of redlinks, don't you think the MOS talk page is a better venue? You got into a dispute over redlinks and dragged his ass here instead of an MOS page. Was that wise? Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading comprehension problem? Why would I go to a MOS talk page to fix a problem that's specific to one editor's unusual situation? That certainly doesn't make a lot of sense.
And harassment, hmmm? Both the articles mentioned have been on my watchlist for a long time, so the problem came to me, not vice versa. And my use of one extra blank line (not "whitespace", which I remove whenever I can -- love your misuse of words for rhetorical purposes there!) makes articles look better for the reader, as opposed to annoying them with unnecessary redlinks. But such lack of judgment and perception are perhaps to be expected from an editor who <redacted> in the attempt to win a dispute. BMK (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very confused, which is leading you to respond with personal attacks and false accusations. It's certainly plausible that in your confusion you have confused me with another editor, but I am sorry to inform you that I have never "created a sockpuppet in [an] attempt to win a dispute" here or anywhere else. Would you like to retract that statement, or would you prefer to continue down the path of a BOOMERANG? You are clearly involved in a dispute with Norton and you attempted to gain the upper hand by filing this report. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh-huh, you deny <redacted>. Well, you could knock me over with a feather. Unfortunately, I was there, and I know better.
Look, you don't like me. I don't like you. Great, stop the presses, nothing's changed. So maybe you should stick a <redacted> in it and let some unbiased people comment. BMK (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you appear to be very confused. I have not commented anywhere about liking or disliking you. What I have commented about, is your repeated false accusations. While you might find the "are you still beating your wife" line amusing, I believe your false accusations are grounds for a block. I have never used sock puppets, and your claim that you remember that I did because you were there amounts to a paranoid delusion on your part. Without any evidence or diffs from you in this regard, you should be blocked for repeated personal attacks, false accusations, and a transparent attempt to change the subject of this thread, which is clearly your attempt to gain an upper hand in a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right! I remember now, we're best buddies! We've always loved each other like brothers!! I was over at your place last week to watch the Super Bowl!!! (Although I was pretty annoyed that you were rooting for Seattle when I was rooting for the Patriots.) How could I have forgotten!!! And that <redacted>? ... Well you and I just put on a show for the kids, right?, using <redacted> made out of <redacted> -- Yeah, I remember it all now, just as if it really happened!! BMK (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if you can't retract your accusations then I think you should be blocked. There is zero evidence, in the form of diffs or anything else, supporting your allegations. You either have me confused with another editor or you are making false accusations. Either way, you really need to stop because you are making a fool of yourself. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, which is why I've cut you a bit of slack. It would be best if you would stop accusing people who disagree with you of being socks, especially when you lack any kind of supporting evidence. You're a legend in your own mind, that's for sure. Viriditas (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what's your opinion of one editor claiming that another editor harbors "paranoid delusions"? Do you think that's a blockable personal attack? What -- no, it can't be, you wrote that, and you're as pure as the driven snow -- I mean, as pure as the white sand of Punalu'u Beach. BMK (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you really need to take a long break from Wikipedia. I'm an uninvolved editor who came to this thread to offer my opinion about your "case" against Norton. You didn't like my opinion, so you went on a bit of a paranoid rampage, claiming that my opinion can't be trusted because I use sock puppets and that I carry a grudge against you in some way. Neither of those delusions are supported. Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly what your allegations are made of in this thread. I wonder if the same is true of your proposal? Is there any merit to it, or are you just using ANI to get the upper hand in a content dispute? I looked at the link you edit warred over and it looked fine to me. Are you misusing ANI in the same way that you falsely accused people who disagreed with you, and in the same way you tried to belittle my observation by placing a "sideshow" heading above it? If your proposal against Norton has these same aspects embedded in it--the false accusations, personal attacks, and intentional distortions--then perhaps we should dismiss your proposal without further consideration. If you can't be trusted to get the facts right about editors, why should we expect a factual ANI report? Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, God forbid that you should, you know, confirm them for yourself, which I assume you hadn't done when you opined above.
Right! You said I should go to a MOS talk page to address a unique situation involving one specific editor, and that I had "dragged his ass here" (very neutral and unbiased language there), since, apparently, prior discussions on two article talk pages and one user talk page which didn't go anywhere were not sufficient. BMK (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I can see how it would be mildly annoying to see a bunch of redlinks popping up in watched articles, I can't say I see this as a serious issue of any kind. RAN is free to write articles in his userspace and he is free to otherwise edit mainspace; if it suits him to add links to articles he thinks are likely to be written and/or shifted out of his drafting space eventually, it causes the encyclopedia no harm for him to do so. If the linking is truly disruptive in some way, like redlinking the entire text of an article, then sure, we could look into further restrictions, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. The only time I can think of at which normal amounts of redlinking, or even slight overlinking, might hurt an article is in passing FAC, and I don't think that's where this is all currently going. There's a pretty large gulf, for most of us, between "thigs that annoy me but don't noticeably affect the encyclopedia's quality" and "things that actually need to be hardline restricted to protect the encyclopedia", and this issue seems to fall pretty far on the former end of the spectrum. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the scope of it to consider. There are dozens of articles in RAN's userspace. If he's been redlinking all of them, in every article they appear in, that's potentially quite a large number of redlinks which will not go blue until his sanctions are lifted. BMK (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDYES says "Create red links everywhere they are relevant to the context for terms that should exist in the encyclopedia", and User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has not been prohibited from doing so and I see no valid argument for such a prohibition. I really don't see any grounds for complaint here. Squinge (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles has the user added redlinks to prior to live-article posting? No matter how many, I'd say it is inappropriate, as linking in or posting appropriate mentions in other articles is done after one has posted a live article, per the standard aftercare for new articles: [116], [117]. Of the two instances mentioned so far, I think that the patient's name should not even be in the list in the library/hospital article, much less redlinked, until an article is posted live about him. (Although frankly I question why a list of patients is included in any hospital article, since hospitals have untold numbers of patients, some only for a few days, and everyone has to die somewhere -- who cares who died at the hospital? Everyone has to die somewhere; it's usually a matter of accident where one ends up following being stricken with a heat-attack or other quick fatal occurence. This is not noteworthy information, and in addition is coatrack-y WP:OR.) In terms of "eccentric dance", I think wikilinking should wait until an article on it is posted live. Also, the RfC on that article's talk page is particularly problematic, as it makes no sense and is not worded as an RfC. Softlavender (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine that RAN didn't have these restrictions; would you object that he's creating these pages? In other words, do you believe it reasonable that we would have articles on people such as Charles Duryee Traphagen or entities such as the Railway Wage Commission? Redlinks are fine for notable topics that are fine as article topics. If you'd be fine with someone else creating articles on these topics, you shouldn't object. See WP:REDYES, which someone else quoted above. He's demonstrating that some of these topics are article-worthy, so I see no problem with the practise per se. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that redlinking is useful when one comes across a subject that is so obviously deserving of an article that it seems odd that there's not one already. For the borderline cases, such as the two you mention above, one should err on the side of not having a redlink. As for pre-linking, I have no particular objection if someone pre-links because (for some reason) it's easier logistically, but then in a short period of time (i.e. less than a day) posts the article. If the gap between pre-linking and posting is significantly longer, I'd say that post-linking was the better option. In this instance, the time between RAN's pre-linking and the posting of an article is, for the time being, indefinite. I don't think that's reasonable. I agree with WP:REDLINK when it encourages editors to "Write the article first", where "write" clearly means either "create directly in mainspace" or "write in userspace and move into mainspace". BMK (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah write the article, but the editor in question can't. He seems to exist in some kind of limbo, is this correct? Neither banned nor permitted to write into article space -- he can (I gather) write in his own space, on any talk page, in Wikispace I guess so he could write essays and edit rules pages, but he can't write in article space... this seems odd, have not heard of this before.
I'm super strict about not letting banned editors post anything anywhere under any account, but since he's not banned would it not be kosher for any editor to just move the articles into mainspace (if they pass muster) and then everything's all Sir Garnet? Am I missing something here? The "eccentric dance" article seems (to my surprise) to be a legit article I guess (haven't vetted it thoroughly).
I'm not gonna move it though, cuz it sounds like the editor in question should be spending his energy cleaning up his old copyvios so that he can (I guess) get his privileges back, and moving his articles into mainspace removes his incentive to do that. But it'd be legal, right?
Weird situation indeed, but I think anyone bold enough to move those drafts to mainspace for him is likely to be brought here to explain themselves for being his proxy. On the other hand I don't see the red links themselves as being particularly troublesome. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody else were to write policy-compliant articles on those topics - or if another editor improved on one of RAN's drafts, and took responsibility for doing so - that would be a Good Thing. So why are the redlinks considered harmful? Copyvio has certainly been a problem for RAN, and it's a serious problem, but it is unclear to me how removing these redlinks would remove any copyvio. We should try to make decisions on the margin. Writing an encyclopædia should take priority over ostracising an editor to the extent that we even remove links to topics they were interested in. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creating redlinks for notable topics which should at some time have articles seems to be approved by WP:REDYES. It's not followed uniformly (see List_of_Roman_consuls, where some redlinks co-exist with some non-links; presumably any Roman consul is notable - heck, nearly anyone written about a few thousand years after their deaths is). Creating redlinks for possibly notable topics I think follows because until consensus is reached that a topic is not notable, an article on it is usually kept at AFD where no consensus defaults to "keep". Are various government boards notable, somes-that-is-somes-that-aint, so again, what isn't prohibited seems to be permitted and because of this user's particular situation (which, acknowledged is of his own making) I cannot see how this is prohibited. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a few minutes ago RAN removed the section in bold above, with the edit summary "(move section to talk page that contradicts the gist and demote the essay to the see also section)". Now, I agree with him 100%, it does indeed very much contradict the gist . spirit, and general intent of the rest of the guideline, and also contradicts well established practice here. It's presumably a left-over from many years ago. (The guideline currently reads, as I think consensus says it ought to, "Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions. " and "Creating a red link also carries the responsibility to first ascertain that the red link is a valid title of a page, and that its foreseeable new subject matter will meet the notability guidelines for topics covering: people (WP:BIO), web content (WP:WEB), businesses (WP:CORP), and more." I think those statements above represent the true guideline that we have used here for many years, and iI very strongly endorse RAN's edit to the guideline. But perhaps it was not a great idea making that edit at just this time. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BMK closed the discussion, which he started, once it became clear he won't get his way. I'm undoing his improper closure with this edit as I believe his behavior in this case should be examined. His misrepresentation of Wikipedia's editing guidelines, as evidenced by his quoting of an inapplicable passage from WP:REDLINK (one link in one article clearly isn't overlinking; if we assume good faith, we'll at best arrive at the conclusion we're dealing with WP:CIR issues) in order to get his way in a discussion is questionable at best. If you look at his comments at Talk:Eddie_Foy,_Sr.#Redlink, you'll notice he seems to insist that an essay overrides an editing guideline, which troubles me greatly. Then there's the issue of wasting editors' time at ANI with a petty editing dispute (that's what this thread is). And then there's an issue of his overly aggressive tone, his excessive use of bold text, etc., all's right here for everyone to see. I believe a gentle slap on the wrist is in order, as such battleground behavior seems to have become a norm for BMK, every time I see his name lately, it follows an aggressive or otherwise inappropriate comment. I suggest we issue a formal warning to tell BMK that if he continues to violate our rules of conduct, there may be further action taken in order to protect the integrity of Wikipedia.70.189.56.157 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)Struck as the comments of a sockpuppet.[reply]
I am not going to respond to this, since this was the IP's first edit ever. The second was a non-helpful post on WP:RFA, and the third was another comment here.
The IP's block is irrelevant to the concerns raised here and entirely unrelated. I've re-opened the thread. Do not close it again. Your ongoing attempts at gaming the system to evade having your improper behavior scrutinized are nothing but yet another reason to scrutinize said behavior.223.85.17.193 (talk) 03:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Eyes needed
User:Tgeairn is busy removing New Religious Movement and Cult Researchers that presumably write stuff that does not agree with his worldview. [118]. This behavior is consistent with his blanking of related topic material here [119] and [120], nomination to delete a anti-cult book [121], seeking sanctions on an editor trying to restore critcism of Landmark Worldwide [122] and other activities in a single direction over the long haul. Admin eyes on the List of new religious movement and cult researchers article could help. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Theobald TigerLegacypac, the large orange banner at the top of the edit page says When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. Please do so in the future.
To address your statement: 1) There is already an Arbitration request that we are both involved in (as you mentioned), so there is not likely a need to bring this here. 2) Some of the entries on the list were determined by consensus to be not-notable (as explained and linked in each of my edit summaries). My removals were based in the understanding that WP:LISTPEOPLE applied (as explained and linked in each of my edit summaries). DGG explained that it does not apply to that list, and I stopped the removals. That was all clearly explained in the edit summaries. 3) The rest of your statement has nothing to respond to.
please note that my comments are narrowly based ones about a particular content guideline, and do not address one way or another the actual issue here of possibly biased or coi editing. I have not even looked at that aspect. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just letting you know this user has been up to some very blatant page move vandalism and is making a person from our organisation look bad. Please indef this user to protect us here at Capita. Thanks! 80.189.136.20 (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)and[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Earlier today, an editor boldly moved Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Milwaukee and left a redirect. This is direct violation of the so called comma convention. I am not asking for sanctions, just for an admin to put it back and possibly instruct the editor, who I will not name here, on the proper procedures and historical outcomes. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user keeps replacing File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg (the original Commons file of this flag) with their recent upload File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori Flag.svg. They appear to believe that the original file is impropelry constructed, although their link does not make that clear as it lacks a construction sheet. I have reverted their change twice, both times requesting that they discuss this on the original file's talk page so that if it is deemed wrong we can correct it, and also made a 3rd request on their talk page. They appear to have refused. I am therefore asking that an admin revert the article and give further suggestion to the user that they discuss the matter properly instead of edit warring. Fry1989eh?22:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted. Yes, this is edit warring and they need to do a better job convincing others. I am, however, interested in what more knowledgeable editors have to say--is there a WikiProject that you can notify? Remember, we're here to make the encyclopedia better, not to scold. Drmies (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not here to scold them, I have asked them nicely three times to discuss on the talk page of the original file and even gave them a link to the proper place to do so, they refused and claim I have "blocked" the discussion whatever that means, and now are blabbering on about some jingoist "you're not one of us, how dare you question me!" nonsense. I will again invite them to where they should discuss this, but I can't drag them there and make them do it, it is up to them to participate. Fry1989eh?00:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm not accusing you, but let's face it, here we are at ANI. I left them another note, and I saw yours. Of course I know you can't make him discuss things--but really, they are discussing thing, just in the wrong place. Let's hope they find the proper way. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on the subject (once I've posted this I'll go and notify User:Grutness who is) but as far as I can tell, Fry's flag is a good one and Jonathan Teriini's one is a better one. Most of the times I've seen the flag in real life, its red was more the brownish red colour of Jonathan Teriini's flag than the brighter, less brown red of Fry's flag. On the other hand, Fry's flag is better drawn with smoother arcs. However, I also noticed while comparing the files that Fry's flag cites Flags of the World as a source. Flags of the World's copyright page (here [123]) does not appear to be compatible with Wikipedia's copyright requirements in that it does not permit alteration of the images, and limits use to non-commercial (and non-political) purposes. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been dragged into this because I'm a regular contributor to the Flags of the World website, and am also regularly consulted on flags by local news media, though I'd hardly say I'm an expert on the Tino Rangatiratanga flag... and I hope that what I say won't muddy the waters still further! Both images have merit, though neither is what I'd consider the standard design. From what I gather, though, there are no precisely defined dimensions for the Maori flag. Having said that, it is predominantly seen with the ball of the koru close to the hoist (as in Fry's flag) but with a darker red (though not as dark as in Teriini's flag) - closer to crimson than scarlet or brown-red. Confusion may be arising because one of New Zealand's main flag-making companies (Flagmakers.co.nz) now prefers a variant with the ball closer to the middle of the flag, and this design (with a considerably lighter red) has also been used in the past by some Maori flag manufacturing groups (e.g., [124]). This is, however, a much less-commonly seen version (as can be seen from a quick google search of photographs of the flag in use (e.g., [125], [126]). This version is also found prominently displayed on the websites of the NZ Ministry of Culture and Heritage and NZHistory.net. I'd suggest that a compromise might be found by taking Fry's image and darkening the red (to somewhere around #bb0000). This will make the flag closer to the most commonly seen version of the flag. Alternatively, both variants could be retained and given as examples on the article for the Tino Rangatiratanga flag of the range of interpretations of the design, with Fry's image kept for such articles as Flags of New Zealand. More important in many ways that which flag is right, though, is Teriini's unwillingness to discuss matters, which is a cause for some concern. Grutness...wha?11:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok firstly, File:Tino Rangatiratanga Maori sovereignty movement flag.svg is not "my flag", it is simply the original file on Commons for several years. Second, if it is wrongly constructed (either by colour or by shape), that should be discussed so that the file can be fixed. It was not right to replace it with a new file. So far however, Jonathan Teriini appears unwilling to begin a proper discussion so I suppose we have to do it without them. Regarding which one is right, I don't know because there is insufficient information. The link provided by Jonathan Teriini does not have a construction sheet (which would have been ideal), it simply appears to be a differently drawn image which is why I do not believe it is a valid source to suggest the current flag is "wrong". In fact, looking at some of the photos we have ([127]), I would suggest that the original file is the superiorly constructed image. As for the correct shade of red, I am not opposed to darkening it if someone can propose a specific shade. As for the FOTW copyright, it has already been determined on Commons that the flag is not copyrighted and therefore FOTW can not hold copyright (except to their own drawing). Furthermore, referencing FOTW as a source does not confer their copyrights to an independently constructed image. FOTW is widely used as a source on Commons for independently constructed images, it's not an issue of concern. Fry1989eh?16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification - when I said "Fry's flag" and "Teriini's flag", I was simply referring to the image files - I wasn't implying any specific new design by either editor, nor any copyright involvemewnt by either. As I said, though, neither is truly "superior" in that there are no legally regulated dimensions or shade, and both designs are found in cloth form, though the one currently on Wikicommons is perhaps the more widely known and used variety. Grutness...wha?23:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two concerns about Vaselineeeeeeee (talk·contribs). First, this editor dislikes using edit summaries. He was cautioned here, then deleted the caution here. He was cautioned again here, and deleted the caution here. Second, there a pattern of reverting edits in an effort to win content disputes. This editor has been adding flags to infoboxes in Canada, which has prompted many talk page discussions which he has joined in. This, in turn, led to a draft proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal regarding flag icons in infoboxes Courtesy would suggest you refrain from adding more infobox flags until consensus is reached, or new policy created. The editor reverted my edit here, after I left an edit summary stating "you are part of a flag discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. It would be courteous to wait for consensus". As well, this editor was cautioned here to avoid edit waring. What's confusing, is that on US articles, such as this one, he has been deleting infobox flags! Thank you for your time. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly about the edit summaries, I do not dislike using them, just when I make a small edit for example adding in a wikilink, I usually do not leave a summary, however on a larger edit (adding in a paragraph for example) I most certainly do. In regards to the flags, I believe very little will come out of the discussion (which is usually what happens). There is no set in stone rule where you are not allowed to put flags in the infobox in "Human geographic sites" as stated in MOS:FLAGSINFOBOXES for cities. Also with deleting the flags on the US pages, I only did that because of the discrepancies in the Edmonton discussions and believed that if some articles do not have them, then they all shouldn't (or should) for consistency. They were all added back and I have not touched them since. I still believe that flags should be included. Thanks, with regards. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a suggestion: under the "editing" tab in your preferences, click the box that says "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" so you'll make an edit summary. As for the flag issue, it varies from wikiproject to wikiproject and even from article to article; please let it be. Epic Genius (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a bit concerned here...but on a different matter..that is nicknames to city article despite a few ongoing talks on the matter like at WP:CA-citynames (many talking about it). The problem we have is the editors believes (as stated above) that talking things out will not solve anything,,,thus they just keep editing. I dont think there is any malice intent...as all I believe is done in good faith with the best intentions. We just have an inexperienced editor that needs to be more responsive to others concerns and how things are solved here.....sometimes its takes time....long talks. No need for any punitive or preventive action against Vaselineeeeeeee if they acknowledge the concerns raised and comeback to the talk pages, while not doing these types of edits till the debate(s) is over. Vaselineeeeeeee at WP:CA-citynames the side that likes flags could use your help in the debate.-- Moxy (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They relate in thats its a behaviour pattern. The reason we are talking here now ...is not whether the edits are right or wrong but how they are being done and/or still being done when there is a concern. Adding content or flags to articles (in this case info-boxes) when there is a clear concern raised by others and especially when there are ongoing debates that your aware of is the problem. I have written a few words about this that may help explain this - see here - -- Moxy (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(NAC) It's been deleted. Epic Genius (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It has been repeatedly tagged for speedy deletion, and then had the tag removed by 'new' accounts. It stands precisely zero chance of meeting notability guidelines, and there is no evidence that the subject even exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by a Google search that brings stuff like this up, it appears to be a holocaust reference. Lovely. I would think that it specifically refers to the particularly sick-minded wife of a concentration camp commandant who is known to have made a lampshade from the skin of a Jew whose tattoo she liked. The trillion bit is obviously meant to be a play on the 6 million count of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 07:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC
The username in question seems to be this. I agree this would be better at UAA, but since it was mentioned here I think it's better to clarify, particularly as I don't see hatting really offers much protection. BTW, it would have been easy to find the user in question had they been properly notified as is required at ANI, but isn't required at UAA. In any case, while anyone is free to block or report to UAA, I've asked the editor for an explaination of their username. If they don't have one that doesn't fit with the above finding, I'll report them to UAA. Since they've edited (but although to a contentious article, I didn't see major problems with their edits from a quick glance), I'll do this even if they don't become active again. Nil Einne (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unhatted as the name is indeed registered under a slight variation, so this is an "incident" potentially involving admin tools. Ideally should be at UAA but little point in moving it there now. Thanks Nil Einne for your message to them - agree their edits don't immediately look to be vandalism, so have blocked the name with this is the sole reason (at this stage). -- Euryalus (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:73.11.72.255
User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77. Upon being warned by BlackCab and myself on their talk page to discontinue their disruptive editing, User:73.11.72.255 deleted our warnings and put our names on a list of "Known Apostates" they created (since reverted by BlackCab with an additional warning by both myself and him). While I realize this is a quick request for a block, as they have only been editing for a few days, the reversions with no attempt at discussion and in particular the creation of the "Known Apostates" section I believe is warranted of an immediate block.
I did a copyedit after the editor's initial edits on the two articles indicated above. I retained some parts of the editor's initial changes where the changes did not misrepresent the cited sources. Since then, the IP editor restored their other changes and falsely claimed those changes were according to "consensus",[128] but the editor has not made any attempt to discuss any changes. The editor's subsequent personal attacks on BlackCab and Vyselink strongly suggests that the IP editor is unlikely to make any reasonable effort to work collaboratively on articles related to the religious denomination that is the subject of the articles above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A silly dispute about nothing. "User:73.11.72.255 has repeatedly changed sourced information on the pages of Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses and Organizational Structure of Jehovah's Witnesses despite reversions by myself, User:Blackcab and User:Jeffro77." It is called editing, and is in the nature of developing articles at Wikipedia. Is the HQ in New York HQ for JW, Governing Body or "the Society"? Could it be both, or even all three? I've followed this topic for several years, and Jeffro77's and BlackCab's oneminded critical view of all aspects of the religion is way undercommunicated. To state the views of former members well known for their highly critical view of the topic, like the IP has done, as "claims" rather than "state[ment]s", is may very fair. Dr. Penton have clearly stated the prosecution of JW during WWII was their own mistake, or at least a result of Rutherford's critic of the Nazi regime, a classic technique used by historical revisionists and right wing extremists about Jews. Further dr. Penton have, in the sourced book, expressed strong sympathy and long time correspondence for/with a mentioned Swedish historical revisionist. JW had disassociated with the revisionist because of his extreme views, while dr. Penton failed to communicate that the Swedish historical revisionist being one, and forgotten to mention the Swede's past as a former convict in Sweden (a modern, democratic country) for his extreme right wing Holocaust denial expressions. To use dr. Penton as a source for statements about JW, represents same quality of source selections as using nazists as a source for statements about the Jews: It is may worth mentioning his view, but as a view rather than a statement. Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor has made no attempt to discuss their changes despite being asked. They are edit warring against a consensus view, which can be dealt with at the appropriate notice board, but it is unacceptable behaviour to label two editors with whom one disagrees as "known apostates". This is mindless hate behaviour and pretty extreme. BlackCab (TALK) 20:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grrahnbahr's claim that I have a "one minded critical view" of the religion is demonstrated to be false by the many times I have also removed negative information about the religion. Additionally, far from being "undercommunicated", various editors—particularly Grrahnbahr himself—have frequently attempted to malign my motives (and those of BlackCab) when disputes arise about articles related to JWs. In fact, Grrahnbahr has previously reported me for supposed "edit warring"[129] in regard to four words in one sentence[130] that was the subject of discussion at Talk. (In that protracted ordeal, I actually restored the sentence to the same version that Grrahnbahr had restored five days prior,[131] which had been the stable version for many months; yet Grrahnbahr still attempted to impugn me by claiming that I had introduced an 'unsourced claim'. Clearly Grrahnbahr has an axe to grind. The article Talk discussion is at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses/Archive_59#Biblical_Christianity; the discussion resulting from Grrahnbahr's frivolous accusation is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive236#User:Jeffro77 reported by User:Grrahnbahr (Result: Fully-protected).)
Regarding Grrahnbahr's assessment of the content of the IP editor's changes, this can be discussed at the article's Talk page, and per WP:BRD, the IP editor should have done exactly that after their edits were initially changed (though they were not completely reverted). But the IP editor has made no attempt to discuss anything, despite the editor's false claim of restoring "consensus". Grrahnbahr's description of the IP editor's persistent reversions without any discussion as simply "editing" is quite dishonest. The IP editor's initial edit was "editing", but the subsequent repeated reversions without discussion is "edit-warring". Grrahnbahr is well aware that disputed changes should be discussed at the article Talk page.
In an attempt to distract from various distortions introduced by the IP editor about what the cited sources actually say, Grrahnbahr has attempted to highlight some of the minor semantic changes instead, such as the IP editor's less accurate description of the headquarters. Additionally, Grrahnbahr's deviation into Penton's supposed views of the Holocaust has no relevance to any of the disputed changes. Most of the changes are to text that isn't even sourced to Penton, and none relate to the Holocaust.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Thinkingamericanist
Insulting and denigrating comments left on my talk page by User:Thinkingamericanist. I would like them deleted as they are offensive. I would also appreciate having an uninvolved editor explain why http://www.qrz.com/db/AA4AN is not a reliable source for birth names for individuals. Even if a name appeared when logged it, I can't see it as reliable as linking to an actual individual since it's a user-edited database. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Violations of WP:NPA and WP:NLT, and outright racism against Germans in a manner wholly offensive to Germans and Jews (as many of us take offence to placing the sins of great grandparents on their descendants who haven't done anything bad). I'm no admin, but it seems pretty clear-cut. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16 Shevat 5775 16:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<a name="Pages_in_category" id="Pages_in_category"></a>Pages in category "Quaker Oats Company"
No, they don't all mention Quaker, but they do have this clunky name tag hanging out there for all the word to see. I'm not even sure where you'd go to break this so I'm hoping somebody here does so it can be fixed right away. - Dravecky (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is that the box needs to go. Yes, Bgwhite is thin-skinned, but how one transmits that opinion is highly relevant here. EEng, please let it go. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I agree here. EEng has been blocked in the past for personal attacks and harassment (by Bgwhite) and it seems like he strongly dislikes this editor, enough to make a disruptive userbox. I suggest trading lightly for a while and removing the userbox. Eurodyne (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True if it is just directed at bg, but because it is hidden another way to look at it is that it is devious. I also suspect that the infobox in question changes each time the user is blocked and would have a link leading to another block if and when the user is blocked again so while bg might take it as a joke the next admin who knows. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take it as a joke. EEng insults anybody disagreeing with him, so I just see it as yet another one. The box was added November 14 directed towards me and it still is direct towards me. The box directs to a section header that was written by me, but changed by EEng. I've changed it back, EEng levels an insult, and again adds the "thin-skinned" header. Bgwhite (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm not actually all that sure it's as clear cut as that. When I first saw the user box a couple of weeks ago I thought it was a more a general criticism of the subjective, and often personal, nature of a lot of admin blocks. That it linked out to a particular incident was acerbic play on "X number of days since a workplace accident" with the last accident report on the board. I didn't take it as a "fuck this guy" type of userbox. I thought it was pretty funny. Maybe this is less of a big deal when people just decline to make it one. Besides, don't we get enough hurt feelings reports without adding vicarious hurt feelings reports? Did anyone ask Bgwhite what he thought? GraniteSand (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this userbox seems to be directed at Bgwhite, if he is okay with it, I don't see an issue of having it up since it only is directed at one person. Eurodyne (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTHERE seems to apply on EEng, on August 2014 he did nothing but attempt to harrass other users, and call Bgwhite a thin-skinned admin just because he was blocked. I know that's old news, but still... --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't. Honestly, so free you are to hold forth and proclaim on things about which you know nothing. But such a misapprehension on your part might explain a lot. EEng (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng made it after Bgwhite blocked him, but the second instance was after the issue over personal attacks.[132]User_talk:EEng#ANI_Notice is relevant. EEng decided to reset it and mock persons. I dislike EEng's attitude and his most recent edit to his user page was to add a section on "Museum of additional reasons that ((Dick Cheney|warmongers)) are going to hell" brackets swapped to quotes. [133] in what is a petty and rude gesture in of itself. He tempts the patience of others with such edits. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley I'll revert it. I believed I caused it, and I didn't link to a category, so I had just removed this then irrelevant category from the talk page. I didn't think someone else was to blame. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore it ... raising this ANI thread counter productively will probably give it more views than it would have ever have gotten, anyway. NE Ent02:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remove userbox Bgwhite's opinions on the userbox are not relevant—it is up to the community to decide whether it is helpful for a sanctioned user to poke the admin—of course it is not helpful. Regardless of whether the block was justified, collaboration is required, and WP:POLEMIC needs to be supported to avoid people recording their thoughts on all the bad editors they have encountered. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
+++
In my opinion, the above was prematurely closed without dealing with the two separate issues I discuss below, and I request that it be re-opened for further discussion.
There are two issues here.
First, there is the question of whether this violates WP:POLEMIC and should be removed. Given the fact that it doesn't actually name a specific person and the fact that traditionally, admins have to be somewhat thick-skinned and tolerate some level of criticism about blocks they make, I would say no, but I can certainly see how a reasonable person might disagree with me and say yes.
Second, there is the issue of a non-admin editor removing something from the user page of another editor. WP:TPOC is clear in this question. The removal was against our guidelines. You should only edit/delete the words of another editor on his own user page when doing so is specifically listed in WP:TPOC, and if there is any chance of ambiguity or controversy -- as there clearly is in this case -- you should ask an uninvolved administrator to decide whether to delete it, warn the user not to do it again, etc. When in doubt WP:DISENGAGE. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, someone noticed it was wrong and took it here if we were to just say to everything "Its no big deal" where would the line be drawn? If you want to amend the policies and guidelines that say "In general, users should not be nannying other users'" feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone "thin-skinned" is not only about as lame an insult as they come, but many editors (including on this page) have been advised to not be so thin-skinned about one thing or another. I don't see how it comes close to the bar in WP:TPOC. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm as thick-skinned as Big Al, but I'm just doing what the people want, and the people seem to think the box to be disruptive. Guy, you are correct, the other editor probably shouldn't have been messing with EEng's talk page, and I am sure they won't make that mistake again. Drmies (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad close, backed by poor logic, and premature consensus, then enforced in, what I have to say, is a rather obnoxious manner. Altogether, pretty lame. At least no user will be exposed to this transgressive horror of a userbox in the future. Well done team, feelings healed. GraniteSand (talk) 03:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, closed in three hours? How were enough people supposed to have time to see and opine on it, and enough of a consensus arrived at in three hours? Some folks aren't even awake at this hour. I agree with GraniteSand [134], "It brought levity to my day, brought down the faux seriousness of this place by a notch, and acted as a signal of wiki-philosophy. Not unlike the multitude of religion and politic UBs floating around." If there's an actual consensus that it be removed after enough people have had time to weigh in, that's fine, but a close in three hours is precipitous, in my opinion. I have enormous respect for Drmies, however this is the second time he has removed material from that user's talk page without his express permission. Softlavender (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Some people weren't awake, others were in school, others didn't have internet. Not the point: ANI is for incidents, not for audience participation, and if a user has objectionable material on their user pages, it is within policy to remove it--that they won't like it is a given. What do you want this board to be, a place for Administrators (note the initial A) to take action, or an endless discussion? Don't answer that here: this is closed. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Off Wikipedia conversation to push a POV?
This [135] seems odd to me. Could anyone look at the IP address to see if it is a registered user? Is it okay to get together with other "good guys" to push against the "house POV"?Casprings (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier tonight, I was blocked by HJ Mitchell(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA). He also added me to the ArbCom sanctions log. Apparently, the reason they did so was because of an edit I made to Emma Sulkowicz - a woman who claims she was raped and has since been carrying a mattress around her university as an art project. The man she accuses of raping her, Paul Nungesser, has recently come forward and given an interview to to The Daily Beast to clear his name. (He had previously been named against his will in other sources.) His family also came forward and named themselves in the interview.[137]
I edited the article to add the name of the individual. It was reverted by SlimVirgin (talk·contribs) per WP:BLP. I did engage on the talk page, but I also reverted because I felt that this was a clear case of WP:CRYBLP - the individual obviously wanted themselves to be named, and their name cleared, in reliable sources. However, shortly after, I was blocked without warning or discussion.
I'm a productive contributor of many years - I just ask to have a notation added to my block log that this was an incorrect block, Also, I'd ask to be removed from the ArbCom sanctions log, or for at least a note to be added. Kellyhi!00:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's a misrepresentation of the situation, and I do not believe the block as incorrect or unjust. The article in question is a BLP that has been the subject of problematic editing recently. An edit war broke out earlier tonight over a name which was added to the article and removed on BLP grounds. Twice. The edit war petered out and a discussion ensued on the talk page. Kelly, a third party, re-added the name. It was removed on BLP grounds, again. Kelly re-added it for a second time. I observed that Kelly had previously been notified of the BLP discretionary sanctions, so I imposed a short block to prevent a potential BLP violation from being restored again, and unblocked once Kelly agreed to stop. This is absolutely not a case of "crying BLP"—the objections have been explained and merit discussion, so the name should not be re-added until and unless there's a consensus for it. We should not allow editors to bat away good-faith BLP concerns just because they disagree with them—concern for the real people discussed in our articles comes before our theoretical policy discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the specific BLP concern involved, given that the individual concerned had gone public? Also, could you show some evidence of the previous warning for BLP sanctions? Kellyhi!01:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The "specific concern" is that some people feel that naming him in the article could cause him harm; it's a reasonable enough objection that it needs to be discussed and a consensus found. I don't have an opinion on whether the name should or shouldn't be included. And the discretionary sanctions notification is here (type "discretionary sanctions notification" into the 'tag filter' box in the page history). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A BLP violation on The Federalist (website)? What specifically was it for? It has to be bogus and probably related to Neil deGrasse Tyson. What exactly was the nature of my BLP violation on that article? Or are we just giving people unjustified warnings and blocking them later for other unjustified reasons? Kellyhi!01:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. Kelly was simultaneously edit warring against consensus on multiple articles under arbcom sanctions, including Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson.[138][139] He says he's "productive", but he deliberately and consistently disrupts articles related to left-wing politics, liberals, and conservative causes. His idea of being "productive" involves misusing the file deletion process to delete images that go against his POV. I think we can do without that here. Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good block The specific concerns involved are nearly irrelevant; there was a reasonable discussion going on at the talk page, which you knew about; other editors had asked that there be a pause for consensus to develop before this information was re-added. Was it really so important that it be added again immediately and couldn't wait for a talk-page consensus? IMO probably a good block, if perhaps slightly - just the slightest bit, not more - hair-trigger.
As for the notification, it doesn't matter what the notification was for; you were notified and should have been aware of DS for BLPs. GoldenRing (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So if someone throws a BLP warning against someone, no matter how flimsy or bogus, the receiving editor can henceforth be blocked for any disputed edit on a BLP? Kellyhi!01:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's a notification warning you that discretionary sanctions are authorized for a particular subject. The notice says clearly 'Please carefully read this information' and then outlines the scope of DS, 'for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles'. After that, you're expected to be aware that DS are authorized in that scope of subjects. It's not flimsy nor bogus; DS are authorized for that scope and you were formally notified of it. That you didn't read it, or didn't believe it, or thought it was idiotic, or didn't keep it in mind, or whatever justification you have, doesn't matter. That's the process. GoldenRing (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bad block Blocking has one purpose, and one purpose only - preventing disruption in a situation where no other effective remedy exists. Blocking a well-established user with a largely problem-free history of years of constructive contributions without talking to them first is a bad call. Sure, there was a technicality that allowed HJ Mitchell to carry out the block and get away with it, but is that really what we want? When an admin considers whether to block or not, what I'd expect him to think is "Is there really nothing else I can do?" rather than "Let's see, if I institute this block, will I be able to plausibly explain it thus getting away with my questionable conduct?"
HJ Mitchell, do you honestly believe that simply TALKING to Kelly would've been ineffective in preventing him from doing whatever he was doing? If yes, what makes you think that? If no, why did you block him when there was another solution? Do you want to drive Kelly out of here perhaps? 70.189.56.157 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Of course a concern/feelings is not the same as a violation of policy. Could you (HJ Mitchell) please answer two questions:
1. Is there any reason why you couldn't have just asked Kelly to stop adding the sourced content, on his talk page?
2. What part of WP:BLP policy was violated given that the name of the accused party has been published in at least one reliable source, based on that source's interview of both him and Sulkowicz?- MrX02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. What is the rush to re-add it absent thorough discussion? This seems pretty concerning given you just assured an admin you would not re-add it as condition of unblock request and then turned right around and re-added it.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A legitimate BLP concern had been raised, the name had been removed twice, there were two objections on talk to inclusion, and a discussion was underway. Kelly then went ahead and restored the name, and when reverted restored it again. After the block and unblock Kelly added the name to this AN/I report, then restored it again to the article.
Whether anyone agrees that the name should be in or out is a separate issue. The point is that this isn't a frivolous objection. It's true that the student has given two interviews, but only after he was outed, and he's still trying to maintain some anonymity by being photographed in the shadows. Publishing a name on Wikipedia increases its visibility in terms of reach and perhaps endurance, so we should consider this carefully rather than racing ahead. Sarah (SV)(talk)03:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it seems part of the motivation for going public was to clear his name - interviews specifically cited that Internet search results were depicting him as a rapist. "And yet if you Google him, in half of the articles you´ll find, he is still labeled a serial rapist.” (a quote from his father)[143]Kellyhi!02:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So keeping his name out of the article is a BLP concern, because it keeps him from clearing his name. The university cleared him of rape, our article is doing him more harm than good. Kellyhi!03:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: What was the "legitimate BLP" concern? Was it "I would appreciate it if the discussion could wait until tomorrow, because I would like to take part in it but don't have time today. This needs some careful thought before we do it, because names on WP become more widespread."? - MrX03:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to litigate the merits of including the name, that's what the talk page and BLPN are for. We are here to discuss the block and Kelly's conduct the precipitated it. The block was not for BLP violations in their own right, but for repeatedly restoring material that had been objected to on BLP grounds. A legitimate concern had been raised and was under discussion, so reigniting an edit war to restore it before the discussion has even fully got underway if grossly improper. Given the speed of the reverting, I did not feel that warnings or advice would have adequately prevented disruption. I feel this belief is vindicated by Kelly's continuing to revert, despite the sole condition of the unblock being that they stop. I suggest Kelly be re-blocked and/or topic-banned; note that this can be done under discretionary sanctions. Again, the issue of whether to name the accused is irrelevant to this discussion; the issue is that it was removed in good faith on BLP grounds and should not be restored (much less edit-warred over) until consensus is established. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not hearing the message, so here it is again: Stop pushing your view. Wait for the community to deliberate. There is no rush. Good-faith editors have said there is a BLP problem, and such issues are not resolved by determining who is willing to edit war the longest. The only question for ANI has been answered by HJ Mitchell above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly, you've pushed your view here in this discussion and on the BLP board. Your view is that adding his name helps him clear his name. That's your POV. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we're supposed to write biographies without using the name of person now? How is using someone's name as the title of an article about them a BLP violation? GoldenRing (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this !vote on the Rollback RfC is unnecessarily insulting. I first reverted it altogether, Kelly reinstated it, I then redacted the nastiness but left Kelly's core point untouched, and now they have un-redacted the insults. I've no taste for fighting such petty battles but a second admin opinion is very welcome. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in my opinion is that you provided an example rather than just saying "Some users abuse the tool" and then providing written examples on how in your own words rather than diffs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that I can see this turning into a WP:BOOMERANG case. HJ Mitchell unblocks Kelly after the editor agrees to stop reverting and now this is brought into the light when Kelly takes the issue to ANI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing Ryulong is a reasonable user of Rollback. In fact, he's a perfectly valid example of the abuse that can result from warring with the Rollback right. But there's a way to present an argument without resorting to insults -- if anything, you'll be taken more seriously. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong was such a spectacularly bad example of an editor and admin that I expect to use him as an example for decades to come. Kellyhi!02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, it's a shining example to his point. It would be like jamming someone up for a personal attack after dropping Essjay's name for why we don't accept "credentialed" Wikipedians as reliable sources. GraniteSand (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping someone's name and insulting them are two things. It's perfectly fine to present a specific case (Ryulong's or otherwise) as an example of possible abuse. But there are ways of doing that without coming off as holier-than-thou-art and condescending. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉02:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User has on at least four occasions [144][145][146][147] added content knowing that it is unsourced, but attempting to justify the addition by adding citation needed templates. These edits have been opposed by two editors. The content added should be reliably sourced, and by now the IP is engaging in slow edit warring. User seems ambivalent and has been warned about this before via other IPs they've used. See also 98.196.41.58 and 50.171.11.116. They rarely participate in civil discussion, preferring instead to make changes per their own preference. When the user is contacted on their talk page, they typically remove all discussions and warnings from their talk pages and issue an antagonistic summary in response. Their behavior is inconsistent with community editing and they have previously been brought to ANI: [148][149] . Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect I just can't take both Anguswoof and Cyphoid's bickering and being strict with their so called "rules" and on top of that I am not antagonistic I just don't like to be cyberbullied just like what happened in KHWIKI where the users were not being nice and fair. You want me to stop letting them mess with me then I'll stop already, besides I already found the sources were Yuri was in Skylanders thank you, I just feel I want to (Redacted) because of this conflicts and feel I'm a cotton headed ninny muggins. :(73.166.187.154 (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stale: It seems that everyone is ignoring this as a 'simple' content dispute. -- Orduin Discuss 23:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Somewhere
![[125]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-F1lfoV-Q4IQ/Ty88vtUzw8I/AAAAAAAADME/UPyBFFJjuFc/s1600/Waitangi+Day.jpg){kind=link}
![[126]](https://www.teara.govt.nz/files/33980-wmu.jpg){kind=link}
![[127]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tino_rangatiratanga_flag_on_Harbour_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}